1: %-------------------------------------------------------------
2:
3:
4:
5: \part{Kaluza--Klein dark matter: a review}
6: %\part{KALUZA--KLEIN DARK MATTER: A REVIEW}
7:
8: {\it G.~Servant}
9:
10:
11: \section{INTRODUCTION}
12: %\section{Introduction}
13:
14: The dominant matter component
15: of our Universe is non-baryonic. The recently published WMAP results
16: \cite{Spergel:2003cb}, combined with
17: ACBAR, CBI and 2dFGRS, lead to precise estimates of the baryonic, matter and total
18: densities~:
19: $\Omega_b h^2 = 0.0224 \pm 0.0009$,
20: $\Omega_m h^2 = 0.135 \pm 0.009$ and
21: $\Omega_{tot} = 1.02 \pm 0.02$.
22: One of the most interesting aspects of the dark matter puzzle
23: is that it is likely to be related to
24: new physics at the TeV scale. Indeed, particles with weak scale size
25: interactions and a mass at the electroweak breaking scale (WIMPs) are
26: typically predicted to have the good relic density today to
27: account for dark matter, provided that they are stable.
28: The favorite WIMP candidate to date is the Lightest
29: Supersymmetric Particle (LSP) and
30: neutralinos are certainly the most
31: extensively studied example.
32:
33: \section{DARK MATTER CANDIDATES FROM EXTRA DIMENSIONS}
34: %\section{Dark matter candidates from extra dimensions}
35:
36: Alternative models for physics beyond the Standard Model (SM) that make use of
37: extra dimensions rather than supersymmetry
38: to solve the gauge hierarchy problem, have been studied in the last few years. It is now legitimate to ask whether extra dimensions have anything to do with the dark matter puzzle.
39: Among the new ingredients of extra dimensional theories are
40: the Kaluza-Klein (KK) excitations of SM particles as well as the radion, the scalar degree of freedom related to the size of extra dimensions. If the extra-dimensional model contains branes, there are also possibly branons, which are associated to brane fluctuations. All of them look like natural candidates for dark matter. Let us start with KK particles.
41: The idea that they could form the dark matter is very tempting. However, it turns out that this is not so easy to achieve. Indeed, in most extra-dimensional models, there are no stable KK states, all being able to decay into SM particles.
42: So the next question is: What are the new symmetries available in extra dimensional contexts which could make a KK mode stable?
43: A new dimension means a new conserved momentum along the extra dimension. This leads to the so-called KK parity, a discrete symmetry which remains unbroken in some specific class of extra dimensional models named Universal Extra Dimensions (UED) \cite{Appelquist:2000nn}. As a result, the Lightest KK particle (LKP) is stable.
44: We can also ask whether there is anything comparable to what happens with supersymmetric dark matter. In this case, the symmetry which guarantees the stability of the LSP has been primarily postulated to get rid of the proton decay problem in the MSSM. The proton decay problem arises also in extra dimensional theories specifically if the cut-off scale is near the TeV scale. It is interesting to investigate whether the symmetry one assumes to get rid of the proton decay can lead to a stable particle, like in susy. We will indeed present such solution in the context of warped GUT models where the DM particle is called the LZP. The LKP and the LZP are presently the two main proposals for WIMP KK dark matter. We will present them in more detail in the next sections. Before doing that, let us review other (non-wimp) possibilities which have been mentioned in the literature.
45:
46: For a particle to be stable, either it has large couplings to SM particles and there must be a symmetry to guarantee its stability-- this is the case of wimps like the LSP, the LKP and the LZP which will be presented below-- or it interacts so weakly that its lifetime is longer than the age of the universe, this is the case of light particles with only gravitational couplings like the radion in ADD \cite{Arkani-Hamed:1998rs} or TeV flat extra dimensions. We go through the various possibilities in the next subsections. The situation is summarized in Table~\ref{dmcandidates}.
47:
48: \begin{table}[h]
49: %\begin{center}
50: %\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{.4}\small\normalsize
51: \begin{tabular} {|l|l|l|}
52: \hline
53: \hline
54: && \\
55: & & $\bullet$ radion dark matter $m \sim$ meV\\
56: {{\large {\bf ADD models}}} &only gravity in bulk & $\bullet$ KK graviton dark matter $m \sim$ meV \\
57: $R\sim$ meV$^{-1}$ (flat) & & (both finely-tuned)\\
58: &&$\bullet$ branon dark matter \\
59: &&({\small not original ADD, hierarchy pbs remain})
60: \\ \hline \hline
61: &$\rightarrow$ gauge bosons in bulk & $\bullet$ radion dark matter $m \sim$ meV \\
62: {{\large {\bf TeV$^{-1}$ dim.}}}&& (finely-tuned); KK graviton is unstable\\
63: $R\sim$ TeV$^{-1}$ (flat)&& \\
64: & & $\bullet$ radion dark matter $m \sim$ meV \\
65: &$\rightarrow$ all SM fields in bulk & (finely-tuned)\\
66: &{\bf ``Universal Extra Dimensions"} & $\bullet$ KK dark matter $m \sim$ TeV \\
67: && $\rightarrow$ \fbox{{\bf WIMP or SuperWIMP}}\\
68: \hline \hline
69: & \ AdS a la Randall-Sundrum& $\bullet$ radion is unstable\\
70: {{\large {\bf Warped}}}& & \\
71: {{\large {\bf geometries}}}& \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ if GUT in the bulk \ \ $\longrightarrow$& $\bullet$ KK dark matter\\
72: $R\sim M_{Pl}^{-1}$ & &$m\sim $ few GeV--few TeV \\
73: but $M_{KK}\sim$ TeV&& $\rightarrow$ \fbox{{\bf WIMP}}\\
74: \hline \hline
75: \end{tabular}
76: %\end{center}
77: \caption{Dark matter candidates in three main classes of extra dimensional models}
78: \label{dmcandidates}
79: \end{table}
80: %
81:
82: \subsection{KK graviton}
83: \subsubsection{In ADD}
84: The KK graviton of ADD, with a meV mass, is stable on cosmological scales (each KK graviton couples only with $1/M_{Pl}$) and could be a DM candidate. It would not be a wimp and the correct relic density cannot be obtained via the standard thermal calculation. To get the correct relic density requires fine-tuning either in initial conditions for inflation or in the reheat temperature of the universe, otherwise, KK gravitons would overclose the universe. In addition, there are strong astrophysical constraints on the ADD scenario.
85:
86: \subsubsection{In UED: SuperWIMP KK graviton}
87: The situation is different in UED models where the right relic abundance can be obtained naturally. The idea is that the standard cold relic abundance is obtained for the next lightest KK particle (NLKP), which is a WIMP (a KK hypercharge gauge boson in UED with $\sim$TeV mass) and the NLKP later decays into the LKP which is the KK graviton. That way, the KK graviton, which has a TeV mass and only a gravitational coupling can still acquire the right abundance as given by the standard thermal relic calculation. This scenario has been intensively studied by Feng et al \cite{Feng:2003xh,Feng:2003uy,Feng:2003nr}.
88:
89: Finally, let us mention that in Randall-Sundrum models, KK gravitons have a TeV mass and interact strongly so they cannot play the role of dark matter.
90:
91:
92: \subsection{Radion}
93: The radion in ADD has typically the same mass and same coupling as the KK graviton and also suffers from an overclosure problem.
94: As for models with TeV extra dimensions, there is also typically an overclosure problem. Solving it requires modifying the assumptions on the compactification scheme.
95: Details of radion cosmology have been studied in \cite{Kolb:2003mm}. The radion overclosure problem does not apply in Randall-Sundrum where the radion has large interactions and large mass so that it decays fast.
96:
97: \subsection{Branons}
98: Branons correspond to brane fluctuations. They control the coordinate position of our brane in the extra dimensions.Those fields can be understood as the goldstone boson arising from spontaneous breaking of translational invariance by the presence of the brane. They get massive by the explicit breaking of the symmetry.
99: The possibility that branons could be dark matter has been investigated in \cite{Cembranos:2003mr,Cembranos:2003fu}.
100: In this context, the SM lives on a 3D brane embedded in a higher dimensional (D=4+N) space-time where the fundamental scale of gravity $M_D$ is lower than the Planck scale. In the original ADD proposal, $M_D$ was the TeV scale. The authors of branon dark matter work in a general brane world scenario with arbitrary fundamental scale (larger than the TeV scale).
101: The branon degree of freedom cannot be neglected when the brane tension scale $f$ is much smaller than $M_D$, which means that we live on a non rigid brane. Branon interactions with particles living on the brane can be computed as a function of $f$, $N$ and the branon mass $M$. Couplings of KK modes to the fields confined on the brane are exponentially suppressed by the fluctuation of the brane \cite{Bando:1999di}. As $f$ is very small, the KK mode contributions become invisible from our world and the only remaining degrees of freedom are the branons.
102: %Under a parity transformation on the brane, the branon field changes sign if the number of spatial
103: %dimensions of the brane is odd. Accordingly, branons on a 3-brane are pseudoparticles. If one wants %to preserve parity on the brane
104: The gravitational interaction on the brane conserves parity and terms in the effective Lagrangian with an odd number of branons are forbidden. As a consequence, branons are stable. Constraints in the region of parameters made by $N$, $M_D$, $M$ and $f$ have been derived. We refer the reader to \cite{Cembranos:2003mr,Cembranos:2003fu} for details and references.
105:
106: \subsection{KK ``photon" }
107: As it will be presented in the next section, in the class of models with Universal Extra Dimensions
108: \cite{Appelquist:2000nn}, the Lightest KK Particle (LKP) is stable. For $\sim$TeV$^{-1}$ sized extra dimensions, the LKP can act as a WIMP. It was identified as the first KK excitation of the photon. To be precise, it is not really a KK photon because the Weinberg angle for KK modes is very small \cite{Cheng:2002iz}. It is essentially the KK hypercharge gauge boson: $B^{(1)}$. Relic density \cite{Servant:2002aq,Kakizaki:2005en,Kakizaki:2005uy,Kong:2005hn, Burnell:2005hm},
109: direct \cite{Cheng:2002ej,Servant:2002hb} and indirect detection \cite{Cheng:2002ej,Hooper:2002gs,Bertone:2002ms,Hooper:2004xn,Bergstrom:2004cy,Baltz:2004ie,Bergstrom:2004nr} studies of this candidate have all been carried out in the last few years. Constraints on these models from radion cosmology have also been studied \cite{Kolb:2003mm}.
110:
111: \subsection{KK neutrino}
112:
113: The possibility that the LKP is a KK $\nu_L$ rather than a KK photon in UED was also studied in \cite{Servant:2002aq,Servant:2002hb}. This case is excluded experimentally by direct detection experiments because of the large coupling of $\nu_L^{(1)}$ to the Z gauge boson, leading to much too large elastic scattering of the KK neutrino with nucleons.
114:
115: It could also be that the LKP is the KK excitation of a RH neutrino. To behave as a WIMP, such particle should interact with TeV KK gauge bosons like in Left Right gauge theories such as Pati-Salam or $SO(10)$.
116: This possibility was investigated in details in the context of warped geometries and more specifically in the context of warped Grand Unified Theories (GUTs) \cite{Agashe:2004ci,Agashe:2004bm}. It will be presented in section \ref{LZPsection}.
117:
118: To summarize, so far, KK particles arise as stable
119: viable WIMPs in two frameworks~: In Universal Extra Dimensions
120: and in some warped geometries \`a la Randall-Sundrum. We will discuss these two possibilities in more details now.
121:
122:
123: \section{THE LKP IN UNIVERSAL EXTRA DIMENSIONS}
124: %\section{The LKP in Universal Extra Dimensions}
125:
126: In models with Universal Extra Dimensions (UED) \cite{Appelquist:2000nn} which are explained earlier in these proceedings, all SM fields propagate in flat toroidal extra dimensions, unlike models with Large Extra Dimensions \`a la ADD. Translation
127: invariance along an extra dimension is only broken by the orbifold imposed to recover a chiral SM spectrum. Still, there is a remnant discrete symmetry called KK parity, $(-1)^n$, where $n$ is the KK number. This symmetry insures that interaction vertices cannot involve an odd number of odd-KK states and, therefore, a vertex with two SM particles (with $n=0$) and one KK state (with $n=1$) is forbidden. As a result, the Lightest KK Particle (LKP) with $n=1$ cannot decay into SM particles and is stable. Note that for KK parity to be an
128: exact symmetry, one has to assume that the boundary lagrangians at the two orbifold
129: fixed points are symmetric.
130:
131: In contrast with supersymmetry where the mass spectrum is largely spread so that at most a few additional particles participate in coannihilation processes with the LSP, in Minimal UED (MUED), the mass spectrum of KK particles is rather degenerate and there are many coannihilation processes.
132: The KK mass splittings are essentially due to radiative corrections. Those were computed in
133: \cite{Cheng:2002iz}. The
134: spectrum of KK masses depends also on the values of boundary terms at the cut-off scale, which are not fixed by known SM physics. In this sense, the values of the KK masses can be taken arbitrary and the UED scenario has a multitude of parameters.
135: The authors of \cite{Cheng:2002iz} assumed that the boundary terms vanish (this is the so-called MUED hypothesis). In this case, the LKP is the KK hypercharge gauge boson $B^{(1)}$.
136:
137: The viability and relic density of the LKP were first analyzed in \cite{Servant:2002aq} with some simplifying assumption about the KK spectrum.
138: Only one co-annihilation channel was considered (involving the KK right-handed electron). Ref. \cite{Kong:2005hn,Burnell:2005hm} include all coannihilation channels with KK fermions and KK gauge bosons and look at the effect of each channel separately.
139: The net result is that even if the new coannihilations are Boltzmann suppressed their effect is still significant because the cross sections are mediated by weak or strong interactions while the cross sections studied so far were purely hypercharge-mediated processes.
140: Their conclusion is that in MUED, the LKP mass should be within 500-600 GeV while in non-minimal UED models, freedom in the KK mass spectrum allows an LKP as heavy as 2 TeV.
141: For an analysis taking into account the effects of second level KK modes see \cite{Kakizaki:2005en,Kakizaki:2005uy}. The effect of coannihilation with the KK Higgs was studied in
142: \cite{Matsumoto:2005uh}.
143: Shortly after the appearance of \cite{Kong:2005hn,Burnell:2005hm}, Ref. \cite{Flacke:2005hb} came out where they derive a strong constraint on the KK scale of MUED models from precision EW observables ($>$ 700 GeV)\footnote{Previous bounds on 1/R from EW precision tests were derived in \cite{Appelquist:2000nn,Appelquist:2002wb}, from direct non-detection and from $b\rightarrow s \gamma$ in
144: \cite{Agashe:2001xt} and from FCNC in \cite{Buras:2002ej,Buras:2003mk}.}. This seems to exclude MUED KK dark matter but KK dark matter survives in non-minimal UED models, where the KK mass can be as large as 2 TeV.
145:
146: To conclude this section, note that the cases where the LKP is a KK $Z$ or KK $H$ remain to be analysed. The interesting D=6 case has not been investigated either. We refer to the proceedings by B. Dobrescu for references on the collider phenomenology of UED. We now move to direct detection constraints.
147:
148: \subsection{Direct and indirect detection}
149:
150: Direct detection of the $B^{(1)}$ LKP has been studied in germanium, sodium iodine
151: and xenon detectors \cite{Servant:2002hb,Cheng:2002ej}. It does not appear as the most promising way