1: \section{Experimental Prospects and Constraints}\label{sec:Experiment}
2: In this section we discuss the implications of the dark matter scenario of the preceding sections for direct and indirect dark matter searches,
3: collider searches, and precision electroweak observables. Figures \ref{fig:Exclusion115}, \ref{fig:Exclusion140}, and \ref{fig:Exclusion160}
4: summarize experimental constraints on this model for $m_H=$ 115, 140, and 160 GeV. We display the $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ regions consistent
5: with $\Omega h^2=0.111\pm 0.006$ \cite{Eidelman:2004wy} (colored bands), the regions of parameter space excluded by direct $Z$-pole
6: observations at LEP (upper left light green and blue curves are 3- and 2-$\sigma$ exclusions), and the constraints from direct dark matter
7: searches (processed as described below). The dashed gray contour is the boundary of the DAMA 95\% C.L. allowed region \cite{Bernabei:2003sv},
8: while the three lower curves represent the EDELWEISS \cite{Sanglard:2005we} (dotted dark green), CRESST \cite{Angloher:2005mb} (dot-dashed
9: black), and CDMS \cite{Akerib:2004fq} (dashed red) 90\% excluded regions. Anything above the colored bands corresponds to a relic density below
10: the observed total abundance, i.e.\ a heavy neutrino comprising only a fraction of the dark matter.
11:
12: The bounds from CDMS imply $\epsilon \lesssim 0.01$. There are three mass ranges for which the dark matter is not overproduced in this regime:
13: at $m_{DM}\approx 45$, where even weakly coupled particles annihilate effectively through on-shell $Z$'s, at 90-95 GeV, and near the Higgs
14: resonance. In the latter two regions, the dark matter annihilates primarily through the Higgs channel.
15: %
16: \begin{figure}
17: \begin{center}
18: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{exc115.eps}
19: \caption{Exclusion plot in the $\epsilon$--$m_{DM}$ plane for a {\bf Higgs mass of $m_H=115$ GeV}. The purple and blue bands correspond to 1-
20: and 2-$\sigma$ bounds on $\Omega_{nbm}=0.111 \pm 0.006$ from WMAP+CBI+ACBAR+2dFGRS data \cite{Eidelman:2004wy}. The blue and green curves on the
21: upper left correspond to the regions of partial $Z$ widths of 0.2 and 1.7 MeV, corresponding to 2- and 3-$\sigma$ exclusions from the LEP
22: $Z$-pole measurements, respectively \cite{Eidelman:2004wy}. The gray dotted contour is the 3-$\sigma$ region of the DAMA signal
23: \cite{Bernabei:2003sv}, while the remaining curves are the most recent published $90\%$ C.L. excluded regions from EDELWEISS
24: \cite{Sanglard:2005we}, CRESST \cite{Angloher:2005mb}, and CDMS \cite{Akerib:2004fq} (from top to bottom, respectively).}
25: \label{fig:Exclusion115}
26: \end{center}
27: \end{figure}
28: %
29: \begin{figure}
30: \begin{center}
31: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{exc140.eps}
32: \caption{The same as in Figure \ref{fig:Exclusion115} for a {\bf Higgs mass of $m_H=140$ GeV}}. \label{fig:Exclusion140}
33: \end{center}
34: \end{figure}
35: %
36: \begin{figure}
37: \begin{center}
38: \includegraphics[width=12cm]{exc160.eps}
39: \caption{The same as in Figure \ref{fig:Exclusion115} for a {\bf Higgs mass of $m_H=160$ GeV}} \label{fig:Exclusion160}
40: \end{center}
41: \end{figure}
42:
43: \subsection{Direct Dark Matter Searches}\label{subsec:directdm}
44: Direct searches for dark matter look for elastic and inelastic collisions between WIMPs in the local dark matter halo and heavy nuclei in
45: detectors. Current searches are most sensitive to spin-independent interactions (which are generally mediated by scalar and vector nucleon
46: currents) and probe the cross sections of these interactions using very heavy nuclei such as Ge, I, W or Xe
47: \cite{Gondolo:1996qw,Gascon:2005xx,Goodman:1984dc}. Current and future experiments probing spin-independent and spin-dependent WIMP-nucleon
48: scattering include DAMA \cite{Bernabei:2003sv}, CDMS \cite{Akerib:2004fq,Mandic:2005ma}, EDELWEISS \cite{Sanglard:2005we}, CRESST
49: \cite{Majorovits:2004fa,Angloher:2005mb}, PICASSO \cite{Barnabe-Heider:2005pg}, SIMPLE \cite{Girard:2005pt}, ZEPLIN \cite{Cline:2003pi}, XENON
50: \cite{Aprile:2005mz}, NAIAD \cite{Alner:2005kt}, GENIUS \cite{Klapdor-Kleingrothaus:2002di,Klapdor-Kleingrothaus:2002um} and HDMS
51: \cite{Klapdor-Kleingrothaus:2002pg}.
52:
53: WIMP-nucleon scattering results are usually quoted assuming isospin invariance $G_p\approx G_n$, but for $\chi$ the coupling to neutrons is
54: $G_n=\frac{\epsilon G_F}{2\sqrt{2}}$, while the proton coupling is greatly suppressed: $G_p=-(1-4\sin^2(\theta_w))G_n\approx -0.076 G_n$
55: \cite{Gondolo:1996qw}. We naively correct for this by reducing quoted sensitivities by $\left(\frac{(A-Z)-0.076 Z}{A}\right)^2=$ $0.28$, $0.30$,
56: and $0.32$ for Ge, I, and W detectors respectively \cite{Giuliani:2005my}. This reduction is taken into account in the exclusion plots
57: \ref{fig:Exclusion115} through \ref{fig:Exclusion160}, but the cross-sections in the text are as quoted from the original papers, without the
58: correction for isospin-dependent couplings.
59:
60: Although to date there has been no conclusive discovery of a WIMP signal, the DAMA experiment (a Na/I detector) has reported a $6.3 \sigma$
61: annually modulating signal attributable to a WIMP with mass $m_{DM}\approx 50$ GeV and WIMP-nucleon cross section $\sigma\approx 7\times
62: 10^{-6}$ pb \cite{Bernabei:2003sv,Bernabei:2005hj}. A mixed heavy neutrino with $\epsilon\approx 0.02-0.04$ would have a cross-section
63: $\sigma_{\chi-n}\approx 10^{-5}$ pb consistent with the DAMA signal. We see also that there are several masses ($m_{DM} \approx$ 40 or 50 GeV)
64: close to the reported DAMA signal mass for which this coupling would reproduce the observed $\Omega_{DM}$.
65:
66: The DAMA signal seems excluded at the $99.8\%$ C.L. by the Ge detectors EDELWEISS and CDMS, which use stronger background discrimination
67: techniques \cite{Eidelman:2004wy,Mandic:2005ma,Sanglard:2005we}. The bound on WIMP-nucleon cross-section obtained from the CDMS null signal with
68: standard estimates of the halo density and local halo profile is near $\sigma_{WIMP-n}\lesssim 4\times 10^{-7}$ pb at $m_{DM}=50$ Gev (assuming
69: isospin-invariance) \cite{Akerib:2004fq}. This is well below the cross-section of $\sigma_{\nu-n}\approx 2\times 10^{-2}$ pb for a Standard
70: Model heavy neutrino. Our model is consistent with this CDMS limit if $\epsilon \lesssim 0.01$ and with the EDELWEISS and CRESST limits if
71: $\epsilon \lesssim 0.02$. If the one-loop radiative generation of $\epsilon$ is dominant, we would expect $0.01 \lesssim \epsilon \lesssim 0.1$
72: (see Sec. \ref{subsec:toyvector}), and $\sigma_{\chi-n}\approx 10^{-6}- 10^{-4}$ pb. Current experiments are probing this regime, and appear to
73: favor smaller $\epsilon$ and hence charged states that are very nearly degenerate. Two-loop effects from the Standard Model generate
74: $0.001\lesssim \epsilon\lesssim 0.01$ ($10^{-8}\lesssim \sigma_{\chi-n}\lesssim few\times 10^{-6}$ pb), and place a floor on the minimum
75: $\epsilon$ that can be obtained without resorting to fine-tuning. Current and future direct searches will increase sensitivities to
76: $\sigma_{WIMP-n}\sim 10^{-9}$ pb, and so will detect a signal or rule out the viable parameter space for models of this type.
77:
78: \subsection{Indirect Searches}\label{subsec:indirectdm}
79: %Overview
80: Indirect signals of dark matter annihilations in the Earth, Sun or Galactic halo can also be used to probe dark matter. The decay products of
81: annihilating WIMPs concentrated by gravity can give rise to sizable fluxes of neutrinos, gamma rays and cosmic rays above the background of
82: conventional astrophysical sources. We discuss here the general outlook for indirect searches in the electroweak dark matter scenario. We leave
83: a detailed study of the indirect signatures of heavy maximally mixed neutrino dark matter for a future work.
84:
85: %Sun or Earth signals
86: As a large body travels through the local dark matter halo, collisions between dark matter particles and nuclei in the body can dissipate enough
87: energy that the dark matter particles become gravitationally bound and sink to the center of the body. An equilibrium is eventually expected
88: between the rate of capture and of annihilations enhanced by the greater density of dark matter in the center of the body. Excess high-energy
89: neutrino fluxes are the most reliable indicator of WIMP annihilations in the Sun or Earth, and result in bounds on spin-dependent and
90: spin-independent WIMP-nucleon cross sections. Current and future neutrino telescopes carrying out such observations include Super-Kamiokande
91: \cite{Desai:2004pq}, AMANDA \cite{Ackermann:2005sb}, BAIKAL \cite{Aynutdinov:2005hx}, ANTARES \cite{Brunner:2003fy}, NESTOR
92: \cite{Grieder:2001ha} and IceCube \cite{Yoshida:2004rn}. To date, no statistically significant neutrino excesses from the Sun or Earth have been
93: detected .
94:
95: %Galactic halo signatures
96: In addition to neutrinos, gamma rays and high-energy cosmic rays from the galactic center also offer a strong indirect detection possibility
97: \cite{Gondolo:1999ef}. Current and future experiments designed to measure gamma and cosmic ray fluxes include EGRET \cite{Mukherjee:1997qw},
98: HEAT \cite{Barwick:1997ig}, PAMELA \cite{Adriani:2003in}, AMS \cite{Lamanna:2003qr}, and GLAST \cite{Morselli:2003xw}. An excess in gamma rays
99: above 1 GeV detected by EGRET \cite{Mukherjee:1997qw,Strong:2004de} and in positrons peaking at 8 GeV by HEAT \cite{Barwick:1997ig} may be
100: products of WIMP annihilations in the galactic halo \cite{deBoer:2004xt,Baltz:1998xv,Baltz:2001ir}. Moreover, a possible excess of microwave
101: emission from the galactic center observed in WMAP microwave data is consistent with synchrotron radiation from $e^+e^-$ pairs produced by WIMP
102: annihilation \cite{Finkbeiner:2004us}.
103:
104: The uncertainties in the annihilation rates and predicted flux excess due to uncertainties in the halo profile of the Milky Way make it
105: difficult to reach any conclusion regarding the significance of these signals, but we consider briefly their consistency with the model
106: presented here. Previous authors have studied indirect signals coming from heavy stable 4th generation neutrinos
107: \cite{Fargion:1998xu,Fargion:1998rh,Golubkov:1997ht,Belotsky:2004st}, but most recent work relating the observed gamma and cosmic ray excesses
108: to WIMP annihilations have focused on the MSSM neutralino. The principal tension in explaining the HEAT and microwave signals from neutralino
109: dark matter arises because, being Majorana fermions, their annihilations into light Dirac fermion final states such as $e^+e^-$ are suppressed.
110: As such, large bost factors are required to explain the strength of the HEAT positron signal \cite{Baltz:1998xv,Baltz:2001ir}. Moreover, as most
111: of the electrons and positrons from neutralino annihilations are indirect products, neutralino models tend to produce softer positron spectra,
112: whereas the analysis of WMAP data in \cite{Finkbeiner:2004us} may prefer harder spectra.
113:
114: Our dark matter candidate is somewhat similar to the low-mass Kaluza-Klein state considered in \cite{Hooper:2005fj}, in that both are Dirac
115: particles. In that case, the HEAT signal could be explained with less need for large boost factors than in the neutralino scenario, and we
116: expect the same to be true for our model. We further expect that, if $m_{DM}\lesssim 80$ GeV, our dark matter candidate would produce a harder
117: spectrum of positrons than in the neutralino case, and perhaps be more consistent with the WMAP ``haze''. Because our dark matter is Dirac,
118: however, there may also be tension with the null neutrino flux signal from AMANDA\cite{Hooper:2005fj}. Further work is necessary to compare the
119: predicted gamma and positron spectra in our models to the EGRET, HEAT, and microwave observations.
120:
121: \subsection{Collider Detection}\label{subsec:collider}
122: The most direct constraint on the dark matter particle itself, the lightest neutrino $\chi$, comes from the $Z$-width measurement at LEP. The
123: measured partial width to invisible states is $499 \pm 1.5$ MeV, obtained by subtracting the visible partial widths from the total width and
124: assuming lepton universality. The standard model predicts a partial width of $167.29 \pm 0.07$ MeV to each species of neutrino, or $501.81 \pm
125: 0.13$ MeV overall \cite{Eidelman:2004wy}. If $\chi$ is lighter than $m_Z/2$, then it will contribute a partial width,
126: \begin{equation}
127: \Gamma_{Z\rightarrow \chi\chi} = (167.29 \pm 0.07) \epsilon^2 \sqrt{1-\frac{4 m_{DM}^2}{m_Z^2}},
128: \end{equation}
129: %
130: suppressed because of the reduced $Z$-coupling and a threshold suppression due to $\chi$'s finite mass. Regions of exclusion at two- and
131: three-$\sigma$ ($\Gamma_Z(\chi \bar\chi)=$ 0.2 and 1.7 MeV, respectively) are shown on the left side of the exclusion plots
132: \ref{fig:Exclusion115}, \ref{fig:Exclusion140}, and \ref{fig:Exclusion160}. It should be noted that the prediction of $\Gamma_{inv}$ from the
133: Standard Model alone is already $1.9 \sigma$ above the measured width.
134:
135: %Production of heavy neutral state at LEP II
136: A further constraint on this framework comes from the production of $\chi \chi'$ pairs through an off-shell $Z$ at LEPII. Though the $\chi \bar
137: \chi Z$ and $\chi' \bar\chi' Z$ couplings are suppressed by $\epsilon$, the mixed couplings $\chi \bar \chi' Z$ are proportional to
138: $\sqrt{1-\epsilon^2}$, and hence essentially unsuppressed. The maximum center of mass energy reached at LEP II was $\approx 200$ GeV, so $\chi
139: \chi'$ pairs would be produced if $m_{\chi}+m_{\chi'} \lesssim 200$ GeV. The $\chi'$ would decay in the detector to a stable $\chi$ and two jets
140: or two lepton tracks via an intermediate $Z$. Thus, we believe that a two-jet or two-lepton track plus missing energy signal would have been
141: seen at LEP II if the above mass condition were met. We are not aware of constraints in the literature on this decay mode, and a more careful
142: analysis of the statistics is required to determine the precise exclusion range. Because it depends on $m_\chi+m_{\chi'}$, this bound is only
143: constraining when combined with the assumption of high-scale perturbativity of the Yukawa couplings, which requires $m_{\chi'}\lesssim 150$ GeV.
144:
145: %Production at LHC
146: Because the dark sector interacts only weakly, and most of the energy in $pp$ collisions at the LHC will be in the form of energetic gluons,
147: production at the LHC will be accompanied by considerable backgrounds. The favored masses $m_{DM}\lesssim 90$ GeV for the dark matter $\chi$ and
148: $\lesssim 200$ GeV for the heavier neutral and charged states make these models accessible to the LHC, but it is unclear how long it will take
149: to obtain sufficient statistics to learn anything concrete about a given model \cite{Gianotti:2005fm}.
150:
151: \subsection{Precision Electroweak Observables}\label{subsec:pew}
152: Any extension of the Standard Model that couples to the $SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y$ sector contributes to the gauge boson self-energies and hence
153: modifies predictions for the oblique correction parameters $S$, $T$, and $U$ \cite{Peskin:1991sw}. These contributions are particularly large
154: for extensions involving fermions that get mass only from electroweak symmetry breaking, which do not decouple from the Standard Model even when
155: $m_f \gg m_Z$.
156:
157: The T parameter measures the amount of custodial SU(2) breaking that occurs, (i.e. deviations from $\rho=1$), and current constraints imply that
158: $\sum_i{\frac{1}{3}\Delta m^2_i} \lesssim (85)^2$ GeV$^2$ at $95\%$ CL, where $\Delta
159: m^2=m_1^2+m_2^2-\frac{4m_1^2m_2^2}{m_1^2-m_2^2}\ln{\frac{m_1}{m_2}}$ and the sum is over all isodoublets \cite{Eidelman:2004wy}. $SU(2)_L$
160: fermion doublets also generically contribute positively to the $S$ parameter. Current fits suggest $S=-0.13\pm 0.10, T=-0.17\pm 0.12, U=0.22\pm
161: 0.13$ \cite{Eidelman:2004wy}.
162:
163: The contribution of a single-family vector lepton model to $S$ is $S\approx \frac{1}{3\pi}$ which is sufficiently small to not be strongly at
164: odds with precision electroweak data. Moreover, under the assumption that the vector lepton sector is close to strong coupling near the GUT
165: scale ($M_G\approx 10^{13}$ GeV in these models), the spectrum is not generically split by enough to contribute largely to $T$. Only in cases
166: where there is a light dark matter candidate (such as when the $SU(2)_R$ symmetry of section \ref{subsec:toyvector} is approximately preserved)
167: do we expect a sizable positive contribution to $T$. In this case, the experimentally preferred value of $S$ is closer to $0$, and hence more
168: consistent with the positive contribution to $S$. Further analysis is needed to work out the detailed predictions for electroweak observables
169: with a vector lepton family, but this minimal model is not ruled out.
170:
171: For the adjoint/vector lepton model, however, contributions to $S$ are much larger, $S\approx \frac{1}{\pi}$. As with the vector model, the
172: contributions to $T$ depend on the detailed form of the spectrum but do not have to be large. Based on the $S$ parameter alone, this minimal
173: model is ruled out at $\approx 4\sigma$ (if there is a large contribution to $T$, then the exclusion is at $\approx 3\sigma$). An invariant mass
174: term $m_T$ for the adjoint field can be added while maintaining a dark matter mass arising entirely from electroweak symmetry breaking so long
175: as $m_T\lesssim M_Z$, thereby suppressing the adjoint field's large contribution to $S$.
176: