1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FOR JHEPcls 3.1.0 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2: 

3: \documentclass{JHEP3} % 10pt is ignored!

4: 

5: \usepackage{epsfig,multicol}

6: 

7: \newcommand{\comment}[1]{{\bfseries #1}}

8: \newcommand{\ds}{{\sffamily DarkSUSY}}

9: \def\msun{M_{\odot}{\ }}

10: \newcommand{\code}[1]{{\tt #1}}

11: 

12: \newcommand{\NPB}[3]{ Nucl.~Phys. \textbf{B#1} (#2) #3}

13: \newcommand{\PLB}[3]{ Phys.~Lett. \textbf{B#1} (#2) #3}

14: \newcommand{\PRD}[3]{ Phys.~Rev. \textbf{D#1} (#2) #3}

15: \newcommand{\PRL}[3]{ Phys.~Rev.~Lett. \textbf{#1} (#2) #3}

16: \newcommand{\ZPC}[3]{ Z.~Phys. \textbf{C#1} (#2) #3}

17: \newcommand{\PTP}[3]{ Prog.~Theor.~Phys. \textbf{#1}  (#2) #3}

18: \newcommand{\MPL}[3]{ Mod.~Phys.~Lett. \textbf{A#1} (#2) #3}

19: \newcommand{\PR}[3]{ Phys.~Rep. \textbf{#1} (#2) #3}

20: \newcommand{\RMP}[3]{ Rev.~Mod.~Phys. \textbf{#1} (#2) #3}

21: \newcommand{\HPA}[3]{ Helv.~Phys.~Acta \textbf{#1} (#2) #3}

22: \newcommand{\AP}[3]{ Ann.~Phys. \textbf{#1} (#2) #3}

23: \newcommand{\EPJC}[3]{ Eur.~Phys.~J. \textbf{C#1} (#2) #3}

24: \newcommand{\JHEP}[3]{ JHEP \textbf{#1} (#2) #3}

25: \newcommand{\JETP}[3]{ JETP Lett. \textbf{#1} (#2) #3}

26: 

27: 

28: \newcommand{\ttbs}{\char'134}          

29: \newcommand\fverb{\setbox\pippobox=\hbox\bgroup\verb}

30: \newcommand\fverbdo{\egroup\medskip\noindent%

31: 			\fbox{\unhbox\pippobox}\ }

32: \newcommand\fverbit{\egroup\item[\fbox{\unhbox\pippobox}]}

33: \newbox\pippobox

34: %

35: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

36: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

37: %

38: %

39: \def\sss{\scriptscriptstyle}

40: \def\ie{{\em i.e.\ }}

41: %

42: \newcommand{\mpl}{M_{\rm\scriptscriptstyle Pl}}

43: \def\neu1{\widetilde{\chi}^0_1}

44: \def\vf{\varphi}

45: \def\simlt{\stackrel{<}{{}_\sim}}

46: \def\simgt{\stackrel{>}{{}_\sim}}

47: 

48: %   ...                                                                    %

49: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

50: 

51: \title{Electroweak Baryogenesis, Large Yukawas and Dark Matter}

52: 

53: \author{Alessio Provenza \\

54: 	SISSA/ISAS, via Beirut 2-4, 34013 Trieste, Italy\\

55: 	E-mail: \email{provenza@he.sissa.it}}

56: 

57: \author{Mariano Quiros \\

58: 	Instituci\'o Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avan\c{c}ats (ICREA) \\

59:         Theory Physics Group, IFAE/UAB,

60:         E-08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain \\

61: 	E-mail: \email{quiros@ifae.es}}

62: 	

63: \author{Piero Ullio \\

64: 	SISSA/ISAS, via Beirut 2-4, 34013 Trieste, Italy\\

65: 	E-mail: \email{ullio@sissa.it}}

66: 

67: \preprint{SISSA-58/2005/EP\\UAB-FT-585}

68: 

69: 

70: \abstract{It has recently been shown that the electroweak baryogenesis

71: mechanism is feasible in Standard Model extensions containing extra

72: fermions with large Yukawa couplings. We show here that the lightest

73: of these fermionic fields can naturally be a good candidate for cold

74: dark matter. We find regions in the parameter space where the thermal

75: relic abundance of this particle is compatible with the dark matter

76: density of the Universe as determined by the WMAP experiment. We study

77: direct and indirect dark matter detection for this model and compare

78: with current experimental limits and prospects for upcoming

79: experiments. We find, contrary to the standard lore, that indirect

80: detection searches are more promising than direct ones, and they

81: already exclude part of the parameter space.}

82:  

83: \keywords{Baryogenesis, Dark Matter}

84: 

85: \begin{document} 

86: 

87: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

88: \section{Introduction}

89: 

90: The Standard Model (SM) of elementary particles is extremely accurate

91: in describing the fundamental interactions up to the energy scale

92: probed so far at accelerators. Its application to cosmology has led as

93: well to significant successes such as the prediction of the light

94: elements abundance. However the SM fails to provide a pattern to embed

95: all features emerging from recent data on precision cosmology: in

96: particular, neither it does provide a mechanism to explain the origin

97: of the matter-antimatter asymmetry in the Universe, nor it does

98: accommodate a candidate for non-baryonic cold dark matter.

99: 

100: Baryogenesis and the dark matter problem stand as two of the most

101: intriguing topics of research in today's Science, and they have been

102: examined at length from very different perspectives. It is interesting

103: to notice that, among other viable approaches, both issues have been

104: addressed invoking new physics at the weak scale, at an energy which

105: stands around the corner with respect to upcoming tests of fundamental

106: interactions at present and future accelerators. A successful

107: electroweak baryogenesis~\cite{ewb} can arise in SM extensions in

108: which new particles make the electroweak phase transition strongly

109: first order and add new sources of CP-violation. On the other hand

110: weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) are among the leading

111: candidates for dark matter~\cite{wimps}.  All these ingredients can be

112: provided in a single framework, as it is the case of supersymmetric

113: extensions of the SM. Even within the minimal supersymmetric SM

114: (MSSM), if the (mostly) right-handed stop is lighter than the top

115: quark and the Higgs is sufficiently light, electroweak baryogenesis

116: may be realized~\cite{CQW} and, at the same time, if the lightest

117: supersymmetric particle is a neutralino, it can play the role of WIMP

118: dark matter candidate.

119: 

120: In a recent paper Carena {\it et al.}~\cite{Carenaetal} have shown

121: that in order to strengthen the electroweak phase transition it is not

122: strictly required to consider models with light extra bosonic degrees

123: of freedom, as it was the case in all electroweak baryogenesis models

124: considered in the past, but that models with extra fermions can be

125: equally successful provided that large Yukawa couplings are

126: introduced. A simple implementation of this idea involves introducing

127: doublet and triplet fermions, such as {\em e.g.}~Higgsinos and gauginos,

128: which can carry as dowry new charge- and color-neutral particles, the

129: lightest of which can be the dark matter candidate. Carena {\it et

130: al.}~discuss in details one such simple setup, reminding in some

131: aspects split supersymmetry~\cite{split}, and explicitly show that it

132: can indeed provide electroweak baryogenesis.

133: 

134: In this article we discuss the dark matter features of the above

135: model, as well as those of a slightly extended framework model.

136: Although here, as in the MSSM, the dark matter candidate is a

137: neutralino, the physical state from the superposition of two gaugino

138: and two Higgsino fields, we point out that there are significant

139: differences compared to the MSSM case, both in the mechanism setting

140: its thermal relic density and in its phenomenology as dark matter

141: candidate. In particular we show that currently the tightest

142: constraint on the model comes from limits on the neutrino induced flux

143: from pair annihilation of dark matter neutralinos gravitationally

144: trapped in the center of the Sun. We also show that the best option

145: for the upcoming future is to measure an excess in antimatter cosmic

146: ray fluxes, while direct detection in underground laboratories looks

147: less promising.

148: 

149: The plan of the paper is as follows. In Section~\ref{sec:fram} we

150: review the framework introduced in Ref.~\cite{Carenaetal} and discuss

151: relevant features from the perspective of the dark matter problem. In

152: Section~\ref{sec:guide} we discuss how dark matter candidates arise in

153: a model with a reduced number of parameters, for which the

154: baryogenesis mechanism was discussed in detail in

155: Ref.~\cite{Carenaetal}. In Section~\ref{sec:phenoguide} we present

156: limits on the model from current searches and future perspectives,

157: going through all the techniques of WIMP dark matter detection. In

158: Section~\ref{sec:towards} we discuss the dark matter thermal relic

159: density and current and future searches in a more generic model,

160: within the framework discussed in detail in Ref.~\cite{Carenaetal},

161: where future direct detection is more promising. Finally our

162: conclusions are drawn in Section~\ref{sec:conclusion}.

163: 

164: 

165: \section{Particle physics framework}

166: \label{sec:fram}

167: 

168: 

169: We consider a minimal extension of the SM in which the role of the

170: extra fermions with large Yukawa couplings is played by fields with

171: the quantum numbers of Higgsinos and gauginos in supersymmetric

172: theories; such fields are assumed to be the only light extra particles

173: present in our theory and relevant for its weak-scale

174: phenomenology. Our extra fields have gauge interactions as ordinary

175: Higgsinos and gauginos in the MSSM, while we define their couplings to

176: the SM Higgs doublet $H$ through the Lagrangian:

177: %

178: \begin{eqnarray}

179: \mathcal L&=&H^\dagger\left(h_2\,\sigma_a\tilde W^a+h^\prime_2\, \tilde

180: B\right)\tilde H_2 +H^T\epsilon\left(-h_1\,\sigma_a\tilde

181: W^a+h^\prime_1\, \tilde B\right)\tilde H_1\nonumber\\

182: &+&\frac{M_2}{2}\,\tilde W^a\tilde W^a

183: +\frac{M_1}{2}\, \tilde B\tilde B+\mu\, \tilde H^T_2\epsilon \tilde H_1+

184: h.c.\;,

185: \end{eqnarray}

186: %

187: with $\epsilon = i\,\sigma_2$. The setup we have introduced has a

188: particle content analogous to the split supersymmetry scenario, a MSSM

189: in which all scalars, except for the SM-like Higgs, are driven at a

190: very heavy mass scale. Hence one could regard it as a particular

191: realization of split supersymmetry in which the standard relation

192: between gauge and Yukawa couplings has been spoiled~\footnote{See

193: Ref.~\cite{Carenaetal} for a discussion on sample realizations of this

194: model as a low energy effective limit in supersymmetric theories.}.

195: Another difference being that in split supersymmetry the gluino may be

196: light, with relevant phenomenological implications but unrelated to

197: the dark matter or baryogenesis problems at focus here. For reference,

198: ordinary MSSM couplings are recovered if the generic Yukawa couplings

199: $h_{1,2}$ and $h^\prime_{1,2}$ are chosen as:

200: %

201: \begin{eqnarray}

202:  h_1=g\cos\beta/\sqrt{2} & \hspace{1.5cm} & h_2=g\sin\beta/\sqrt{2}

203:  \nonumber \\ h_1^\prime=g^\prime\cos\beta/\sqrt{2} &

204:  &h_2^\prime=g^\prime\sin\beta/\sqrt{2}

205: \end{eqnarray} 

206: %

207: where $g$ and $g^\prime$ are the $SU(2)$ and $U(1)$ gauge couplings.

208: Modifications to these relations can appear in other non-minimal

209: contexts. Keeping this in mind, we will take the Yukawa couplings as

210: free parameters and we will discuss the phenomenology of the model

211: regardless of its eventual supersymmetric completion at high energy.

212: 

213: Four physical neutral states $\tilde{\chi}^0_i$ and two physical

214: charged states $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_i$ are obtained by diagonalizing

215: the corresponding mass matrices.  According to our definitions, in the

216: basis $\left(\tilde B^0, \tilde W^0, \tilde H^0_1, \tilde H^0_2

217: \right)$, the neutralino mass matrix takes the form:

218: %

219: \begin{equation}

220: \left(

221: \begin{array}{cccc}

222: M_{1} & 0 & - \sqrt{2}\,h_{1}^{\prime }\,m_{W} /g &

223: \sqrt{2}\,h_{2}^{\prime }\,m_{W} /g \\ 0 & M_{2} &

224: \sqrt{2}\,h_{1}\,m_{W} /g & - \sqrt{2}\,h_{2}\,m_{W} /g \\ -

225: \sqrt{2}\,h_{1}^{\prime }\,m_{W} /g & \sqrt{2}\,h_{1}\,m_{W} /g & 0 &

226: -\mu \\ \sqrt{2}\,h_{2}^{\prime }\,m_{W} /g & - \sqrt{2}\,h_{2}\,m_{W}

227: /g & -\mu & 0

228: \end{array}

229: \right)\;\label{neumatrix}

230: \end{equation}

231: %

232: while the chargino mass matrix is:

233: %

234: \begin{equation}

235: \left(

236: \begin{array}{cc}

237: M_{2}                     & 2\,h_{2}\,m_{W} /g  \\

238: 2\,h_{1}\,m_{W} /g &   \mu  

239: \end{array}

240: \right)\;.

241: \end{equation}

242: %

243: Since baryogenesis stands as the main motivation of our framework, we

244: need to introduce a non-vanishing CP-violating phase, triggering

245: baryon number generation: as a minimal assumption, it is sufficient to

246: take the Higgsino mass parameter to be complex, $\mu = |\mu|

247: \,e^{i\vf}$, while choosing the gaugino mass parameters $M_1$ and

248: $M_2$, and the Yukawa couplings to be real.

249: 

250: 

251: \subsection{Lightest neutralino mass and composition}

252: 

253: We focus on the case in which the lightest neutralino (LN)

254: $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ is the lightest extra-fermion (LEF) and hence a

255: stable species~\footnote{Contrary to the MSSM, here the lightest

256: chargino can be lighter than the lightest neutralino.}: the LN being

257: electric- and color-charge neutral, massive and stable it is an ideal

258: candidate for cold dark matter.  The phenomenology of the LN as a dark

259: matter candidate crucially depends on its mass and mixing; in

260: particular, the relative weight between its gaugino and Higgsino

261: components is decisive both in setting the LN thermal relic abundance

262: and in determining the detection prospects of such a model.

263: 

264: The gaugino or Higgsino nature of the LN is related as usual to the

265: hierarchy among the parameters $M_1$, $M_2$ and $\mu$. Since in our

266: model there are significant differences compared to the most commonly

267: considered cases in the MSSM context, we preliminarily sketch here

268: some trends in a few sample cases in which it is possible to

269: diagonalize analytically the neutralino mass matrix.

270: 

271: 

272: As a first example we focus on the setup in which $M_1$ is very heavy,

273: {\em i.e.}~$|M_1| \gg |\mu|,|M_2|, \sqrt{2}\,h_{1,2}\,m_{W} /g$, and

274: hence the $\tilde B^0$ component decouples. For simplicity we also

275: assume that $\mu$ is real and $h_1=h_2 \equiv h$~\footnote{Obviously,

276: the values of $h_{1}^{\prime }$ and $h_{2}^{\prime }$ do not play any

277: role here.}. In this case the three light eigenvalues of the

278: neutralino mass matrix are:

279: %

280: \begin{equation}

281: \lambda_{\pm}={1\over2}\left(M_2+\mu\pm\sqrt{(M_2-\mu)^2+16 \,

282: h^2m_{W}^2/g^2}\right)\;, \;\;\;\;\;\; \lambda_3=\mu\;.

283: \end{equation}

284: %

285: In the limit $|\mu| \gg |M_2|$, the lightest eigenvalue is $\lambda_-

286: \simeq M_2-4 \, h^2\,m_{W}^2/g^2\mu$ and the associated eigenvector is

287: mostly Wino-like, with a Higgsino component induced by the Yukawa term

288: which gets smaller and smaller as the $M_2$ scale gets much larger

289: than $h\,m_{W}/g$ (recovering the limit one would have in the

290: MSSM). In the opposite regime $|\mu| \ll |M_2|$ there are two light

291: states: $\lambda_- \simeq \mu-4 \, h^2\,m_{W}^2/g^2M_2$ and $\lambda_3

292: = \mu$. If $\mu$ and $M_2$ have the same sign the first state is the

293: lightest one and the associated LN is mostly Higgsino-like, with a

294: Wino component again introduced by the Yukawa terms. If $\mu$ and

295: $M_2$ have opposite signs the state with mass $\lambda_3 $ becomes the

296: lightest one and now the LN is an almost pure Higgsino state.  These

297: three regimes and the corresponding LN compositions are schematically

298: summarized in the left panel of Fig.~\ref{plane}, in the plane

299: $(\mu;\,M_2)$ and for the sample value $h=1$.

300: 

301: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

302: \FIGURE[t]{

303: \centerline{

304: \epsfig{file=plot/binodec.eps,width=7.5cm}  \quad

305: \epsfig{file=plot/allequal.eps,width=7.5cm}} 

306: \caption{The gaugino and Higgsino contents of the lightest neutralino

307: in the plane ($\mu;\,M_2$).  We label pure Higgsino (gaugino) the

308: state with a Higgsino (gaugino) component greater than 90\%.  A mostly

309: Higgsino (gaugino) state has a Higgsino (gaugino) component between

310: 50\% and 90\%. We assume Yukawa couplings $h=1$ as sample reference

311: value.  In the left panel $M_1$ has been fixed at a very heavy scale;

312: in the right panel we assumed $M_1 = M_2$.}

313: \label{plane}

314: }

315: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

316: 

317: Another simple case showing the interplay between mass parameters and

318: mixings can be built by choosing {\em e.g.}~$M_1=M_2=M$ and

319: $h_{1,2}=h_{1,2}^\prime=h$ (still $\mu$ is taken to be real).  In this

320: case the eigenvalues of the neutralino mass matrix are:

321: %

322: \begin{eqnarray}

323: \lambda_{\pm}& =

324: &{1\over2}\left(M+\mu\pm\sqrt{(M-\mu)^2+32h^2m_{W}^2/g^2}\right)\;,\nonumber

325: \\ \lambda_3&=&M\;, \;\;\;\;\;\; \lambda_4=\mu\;.

326: \end{eqnarray}

327: %

328: Again the state with mass $\lambda_4$ is almost pure Higgsino with

329: mass $\mu$, while that with mass $\lambda_3$ is an almost pure gaugino

330: state with mass $M$. Due to the Yukawa coupling this gaugino state is

331: a mixing between the Bino and the Wino in the same

332: percentage~\footnote{This Bino-Wino mixing is a peculiar feature of

333: our setup which never appears in the MSSM.}.  As in the previous

334: example the remaining states with masses $\lambda_\pm$ are

335: gaugino-Higgsino mixed states with relative weight depending on the

336: values of the parameters.  The hierarchy between eigenvalues is

337: analogous to the previous case, except that now the state with mass

338: $\lambda_-$ becomes the lightest one only in the case where both $\mu$

339: and $M$ are fairly large.  Regions of different LN compositions are

340: shown in Fig.~\ref{plane}, right-panel. Note there is a region in the

341: parameter space in which the LN is not the lightest extra fermion,

342: since a chargino becomes lighter.

343: 

344: Another case we will consider later on regards the possibility to fix

345: the ratio between the gaugino mass parameters, {\em i.e.}~$M_1= \alpha

346: M_2$.  The general trend here is very similar to the previous one,

347: taking into account that by varying the parameter $\alpha$ we change

348: the Bino content of the gaugino-like LN.  At the same time in the

349: limit $\alpha\gg 1$ one recovers the complete Bino decoupling as in

350: the first case discussed here, except for the corner at very small

351: $M_2$, where $M_1\gg h\,m_W/g$ does not hold any more and hence the

352: Bino does not decouple.

353: 

354: 

355: 

356: \section{Dark matter candidates in a guideline model}

357: \label{sec:guide}

358: 

359: Analogously to the MSSM with $R$-parity conservation, in our scenario

360: the lightest extra fermion $\neu1$ is stable, massive and weakly

361: interacting, and hence a natural WIMP candidate for cold dark matter

362: (CDM).  We compute the LN thermal relic density by interfacing the

363: particle physics framework we have introduced in the \ds\

364: package~\cite{Gondolo:2004sc}. Such package allows for high accuracy

365: solutions of the Boltzmann equations describing thermal freeze out.

366: In particular, in computing thermally-averaged LN pair annihilation

367: cross-sections~\footnote{The relic density is roughly speaking

368: proportional to its inverse.}, all kinematically allowed final states

369: are systematically included, as well as eventual co-annihilation

370: effects~\footnote{In case there are extra particles nearly degenerate

371: in mass with the LN, such initial states, properly weighted, should be

372: included too.}. The density evolution equation is then solved

373: numerically.  The estimated precision on the value of the relic

374: density we derive is, for a given set of input parameters setting

375: masses, widths and couplings, of the order of 1\% or better.  The LN

376: relic density value is to be compared with the latest determination of

377: the CDM component of the Universe by the WMAP

378: experiment~\cite{Spergel:2003cb}: $\Omega_{CDM} h^2 = 0.113 \pm

379: 0.009$.

380: 

381: Our first working model within the framework will be that with a

382: reduced number of parameters discussed at length in

383: Ref.~\cite{Carenaetal} in the electroweak baryogenesis context.  We

384: first take the limit of Bino decoupling setting $|M_1| \gg

385: |\mu|,|M_2|$ and $h_{1,2}^{\prime} =0$, and then fix $\mu = - M_2

386: \,e^{i\vf}$, a condition which maximizes the number of degrees of

387: freedom contributing to strengthening the electroweak phase

388: transition. For this particular model it has also been explicitly

389: shown that one can build an ultraviolet completion canceling out

390: instabilities in the zero temperature Higgs potential induced by the

391: light extra fermions we have introduced~\footnote{In

392: Ref.~\cite{Carenaetal} heavier bosons coupled to the Higgs were

393: introduced in order to stabilize the effective potential. If these

394: heavy bosons are SM singlets they do not perturb the electroweak

395: observables nor they interfere the annihilation and detection rates of

396: the dark matter candidate.}. Our guideline model is then defined by

397: only five free parameters: $|\mu|$, $\vf$, $h_{+}=\frac{1}{ 2}\left(

398: h_{1} + h_{2}\right)$, $h_{-}=\frac{1}{ 2}\left( h_{1} - h_{2}\right)$

399: and the SM Higgs mass $m_H$. Going back to the list of limiting cases

400: we discussed in the previous Section, we see that we are referring to

401: a model in which the LN is an almost pure Higgsino with mass $M_{LN}

402: \simeq |\mu|$.

403: 

404: 

405: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

406: \FIGURE[t]{

407: \centerline{

408: \epsfig{file=plot/livello.eps,width=8.0cm}} 

409: \caption{Sample isolevel curves of the lightest neutralino relic

410: abundance at the currently preferred value $\Omega_{LN} h^2 = 0.113$.

411: From top to bottom the extra free parameters are set equal to:

412: $h_+=2$, $\vf=0$ and $m_H=300$~GeV (thick dashed curve), $h_+=2$,

413: $\vf=0$ and $m_H=150$~GeV (thin dashed curve), $h_+=1.5$, $\vf=0$ and

414: $m_H=150$~GeV (solid curve), $h_+=2$, $\vf= \pi/2$ and $m_H=150$~GeV

415: (dash-dotted curve), and $h_+=1.5$, $\vf=\pi/2$ and $m_H=150$~GeV

416: (dotted curve). }

417: \label{fig:relic}}

418: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

419: 

420: In Fig.~\ref{fig:relic} we show isolevel curves at $\Omega_{LN} h^2 =

421: 0.113$ in the plane $(|\mu|;\,h_-)$, for a few sample values of $\vf$,

422: $h_+$ and $m_H$. The relic density is sensitive to the parameter

423: $|\mu|$ since it drives the mass scales of the extra particles we have

424: introduced. We are restricting ourselves to the case $h_- < 0$, since

425: the model is symmetric under the exchange $h_- \rightarrow - h_-$. The

426: value of the relic density rapidly changes with $h_-$ because, as

427: pointed out in Ref.~\cite{Carenaetal}, the coupling $Z^0\neu1\neu1$ is

428: proportional to:

429: %

430: \begin{equation}

431: g_{Z^0 \neu1\neu1}\propto \frac{h_2^2-h_1^2}{h_2^2+h_1^2} = -

432: \frac{1}{2} \frac{h_+\, h_-}{h_-^2+h_+^2}\,.

433: \label{eq:zcoup}

434: \end{equation}

435: %

436: At values of the $\neu1$ mass below the threshold for pair

437: annihilation into gauge boson final states, the only open channel is

438: the helicity suppressed fermion-antifermion state, which gets its

439: largest contribution from the diagram with a $Z$ boson in the

440: $s$-channel. The annihilation rate gets maximal on resonance, at

441: $m_{\neu1}=m_Z/2$, driving the relic density to very small values

442: unless one considers a tiny $h_-$. Moving away from the resonance,

443: both toward heavier and lighter masses, the isolevel curves spread

444: out to larger and larger values of $h_-$. We only display in

445: Fig.~\ref{fig:relic} the upper branch since, for LN masses smaller

446: than $m_Z/2$, the induced contribution to the $Z$ invisible width is

447: larger than the experimental upper bound and such models are excluded

448: by LEP results.  For LN masses approaching the $W$ and $Z$ masses, LN

449: pair annihilations into $W^+\,W^-$ and $Z^0 \,Z^0$ in the early

450: Universe become relevant and tend eventually to dominate.  These

451: processes proceed mainly through $t$- and $u$-channel exchanges of,

452: respectively, the lightest chargino (LC) and the next-to-lightest

453: neutralino (NLN).

454: 

455: At first sight this picture may just seem the analogue to the

456: well-studied case of Higgsinos in the MSSM; there are however

457: substantial differences. In the MSSM, in the case of a pure Higgsino

458: LN, the lightest chargino and the next-to-lightest neutralino are

459: quasi-degenerate in mass with the LN: the contribution of the

460: $W^+\,W^-$ and $Z^0 \,Z^0$ final states to the cross-section becomes

461: too large as soon as the LN mass gets above the corresponding

462: threshold, driving the relic abundance to very small

463: values~\footnote{The mass degeneracy implies as well that large

464: co-annihilation effects appear, with a further reduction in the

465: lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) relic abundance.}. To

466: compensate for this, one should increase the Higgsino LSP mass up to

467: the TeV range.

468: 

469: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

470: \FIGURE[t]{

471: \centerline{

472: \epsfig{file=plot/split.eps,width=7.1cm}\quad 

473: \epsfig{file=plot/crossw.eps,width=7.3cm}}

474: \caption{Left panel: The mass splitting between the lightest

475: neutralino (LN) and the lightest chargino (LC) or the next-to-lightest

476: neutralino (NLN), defined as

477: $\Delta_{i}=\left(m_{i}-m_{LN}\right)/{m_{LN}}$, as function of

478: $\mu$. We assumed $h_+=2$, with $\vf$ between extrema, and chosen

479: $h_-=-0.25$ (there is a mild shift in the mass splittings varying

480: $h_-$ in the interesting range for the relic abundance).  Right panel:

481: Cross-section for LN pair annihilation into a $W$-boson pair, in the

482: limit of particles in the initial state at rest, as function of the

483: lightest neutralino mass. The solid line corresponds to the

484: computation made with \ds , the dashed line to the result assuming

485: pure Higgsino couplings and a mass of the lightest chargino equal to

486: 300 GeV (average value of $m_{LC}$ in the sample parameter choice).}

487: \label{fig:shift}}

488: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

489: 

490: On the other hand, in our framework, while $m_{\neu1}\simeq|\mu|$, the

491: mass scale of the other two fermionic states is instead set by the

492: largest of the Yukawa terms $h_1$ and $h_2$, or equivalently by $h_+$,

493: and the mass splittings can be very large. This is shown in the left

494: panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:shift}; the parameters $\vf$ and $|h_-|$

495: contribute as well in setting the mass splittings, but at a milder

496: level. It follows that, along the foliation of the parameter space we

497: are considering, at a fixed value of $h_+$ and varying $|\mu|$, the

498: rate of annihilation into gauge bosons increases with the LN mass

499: ({\em i.e.}~with $|\mu|$), rather than decreasing with it as one would

500: intuitively expects and happens {\em e.g.}~in the MSSM. This trend is

501: shown for the $W^+\,W^-$ final state in the right panel of

502: Fig.~\ref{fig:shift}. The mass dependence we find for $\sigma v$

503: closely reproduces the scaling $m_{\neu1}^2/m_{LC}^4$ we have

504: displayed (dashed line) implementing the formula for the cross-section

505: for a pure Higgsino coupling and fixing $m_{LC}$ to the mean value in

506: our sample parameter choice.

507: 

508: Coming back to Fig.~\ref{fig:relic}, once above the threshold for

509: gauge boson production the isolevel curves bend back to the (small)

510: values of $|h_-|$ at which, for given $|\mu|$, $h_+$ and $\vf$ (and

511: hence the corresponding LN--LC and LN--NLN mass splittings), diagrams

512: with a chargino or neutralino exchange alone are large enough to drive

513: the relic abundance down to the WMAP range. At larger values of

514: $|h_-|$ the large coupling between LN and the $Z$ boson makes the $W$

515: boson final state to get an additional large contribution from the

516: diagram with the $Z$ boson in the $s$-channel. In each sample case the

517: region delimited by the isolevel curve and the vertical axis at $h_- =

518: 0$ corresponds to relic densities larger than the central value from

519: the WMAP determination ({\em i.e.}~most of it is cosmologically

520: excluded), while at larger $h_-$ ({\em i.e.}~outside the region

521: delimited by the isolevel curves) relic densities are lower than the

522: value required for the LN to be the main dark matter

523: component~\footnote{Unless non-standard production mechanisms are

524: invoked, or non-standard cosmological setups implemented, two

525: possibilities that will not be further considered

526: here.}. Modifications to the general trend we sketched come from

527: eventual additional contributions when other final states become

528: kinematically allowed. In the examples with $h_+=2,\,\vf=0$, mass

529: splittings between the extra fermions are the largest ones and the

530: isolevel curves stretch for LN masses above the top mass: the process

531: $\neu1\neu1\rightarrow t\overline{t}$ comes into play and, since this

532: channel is not helicity suppressed, it gets large contributions

533: through the s-channel Z exchange down to very small values of $|h_-|$,

534: $|h_-|\simeq 5\times 10^{-2}$.  If the $Z^0 H$ final state becomes

535: kinematically allowed, it can give as well a substantial contribution

536: to the annihilation cross-section. This effect is shown again for the

537: two curves with $h_+=2,\,\vf=0$: one with $m_H=150$~GeV, {\em

538: i.e.}~close to the presently preferred value from electroweak

539: precision measurements~\cite{PDG}, the other with $m_H$ twice as

540: large. For $m_H=150$~GeV the $Z^0 H$ threshold opens up at $|\mu| \sim

541: 120$~GeV: above it the two isolevel curves depart from each other,

542: while below it the curves essentially coincide since $H$ enters only

543: through contributions to s-channel diagrams, always much smaller than

544: the corresponding $Z^0$ s-channel diagram. In the same way, the shape

545: of the isolevel curves for $h_+=1.5,\,\vf=\pi/2$ and

546: $h_+=2,\,\vf=\pi/2$ remains essentially unchanged in case we rise the

547: value $m_H=150$~GeV to much larger values.

548: 

549: 

550: The sample cases we have considered, with fairly large

551: $h_+$~\footnote{But much smaller than the generic upper limit from the

552: requirement of perturbativity of the theory at low scale, about

553: $\sqrt{4 \pi}$.} and moderately light $m_H$ are among those found to

554: be favored by electroweak baryogenesis in Ref.~\cite{Carenaetal}, and

555: hence they are good cases to check the phenomenology of the dark

556: matter model in the framework where the baryogenesis problem is

557: simultaneously addressed. At the same time, the size of the

558: CP-violating phase has been varied freely between extremes, and will

559: enter in our discussion through the shift in mass splittings only. For

560: transparency in our discussion, and to present results which have a

561: validity on their own, we are not going to zoom in only sub-slices of

562: the parameter space which are fully successful in electroweak

563: baryogenesis. In the same vein, we implement as sharp cut to the

564: parameter space only the bound on extra contributions to the $Z$

565: invisible width. As it was discussed in Ref.~\cite{Carenaetal},

566: significant constraints on the model can be extracted also from

567: experimental bounds on the electroweak $T$-parameter: the slice of

568: models included in our plot at the largest value of $|h_-|$ are

569: excluded for small values of $m_H$, while the constraint gets weaker

570: going to a heavier Higgs. On the other hand, as it was shown in the

571: relic density calculation and discussed further below, the

572: phenomenology of the dark matter candidate is almost insensitive to

573: $m_H$, except for the threshold effect already described. We will keep

574: all models and show that actual current limits on dark matter searches

575: introduce even tighter constraints, independently on the value of

576: $m_H$.

577: 

578: 

579: \section{Detection rates in the guideline model}

580: \label{sec:phenoguide}

581: 

582: The issue of WIMP dark matter detection has been studied at length

583: (for reviews see {\em e.g.}~\cite{jkg,Bergstrom:1998xh}).  We will

584: systematically go through all WIMP detection techniques to illustrate

585: those that already exclude models within our framework and what are

586: the detection prospects for the future. As for the relic density, all

587: rates are computed with the \ds\ package~\cite{Gondolo:2004sc}.  The

588: set of underlying assumptions is briefly reviewed here, while present

589: limits and the future outreach is discussed within the simplified

590: framework of our guideline model.

591: 

592: \subsection{Direct detection}

593: 

594: In the last decade considerable resources have been invested in the

595: attempts to directly detect WIMPs, {\em i.e.}~to measure the energy

596: deposited in elastic scatterings off of nuclei by dark matter WIMPs

597: passing through the target material of a detector~\cite{dirdet}. We

598: present predictions in terms of scattering cross-sections on a single

599: nucleon, separating as usual the term accounting for coherent

600: spin-independent (SI) interactions from the one due to axial-vector

601: spin-dependent (SD) coupling. In our framework the process of

602: scattering of a LEF on a quark is particularly constrained since only

603: a $t$-channel exchange of the SM Higgs boson mediates the SI part,

604: while only the diagram with $Z^0$ boson gives a contribution to the SD

605: one. To convert coupling on quarks into couplings on nucleons we refer

606: to a standard set of parameters~\cite{Gasser,SMC} for nucleonic matrix

607: elements~\footnote{Note that the strange content here is slightly

608: smaller than the values implemented in other analyses,

609: see~\cite{Gondolo:2004sc,paololars} for details.}.

610: 

611: 

612: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

613: \FIGURE[t]{

614: \centerline{\epsfig{file=plot/logcros.eps,width=7.5cm} \quad

615: \epsfig{file=plot/lnspindep.eps,width=7.5cm}

616: }

617: \caption{The spin-independent cross-section on a proton (left panel)

618: and the spin-dependent cross-section on a neutron (right panel) versus

619: the lightest neutralino mass, as compared to current exclusion curves

620: (CDMS~II) and the projected sensitivity of future detectors

621: (SuperCDMS). The models displayed are those at $\Omega_{LN} h^2

622: =0.113$ singled out in Fig.~\protect{\ref{fig:relic}}, with the same

623: sample choice of parameters and the same line-type (color) coding.

624: Note the mismatch in the vertical scale of the two plots.}

625: \label{fig:dd}}

626: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

627: 

628: In the left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:dd} we plot predictions for the SI

629: neutralino-proton scattering cross-section $\sigma_{\chi P}^{\rm SI}$,

630: as a function of the LEF mass.  Models we display are those singled

631: out in Fig.~\ref{fig:relic} at $\Omega_{LN} h^2 =0.113$, with the same

632: sample parameters and coding therein.  For comparison we have shown

633: the exclusion curve from the null search by

634: CDMS~II~\cite{Akerib:2004fq} and the future expected sensitivity of

635: the SuperCDMS project in its one~ton

636: configuration~\cite{supercdms}~\footnote{The projected sensitivity of

637: other planned next-generation detectors of equal size, such as in the

638: setup of the XENON facility~\cite{Aprile:2002ef} is expected to be

639: comparable.}. As it can be seen predictions are orders of magnitude

640: below current sensitivities, as well as far below projected future

641: sensitivities, as one could have foreseen from the features of the

642: slice in the parameter space we have zoomed in. In fact as already

643: mentioned $\sigma_{\chi P}^{\rm SI}$ has one single contribution

644: mediated by a Higgs exchange, which is largely suppressed since the

645: $\neu1\neu1 H$ vertex scales with the gaugino-Higgsino mixing in

646: $\neu1$: in our guideline model the LN is always a very pure Higgsino,

647: its gaugino content going to zero in the limit $h_-\rightarrow 0$, and

648: it is of the order of few percent even for the largest $|h_-|$ reached

649: in Fig.~\ref{fig:relic} (the peaks in each of the displayed

650: curves). In all but one case we are considering a rather light Higgs,

651: $m_H = 150$~GeV. Since the cross-section scales with the inverse of

652: its forth power, taking $m_H$ equal to its current lower limit ($\sim

653: 115$ GeV) one only gains a factor of about 3 in the

654: cross-section. Actually considering a heavier Higgs the prediction

655: gets rapidly further suppressed, as it can be seen by comparing the

656: case we plot with $m_H = 300$~GeV (thick dashed line) with the

657: corresponding one at $m_H = 150$~GeV (thin dashed line).

658: 

659: In the right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:dd} we instead plot the

660: predictions for the SD neutralino-neutron scattering cross-section

661: $\sigma_{\chi N}^{\rm SD}$~\footnote{The search for SD couplings is

662: usually not listed as top priority for direct detection searches since

663: the lack of a coherent effect on the target nucleus dumps the

664: sensitivity with respect to the SI coupling, while in the MSSM frame

665: SI and SD terms usually have comparable strength. This is clearly not

666: the case in our setup.}. Here the picture looks more promising since

667: now the cross-section scales with the coupling of the LN with the

668: $Z$-boson, {\em i.e.}~the same effect setting, to some extent, the LN

669: relic density.  Again in each plot of $\sigma_{\chi N}^{\rm SD}$

670: versus mass there are maxima corresponding to the largest values of

671: $|h_-|$ along each isolevel curve. Such maxima are again well below

672: current sensitivities (the best exclusion curve being again set by the

673: CDMS~II result~\cite{cdmssd}), however perhaps within the reach of

674: future detectors.  The CDMS Collaboration is performing its DM

675: searches with natural $Ge$, which has a small component (around 8\%)

676: of the $^{73}Ge$ isotope, a target with an unpaired neutron from which

677: the limit on $\sigma_{\chi N}^{\rm SD}$ has been derived. We can

678: derive a rough projection for the gain in sensitivity on SD couplings

679: by simply scaling down the current exclusion curve of SuperCDMS

680: regarding the SI coupling in Ref.~\cite{supercdms} and shown in the

681: left panel~\footnote{An analogous sensitivity should be obtainable

682: with planned experiments using xenon.}. We find that a substantial

683: fraction of the models along the $\Omega_{LN}h^2$ isolevel curves in

684: our guideline framework, down to masses close to 50~GeV, will be

685: detectable by SuperCDMS or by an equivalent experiment.

686: 

687: 

688: 

689: \subsection{Neutrino telescopes}

690: 

691: 

692: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

693: \FIGURE[t]{

694: \centerline{\epsfig{file=plot/neurate.eps,width=8.1cm} 

695: }

696: \caption{Muon flux induced by the neutrino flux from LN pair

697: annihilations in the center of the Sun versus LEF mass, and comparison

698: with the current best exclusion curve (SUPER-KAMIOKANDE) and the

699: projected sensitivity of future detectors (IceCube).  The models

700: displayed are those at $\Omega_{LN} h^2 =0.113$ singled out in

701: Fig.~\protect{\ref{fig:relic}}, with the same sample choice of

702: parameters and the same color (line-type) coding.}

703: \label{fig:neutel}}

704: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

705: 

706: The search for neutrinos produced by the annihilation of neutralinos

707: trapped in the core of the gravitational wells of the Sun or of the

708: Earth is a very promising indirect detection technique since it has a

709: very distinctive signature, and potentially induced fluxes may be

710: large.  In the present framework, since spin-independent

711: cross-sections are small, capture rates and fluxes from the Earth are

712: actually very low and will not be considered further. To estimate

713: neutrino fluxes from the Sun we implement the standard procedure

714: described in Refs.~\cite{Bergstrom:1998xh,joakimnt}, except for a more

715: careful treatment of neutralino capture

716: rates~\cite{sugrarates,Gondolo:2004sc}.  In Fig.~\ref{fig:neutel}, we

717: present results in terms of muon-induced fluxes, above the threshold

718: of 1~GeV, and compare them to the current best limits from the

719: SUPER-KAMIOKANDE Collaboration~\cite{Habig:2001ei} and with the future

720: projected sensitivity of the IceCube

721: experiment~\cite{icecube}~\footnote{The mismatch in the energy

722: threshold of IceCube and the threshold considered here has been taken

723: into account.}. The color coding on the $\Omega_{LN}$ isolevel curves

724: is the same as in Figs.~\ref{fig:relic} and~\ref{fig:dd}. Since the

725: capture rate in the Sun is driven by the SD neutralino-proton

726: coupling, and we have just verified that this can be fairly large, we

727: find that a large portion of LN models in our guideline scenario

728: sharply overshoots the currently best exclusion curve, and that there

729: are fair chances of detection with the improved sensitivity of

730: IceCube. The muon-induced fluxes sharply increase at the $W$

731: threshold, since LN annihilations at zero temperature into gauge boson

732: final states (which are a copious source of high energy neutrinos) is

733: not helicity suppressed as it happens for the $b\,\bar{b}$ final state

734: which dominates at lower masses.

735: 

736: Summarizing our result we find that, in the present guideline

737: framework, LN dark matter models slightly heavier than the $W$ mass

738: along the $\Omega_{LN} h^2$ isolevel curves corresponding to

739: $|h_-|\simgt 0.15$ are already excluded by current limits. This

740: conclusion essentially holds independently of the choice of the

741: parameter $m_H$ (compare the thick and thin dashed curves which differ

742: only in the value of $m_H$). In the future, with neutrino telescopes

743: it will be possible to test models at smaller values of $h_-$ in the

744: heavier mass branch, covering a region of parameter space larger than

745: the one expected from spin-dependent couplings in direct detection. On

746: the other hand since upcoming neutrino telescopes have a high energy

747: threshold no progress is foreseen in the light mass branch where,

748: instead, direct detection in the future will be more competitive.

749: 

750: 

751: \subsection{Halo rates}

752: 

753: Lightest neutralino pair annihilations in the Galactic halo may be a

754: significant source of cosmic-ray and gamma-ray fluxes. We will mainly

755: focus on the first ones and mention gamma-rays at the end of the

756: Section.

757: 

758: Charged particles injected in the Galaxy get trapped in the

759: interstellar magnetic fields building up an equilibrium population and

760: diffusing up to the solar system and the Earth where they can be

761: detected. Since there is no evidence of standard primary sources of

762: antimatter, and antimatter of secondary origin is scarce, searching

763: for antimatter from dark matter pair annihilations is a promising

764: technique to test the dark matter paradigm. We will consider the

765: induced antideuteron, antiproton and positron fluxes.

766: 

767: \FIGURE[t]{

768: \centerline{\epsfig{file=plot/chi2pb.eps,width=8.1cm}}

769: \caption{Reduced $\chi^2$ for the fit of presently available

770: antiproton flux data with a background plus neutralino signal, as a

771: function of lightest neutralino mass and within models singled out in

772: Fig.~\protect{\ref{fig:relic}}. The 3~$\sigma$ discrimination level is

773: shown as a horizontal line. The adiabatically contracted halo profile

774: has been assumed in this computation: considering the Burkert profile,

775: the signal becomes a small correction over the background and no model

776: can be discriminated.  }

777: \label{fig:chi2}}

778: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

779: 

780: Predictions involve several elements: the particle physics setup fixes

781: the pair annihilation cross-section $\sigma_{\rm ann}v$ and the

782: branching ratios for the various annihilation channels. For each of

783: them fragmentation and/or decay processes give rise to the stable

784: antimatter species, a step we include using tabulated results from the

785: \code{Pythia}~\cite{pythia} 6.154 Monte Carlo code as included in the

786: \ds package, except for $\bar{D}$ sources for which we have

787: implemented the prescription suggested in Ref.~\cite{dbar} to convert

788: from the $\bar{p}$-$\bar{n}$ yields.  To complete the estimate of the

789: strength of dark matter sources, one needs the number density of

790: neutralino pairs locally in space, {\em i.e.}~in terms of the dark

791: matter density profile $\rho$ and the dark matter particle mass

792: $m_{LN}$, as $1/2\,(\rho(\vec{x}\,) / {m_{LN}})^2$. The choice of the

793: halo profile is then crucial in the prediction of fluxes: we will

794: consider two possible setups ranging from the most favorable one for

795: dark matter detection to one of the least favorable ones.

796: 

797: For the first choice, which we will refer as the adiabatically

798: contracted model, we consider a model obtained by assuming that the

799: dark matter profile of the Milky Way, before gas cooling and the

800: formation of its luminous components, is described by the universal

801: profile found in Ref.~\cite{n03} resulting from N-body simulations of

802: hierarchical structure formation in a $\Lambda$CDM cosmology, with

803: mass $M_{vir} = 1.8 \times 10^{12}\msun$ and concentration parameter

804: $c_{vir} = 12$. The baryon infall is included assuming a smooth and

805: slow process, with a further enhancement of the dark matter density in

806: the central portion of the Galaxy (adiabatic contraction limit with no

807: redistribution of angular momentum between its

808: components~\cite{blumental}). The central portion of the profile

809: becomes as steep as $1/r^{1.5}$, but this singularity has been

810: conservatively cut off in its innest 1~pc, corresponding to a core

811: radius~\cite{ulliobh,milo} which is possibly induced by one of the

812: scenarios for the formation of the black hole sitting at the center of

813: the Galaxy~\cite{bhobservation}.

814: 

815: The second halo model we consider is defined by a profile with a large

816: core radius, a Burkert profile~\cite{burkert} with $M_{vir} = 1.3

817: \times 10^{12}\msun$ and $c_{vir} = 16$. We can think about this case

818: as the limit in which the profile is reshaped by a large

819: redistribution of angular momentum during the baryon infall, with the

820: inner density being sensibly reduced. Both profiles are assumed to be

821: spherical and to have analogous values of the local halo density,

822: $0.38$~GeV~cm$^{-3}$ and $0.34$~GeV~cm$^{-3}$, respectively. Hence

823: predictions in direct and indirect detection with neutrino telescopes

824: do not change appreciably and we have not anticipated this

825: discussion~\footnote{See Ref.~\cite{sugrarates} for further details on

826: the two halo models.}. The analysis could be more articulated

827: including effects {\em e.g.}~of substructures giving further

828: enhancements in the predictions. However we will not consider this

829: possibility here, and instead we will take a more conservative

830: approach.

831: 

832: The last step to make a prediction for the antimatter fluxes is to

833: model the propagation in the intergalactic magnetic fields and against

834: the solar wind within the solar system.  The propagation model adopted

835: for antiprotons and antideuterons has been developed in

836: Ref.~\cite{pbarpaper} and that for positrons in

837: Ref.~\cite{epluspaper}. Free parameters in both cases are set in

838: analogy to a setup which has been shown to reproduce fairly well the

839: ratios of primary to secondary cosmic ray nuclei~\cite{strmosk} with

840: the \code{Galprop}~\cite{galprop} propagation code. Solar modulation

841: is instead sketched with the analytical force-field

842: approximation~\cite{GleesonAxford}, with a modulation parameter as

843: appropriate at each phase in the solar cycle activity.

844: 

845: We first compare the prediction for the antiproton flux against a

846: compilation of data collected in the latest years. We consider results

847: with the BESS experiment that has measured with fairly good statistics

848: the antiproton flux in the energy range between 180 MeV and 4.2 GeV

849: during its flights in 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000~\cite{bess}, and those

850: in the range between 3 and 50~GeV obtained by the CAPRICE experiment

851: during its 1998 flight~\cite{capricepbar}.  The expected component

852: from neutralino annihilations is added to the secondary component due

853: to cosmic-ray interactions, again estimated with the

854: \code{Galprop}~\cite{galprop} code under the same setup implemented

855: for the neutralino-induced component, that yields

856: $\chi^2=0.82$. Values of the reduced $\chi^2$ for the case signal plus

857: background are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:chi2}, in the case of models

858: along the sample isolevel curves singled out in Fig.~\ref{fig:relic}

859: and for a distribution of dark matter particles according to the

860: adiabatically contracted profile. Some of the models give values of

861: the reduced $\chi^2$ as large as a few and are most probably excluded

862: by antiproton measurements. One should note however that the

863: 3~$\sigma$ exclusion level at about 1.4 should not be considered a

864: strict bound since we have not taken into account uncertainties in the

865: propagation model and other steps in our prediction. At the same time

866: the limits we show are very sensitive to our halo choice: if the more

867: conservative Burkert halo is instead considered all signals get

868: suppressed by a factor of $\sim 100$, becoming a small correction with

869: respect to the background and leaving no chance of discrimination with

870: current data.

871: 

872: 

873: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

874: \FIGURE[t]{

875: \centerline{\epsfig{file=plot/adratiopb.eps,width=7.5cm} \quad

876: \epsfig{file=plot/adratioep.eps,width=7.5cm}}

877: \caption{Visibility parameter for future antiproton (left panel) and

878: positron (right panel) searches as compared to the detection

879: perspectives with the PAMELA instrument.  The models displayed are

880: those at $\Omega_{LN} h^2 =0.113$ singled out in

881: Fig.~\protect{\ref{fig:relic}}, with the same sample choice of

882: parameters and the same color (line-type) coding. Predictions are

883: shown in case of the adiabatically contracted halo profile.}

884: \label{fig:antimatter}}

885: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

886: 

887: Perspectives for the future are sketched in the left panel of

888: Fig.~\ref{fig:antimatter}. The quantity plotted on the vertical axis

889: is

890: %

891: \begin{equation}

892: I_{\Phi} \equiv \int_{E_{min}}^{E_{max}} dE \,

893: \frac{\left[\Phi_s(E)\right]^2}{\Phi_b(E)}\,,\label{eq:visibility}

894: \end{equation}

895: %

896: where $\Phi_s(E)$ and $\Phi_b(E)$ are the signal and background

897: fluxes, respectively, and the integral extends over the whole interval

898: in which the ratio is non negligible.  It gives the continuum limit of

899: a $\chi^2$-like variable in the regime in which the signal is a small

900: correction to some known background, see Ref.~\cite{stefanopiero} for

901: details.  In Fig.~\ref{fig:antimatter} the horizontal line gives, in

902: this same variable, the discrimination level which will be reached by

903: the PAMELA experiment~\cite{pamela} in three years of data taking

904: (which should start in early 2006). The predictions are for the

905: adiabatically contracted profile and they indicate that in such setup

906: all models with the LN heavier than the $W$ gauge boson, even those

907: with extremely small $|h_-|$, would be tested. This signal, as all

908: halo signals, scales with the total annihilation rate at zero

909: temperature which for gauge boson final states is unsuppressed and

910: little related to the coupling of the LN with the $Z^0$, unlike in the

911: case of lower masses and fermion final states. Again we must stress

912: that this conclusion heavily relies on which halo profile is chosen:

913: if the Burkert profile is implemented, predictions for the parameter

914: $I_{\Phi}$ are shifted down over two orders of magnitude, and no model

915: would be tested even in the future within such a setup.

916: 

917: 

918: In the right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:antimatter} we show the analogous

919: picture for the positron fluxes. The range of models which will be

920: testable in the future, for the adiabatically contracted profile, is

921: in this case slightly smaller than in the antiproton case. Limits from

922: current data do not allow any model discrimination even with this halo

923: model, and hence the analogue of Fig.~\ref{fig:chi2} is not shown.

924: 

925: 

926: 

927: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

928: \FIGURE[t]{

929: \centerline{\epsfig{file=plot/adgapheart.eps,width=7.5cm} \quad

930: \epsfig{file=plot/gaps.eps,width=7.5cm}

931: }

932: \caption{Visibility ratio for future antideuteron searches with the

933: GAPS instrument (all models above the horizontal line are detectable),

934: in case of a mission with a satellite on an earth orbit. The

935: distribution of neutralinos in the halo has been assumed according to

936: the adiabatically contracted model (left panel) or the Burkert profile

937: (right panel).  The models displayed are those at $\Omega_{LN} h^2

938: =0.113$ singled out in Fig.~\protect{\ref{fig:relic}}, with the same

939: sample choice of parameters and the same color (line-type)

940: coding. Values of the visibility ratio shift up by a factor of about 3

941: if one considers the same instrument placed on a deep space probe. }

942: \label{fig:dbar}}

943: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

944: 

945: 

946: At present there are no data on the antideuteron cosmic ray flux and

947: indeed, if one constrains oneself to the low energy window, the

948: secondary background flux is expected to be negligible~\cite{dbar}, so

949: that even the detection of one single event could be used to claim the

950: presence of an exotic primary source. To address the detection

951: prospects for the future we consider the gaseous antiparticle

952: spectrometer (GAPS)~\cite{Mori}, which will have the capability of

953: searching for antideuterons in the energy interval 0.1-0.4 GeV per

954: nucleon, with an estimated sensitivity level of

955: $2.6\times10^{-9}\textrm{m}^{-2}\textrm{sr}^{-1}\textrm{GeV}^{-1}

956: \textrm{s}^{-1}$, and that has been proposed as an instrument to be

957: placed in a satellite on an earth orbit or on a deep space

958: probe. Visibility ratios, {\em i.e.}~the ratio of the predicted flux

959: over the sensitivity, are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dbar} for the same

960: sample of models considered so far.  In the left panel the

961: adiabatically contracted halo profile is considered, while in the

962: right panel there are predictions with the Burkert profile. Note that

963: through this detection method, not only all models are essentially

964: found to be detectable when one considers the most favorable halo

965: profile, but also by taking the very conservative Burkert profile one

966: finds that large portions of parameter space, including part of the

967: $h_- =0$ regime, are testable. Furthermore the results displayed hold

968: for an instrument mounted in a satellite on an earth orbit, in a

969: location within the solar system at which a significant portion of low

970: energy antideuterons is diverted by the solar wind~\footnote{Solar

971: modulation are implemented as appropriate for a period close to solar

972: maximum.}.  Were the deep space experiment realized, all visibility

973: ratios would shift up by a factor of 3 or so, making most models

974: testable even under pessimistic assumptions for the halo profile.  It

975: then emerges clearly that the search for cosmic-ray antideuterons is

976: one of the most solid and competitive ways of testing our scenario in

977: the future.

978: 

979: 

980: \FIGURE[t]{ \centerline{\epsfig{file=plot/2gamma.eps,width=7.5cm}

981: \quad \epsfig{file=plot/zgamma.eps,width=7.5cm}\caption{The

982: annihilation rate into two photons (left-panel) and into a $Z^0$ plus

983: a photon (right-panel) times the number of photons in the final state

984: versus the energy of the monochromatic photon.  The models displayed

985: are those at $\Omega_{LN} h^2 =0.113$ singled out in

986: Fig.~\protect{\ref{fig:relic}}, with the same sample choice of

987: parameters and the same color (line-type) coding. } }

988: \label{fig:line}

989: }

990: 

991: The fragmentation of final states from neutralino annihilations gives

992: as well neutral pions, which mainly decay into two photons. Gamma-rays

993: obtained in this channel can be rather copious but unfortunately they

994: have a weak spectral signature. The prediction for fluxes and the

995: possibility of angular discrimination of the signal are very tightly

996: correlated to details in the distribution of dark matter particles in

997: the very central region of the Galaxy, which is essentially

998: unknown. Actually it is more interesting to check whether the process

999: of prompt emission of photons through loop induced annihilation

1000: processes~\cite{lines}, which gives a monochromatic gamma-ray flux

1001: with no conceivable standard astrophysical counterpart, is effective

1002: or not. In Fig.~\ref{fig:line} we plot annihilation rates times number

1003: of monochromatic photons in the final state versus the energy of the

1004: photon, for two such possible final states in the case of neutralino

1005: annihilations, {\em i.e.}~the $\gamma\gamma$ and $Z^0\gamma$

1006: processes.  Values for the rates are at the level of the largest value

1007: one can obtain for thermal relic neutralinos in the

1008: MSSM~\cite{BUB}. Hence detection prospects in this channel should be

1009: comparable to MSSM cases, {\em i.e.}~feasible in some configurations

1010: but not as promising as some of the techniques we described so far.

1011: 

1012: 

1013: \section{Towards a more generic model within the framework}

1014: \label{sec:towards}

1015: 

1016: All the previous discussion relies on the simplifying assumptions of

1017: Bino decoupling and projection along the direction $M_2=-|\mu|$. This

1018: automatically drove the LN to be in a rather pure Higssino state. The

1019: small gaugino--Higgsino mixing induced negligibly small

1020: spin-independent scattering cross-sections, while the large couplings

1021: to gauge bosons gave fairly large indirect detection rates and small,

1022: but larger than usual and possibly detectable, spin-dependent

1023: couplings. We now wish to check how the picture changes when moving in

1024: other directions of our parameter space.  We will consider a case with

1025: larger gaugino-Higgsino mixing. We relax the relation $M_2=-|\mu|$ and

1026: let again the Bino-like neutralino to be light and coupled to the

1027: other particles.  To deal with a reasonable number of parameters we

1028: restrict ourselves to the subspace defined by: {\sl a)} $\mu$ real,

1029: since a non-vanishing phase is only affecting the mass spectrum; {\sl

1030: b)} $M_1=\alpha M_2$; {\sl c)} $h_+=1.5$, the minimum value needed to

1031: obtain baryogenesis~\cite{Carenaetal}; {\sl d)} $h_-=-0.125$, a limit

1032: in which the Higgsino coupling to the $Z$ boson is suppressed but

1033: non-negligible; {\sl e)} $m_H=150$~GeV, {\em i.e.}~close to the

1034: presently preferred value from electroweak precision

1035: measurements~\cite{PDG}; {\sl f)} $h'_1=h'_2=0.25$ in order to get a

1036: $T$ parameter value in agreement with electroweak precision

1037: measurements~\footnote{For $m_H=150$ GeV a fit to the precision

1038: electroweak data has been done by the LEP electroweak working group

1039: yielding~\cite{Carenaetal}

1040: $$S=0.04\pm0.10,\quad T=0.12\pm0.10$$ with an 85\% correlation between

1041: the two parameters. We have checked that for values of $h_i$ and

1042: $h'_i$ of $\mathcal{O}(1)$ the contribution to the $T$ parameter is

1043: $\mathcal{O}(1)$ and the corresponding models are thus excluded by

1044: precision data for any value of the Higgs mass. However for the

1045: previous values of $h_i$ and $h'_i$ we find $T\simlt 0.2-0.3$

1046: depending on the values of the masses $M_{1,2}$ and $\mu$, that can be

1047: accommodated into the present electroweak bounds depending on the value

1048: of the Higgs mass.}. We are thus left with three free parameters:

1049: $\mu,M_2,\alpha$.

1050: 

1051: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1052: \FIGURE[t]{

1053: \centerline{\epsfig{file=plot/M2vsmu.eps,width=8.1cm}}

1054: \caption{Sample isolevel curves of the lightest neutralino relic

1055: abundance at the WMAP preferred value $\Omega_{LN} h^2 = 0.113$ and in

1056: agreement with the $Z$ boson width measurement. From top to bottom,

1057: the extra free parameters are set equal to: $M_1=M_2/2$ black (solid)

1058: line, $M_1=M_2$ red (dotted) line, $M_1=2M_2$ green (dashed) line,

1059: $M_1=1$ TeV blue (dash-dotted) line, the Bino decoupling limit. Black

1060: dots show models in the guideline-case.\label{fig:M2vsmu}}}

1061: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1062: 

1063: 

1064: In Fig.~\ref{fig:M2vsmu} we show isolevel curves of the lightest

1065: neutralino relic abundance in the plane $(\mu;\,M_2)$ with the ratio

1066: $\alpha=M_1/M_2$ equal to 0.5, 1 and 2, along with the Bino-decoupling

1067: limit at large $M_1$ ($\alpha\to\infty$). The LN thermal relic density

1068: is computed using the same procedure described in

1069: Section~\ref{sec:guide}. Each of the four cases above considered

1070: corresponds in turn to four branches of isolevel curves. There are two

1071: regimes depending on whether $M_2$ and $\mu$ have the same or opposite

1072: signs and, for each one, the pair of isolevel curves delimits the

1073: region where the relic density is exceeding the cosmologically

1074: preferred value.

1075: 

1076: Let us focus {\em e.g.}~on the case $M_1=M_2/2$, {\em i.e.}~the solid

1077: lines in the plot. As it can be checked from the general results of

1078: Section~\ref{sec:fram} at $\mu>0$, in the top-right corner, we find

1079: the branch corresponding to large Higgsino-Bino mixing, with both

1080: neutralino and chargino masses of the order of 40~GeV. Since the lower

1081: bound on the chargino mass is $\sim 104$~GeV~\cite{PDG} these models

1082: are ruled out. The second branch starts at large values of $M_1$,

1083: where the neutralino is Higgsino-like and slightly heavier than the

1084: $W$ boson. It extends down to smaller and smaller values of $M_1$ on a

1085: nearly vertical path along which the Higgsino purity monotonically

1086: decreases.  Then the branch bends along a quasi-horizontal path in

1087: which the neutralino turns into a pure gaugino, with a predominant

1088: Bino component; in this case the relic abundance is settled by

1089: annihilation in $W$ bosons and co-annihilation with NLN.  At $\mu<0$,

1090: for large $M_1$, as in the guideline model we discussed in previous

1091: sections, a given $h_-$ selects two models with a Higgsino-like LN and

1092: equal relic density: one with a mass smaller than the $W$ mass,

1093: annihilating into fermions, and another one with a larger mass, mainly

1094: annihilating into gauge bosons. The heavier branch starts at high

1095: values of $M_1$, decreases monotonically and reaches a minimum value

1096: of $M_1$. Now the LN is an almost pure Bino and hence the coupling

1097: with the $Z$ boson is suppressed: the annihilation channels in

1098: fermions and $Z$ bosons are less effective. The curve rises again to

1099: high values of $M_1$ following an oblique path, along which the relic

1100: abundance is essentially settled by co-annihilation with NLN and LC. 

1101: 

1102: In the case $M_1=2M_2$ the behavior is different: the isolevel curves

1103: follow quasi-horizontal paths in which the relic abundance is fixed

1104: through its Wino component and co-annihilation with NLN.  Finally, in

1105: the Bino decoupling case, for both signs of $\mu$, cosmologically

1106: interesting models are located in the region where the LN is

1107: Higgsino-like.

1108: 

1109: 

1110: \subsection{Direct detection}

1111: 

1112: 

1113: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1114: \FIGURE[t]{

1115: \centerline{\epsfig{file=plot/loghprime025spinindep.eps,width=7.5cm} \quad

1116: \epsfig{file=plot/lnm1alpm2spindip.eps,width=7.5cm}

1117: }

1118: \caption{The spin-independent cross-section on a proton (left panel)

1119: and the spin-dependent cross-section on a neutron (right panel) versus

1120: the parameter $\mu$, and comparison with the approximate excluded

1121: value in the relative LN mass range and the sensitivity level of

1122: future detectors. The models displayed are those at $\Omega_{LN} h^2

1123: =0.113$ singled out in Fig.~\protect{\ref{fig:M2vsmu}}, with the same

1124: sample choice of parameters and the same color (line-type) coding.

1125: Black dots show models in the guideline-case.  Note the mismatch in

1126: the vertical scale of the two plots.}

1127: \label{fig:m1alpm2dd}

1128: }

1129: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1130: 

1131: Following the discussion of the guideline model we now want to

1132: investigate the detection prospects of the LN in this extended

1133: framework. We start again with direct detection and present

1134: predictions in terms of elastic scattering cross-sections off of a

1135: single nucleon, separating SI interactions (given by a Higgs boson

1136: exchange) from SD interactions (induced by a Z boson exchange).  

1137: 

1138: In the left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:m1alpm2dd} we present the

1139: prediction for the SI neutralino proton scattering cross-section

1140: versus the parameter $\mu$, for models along the relic density

1141: isolevel curves singled out in Fig.~\protect{\ref{fig:M2vsmu}}. One

1142: should notice that now the correspondence between $\mu$ and LN mass is

1143: lost, being the LN mass of order 100-300~GeV for almost all displayed

1144: models. Still since we are not referring to a single mass but to a

1145: (small) mass range the comparison with experimental limits and future

1146: expected sensitivities is approximate and indicative. As expected the

1147: SI scattering cross-sections for LN models with large gaugino-Higgsino

1148: mixing can be much enhanced compared to the corresponding ones in the

1149: guideline model. We find that models at large positive $M_2,\,\mu$ are

1150: actually already excluded by present CDMS II data, while there is a

1151: fair fraction of models with SI cross-sections exceeding the

1152: sensitivity level of Super-CDMS. Note also that along branches at

1153: which the LN is mostly gaugino-like there can be, depending on the

1154: value of $\mu$, an accidental cancellation in the LN coupling to the

1155: Higgs driving sharp falls in the SI cross-section.

1156: 

1157: In the right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:m1alpm2dd} we plot the predictions

1158: for the SD neutralino-neutron scattering cross-section. In this case

1159: the relevant quantity is the coupling strength to the $Z$ boson,

1160: involving only Higgsino states and projecting out the mixing between

1161: the two. This tends to always be smaller than in the guideline case,

1162: see Eq.~(\ref{eq:zcoup}). Nevertheless a fraction of the parameter

1163: space is within the projected sensitivity of SuperCDMS.

1164: 

1165: \FIGURE[t]{

1166: \centerline{\epsfig{file=plot/m1alpm2neurate.eps,width=8.1cm}}

1167: \caption{Muon induced flux due to annihilations of lightest neutralino

1168: pairs in the center of the Sun versus the parameter $\mu$, as compared

1169: to the level excluded by SUPER-KAMIOKANDE assuming an average mass

1170: value and the projected sensitivity of IceCube for the same mass

1171: value.  The models displayed are those at $\Omega_{LN} h^2 =0.113$

1172: singled out in Fig.~\protect{\ref{fig:M2vsmu}}, with the same sample

1173: choice of parameters and the same color (line-type) coding. Black dots

1174: show models in the guideline-case.}

1175: \label{fig:m1m2neutel}}

1176: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1177: 

1178: 

1179: \subsection{Indirect detection}

1180: 

1181: The prospects to detect the LN with neutrino telescopes is discussed

1182: in Fig.~\ref{fig:m1m2neutel}, where we plot the induced muon flux

1183: versus $\mu$. Even in this plot the experimental limits are just

1184: indicative because a direct link between the LN mass and $\mu$ is

1185: missing.  Since the capture rate in the Sun scales with the neutralino

1186: spin-dependent cross-section, we find the induced neutrino flux to be

1187: very small for models with large $|\mu|$.  As for spin-dependent

1188: couplings, the perspectives of detection are worse than in the

1189: guideline model, with few cases above the projected sensitivity of

1190: IceCube.

1191: 

1192: Following the same approach discussed in Section~\ref{sec:guide}, we

1193: compute the expected positron and antiproton fluxes originated by

1194: neutralino annihilation in the Galactic halo. In

1195: Fig.~\protect{\ref{fig:m1m2antimatter}} we show the results in the

1196: case of the adiabatically contracted halo. We plot the visibility

1197: parameter we defined in E.~(\protect{\ref{eq:visibility}}) versus

1198: $\mu$. Using this detection method the most promising models are those

1199: with a large annihilation cross-section in $W$ bosons, {\em i.e.}~the

1200: upper branch in the $\mu<0$ region of

1201: Fig.~\protect{\ref{fig:M2vsmu}}. This also explains the behavior of

1202: the signal in the other regimes. In fact, the lower isolevel branch at

1203: $\mu<0$ corresponds to values of the LN mass at which the only open

1204: annihilation channels are those into fermions.  In the case $\mu>0$

1205: the situation is slightly different because, considering the lower

1206: branch, starting from high values of $M_2$ and moving along the

1207: isolevel curve the cross-section in $W$ bosons decreases since the LC

1208: is becoming heavier. Along the horizontal paths we have the opposite

1209: behavior: in fact the LC is becoming lighter.  This explains the

1210: behavior of the curves in Fig.~\protect{\ref{fig:m1m2antimatter}}.

1211: Only a fraction of the models is detectable with the upcoming PAMELA

1212: experiment. Predictions are again relying on the distribution of dark

1213: matter in the halo and, in case a Burkert profile is considered, all

1214: fluxes drop off by a factor of about ten, driving all estimates for

1215: the visibility parameter below the sensitivity of PAMELA.

1216: 

1217: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1218: \FIGURE[t]{

1219: \centerline{\epsfig{file=plot/m1alpm2adpb.eps,width=7.5cm} \quad

1220: \epsfig{file=plot/m1alpm2adeb.eps,width=7.5cm}

1221: }

1222: \caption{Visibility ratio for future antiproton (left panel) and

1223: positron (right panel) searches as compared to the detection

1224: perspectives with the PAMELA instrument.  The models displayed are

1225: those at $\Omega_{LN} h^2 =0.113$ singled out in

1226: Fig.~\protect{\ref{fig:M2vsmu}}, with the same sample choice of

1227: parameters and the same color (line-type) coding. Black dots show

1228: models in the guideline-case. }

1229: \label{fig:m1m2antimatter}}

1230: 

1231: The trends we sketched also hold for antideuteron searches. In

1232: Fig.~\protect{\ref{fig:m1m2dbar}} we plot the GAPS visibility ratio

1233: versus $\mu$.  The shape of the lines is very similar to those in

1234: Fig.~\protect{\ref{fig:m1m2antimatter}}.  In the left panel we

1235: consider the configuration with the instrument on a satellite around

1236: the earth while in the right panel we consider the case of a probe in

1237: the deep space. As in the previous discussion the prospects for this

1238: kind of searches are more favorable in case of annihilation dominated

1239: by gauge boson final states.

1240: 

1241: The last case we have studied is the monochromatic gamma ray

1242: production by neutralino annihilation for two photons and $Z$ boson

1243: plus photon final states, as shown in

1244: Fig.~\protect{\ref{fig:m1m2gamma}}. As discussed in

1245: Section~\ref{sec:guide} these are one loop-processes via chargino or

1246: SM fermions.  The most promising branches are in the $\mu<0$ region,

1247: since the LC running in the loop is quasi-degenerate in mass with the

1248: LN. This branch lies in an interesting energy range for upcoming

1249: gamma-rays detectors like GLAST~\cite{glast}.

1250: 

1251: 

1252: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1253: \FIGURE[t]{

1254: \centerline{\epsfig{file=plot/m1alpm2adgapsearth.eps,width=7.5cm} \quad

1255: \epsfig{file=plot/m1alpm2adgapsdeep.eps,width=7.5cm}

1256: }

1257: \caption{Visibility ratio for future antideuteron searches with the

1258: GAPS instrument (all models above the horizontal line are detectable)

1259: in the case of a mission with a satellite on an earth orbit (left

1260: panel) and that of a deep space probe (right panel).  The models

1261: displayed are those at $\Omega_{LN} h^2 =0.113$ singled out in

1262: Fig.~\protect{\ref{fig:M2vsmu}}, with the same sample choice of

1263: parameters and the same color (line-type) coding. Black dots show

1264: models in the guideline-case. }

1265: \label{fig:m1m2dbar}}

1266: %

1267: \FIGURE[t]{\vspace{0.5cm}

1268: \centerline{\epsfig{file=plot/hprime0252gamma.eps,width=7.5cm} \quad

1269: \epsfig{file=plot/hprime025zgamma.eps,width=7.5cm}\caption{The

1270: annihilation cross-section in two photons (left-panel) and Z plus

1271: photon (right-panel). The models displayed are those at $\Omega_{LN}

1272: h^2 =0.113$ singled out in Fig.~\protect{\ref{fig:M2vsmu}} , with the

1273: same sample choice of parameters and the same color (line-type)

1274: coding. Black dots show models in the

1275: guideline-case. }\label{fig:m1m2gamma} }}

1276: 

1277: \section{Conclusions}

1278: \label{sec:conclusion}

1279: 

1280: Models with extra fermions and large Yukawas were introduced in the

1281: context of electroweak baryogenesis. In this paper we have focused on

1282: their implications on the dark matter problem.  In fact the particle

1283: content of such models allows for the presence of a weakly interacting

1284: massive particle that could be a good dark matter candidate. The

1285: general setup of the model resembles a split supersymmetry scenario

1286: where the supersymmetric relation between the Yukawas and gauge

1287: couplings is relaxed. Bounds coming from the thermal relic abundance

1288: select a light spectrum. In particular the chargino mass is typically

1289: of the order of $200$ GeV, a favorable case for detection of physics

1290: beyond the standard model at upcoming colliders.

1291: 

1292: We have separated our discussion into two parts. In the first one we

1293: studied, as a reference model, the setup with a reduced number of

1294: parameters introduced in Ref.~\cite{Carenaetal} to strengthen the

1295: electroweak phase transition and achieve baryogenesis: it describes a

1296: framework with Bino decoupling and the lightest neutralino being a

1297: very pure Higgsino state. We have foliated the parameter space

1298: retaining all the models with $\Omega_{LN} h^2$ in agreement with both

1299: the WMAP determination and the $Z$ boson width measurement at LEP. We

1300: computed the rates for direct and indirect detection. Due to the low

1301: gaugino-Higgsino mixing, spin-independent elastic scattering

1302: cross-sections are very small and they are not within the projected

1303: sensitivity of planned detectors. On the other hand the spin-dependent

1304: cross-sections, even if they are out of reach of the present

1305: experiments, may be detected by future experiments. Indirect detection

1306: techniques look more promising. In fact using data on the neutrino

1307: flux from the center of the Sun we are able to rule out part of the

1308: parameter space. The induced antimatter components in cosmic rays give

1309: complementary and promising signals. In particular we predict that for

1310: most models the antideuteron flux will be detectable with GAPS,

1311: regardless on the assumptions on the dark matter distribution in the

1312: Galaxy.

1313: 

1314: In the second part of this work we have extended our framework

1315: allowing for a non-vanishing Bino mixing. In such a case the

1316: neutralino mass matrix has more free parameters than the MSSM and,

1317: with a suitable choice of them, one can induce a Bino-Wino mixing, a

1318: configuration which is never realized in the MSSM.  In the case of a

1319: large gaugino-Higgsino mixing, we obtain an increase of the

1320: spin-independent cross-section and we can actually rule out models

1321: with the largest mixing, with a general improvement of prospects for

1322: this kind of searches at future experiments. Indirect detection

1323: becomes less promising than in the guideline framework but using

1324: neutrino data we can still rule out part of the parameter space. The

1325: search for antimatter is promising for models with a lightest

1326: neutralino mass above the $W$ threshold. Hence as bottom line to this

1327: analysis and contrary to the standard lore, indirect detection

1328: techniques generically seem the more promising strategies to detect

1329: dark matter.

1330: 

1331: \section*{Acknowledgments}

1332: This work was supported in part by CICYT, Spain, under contracts

1333: FPA2004-02012, FPA2002-00748 and FPA2005-02211, and in part by

1334: INFN-CICYT under contract INFN04-02.

1335: 

1336: \include{ref}

1337: 

1338: \end{document}

1339: 

1340: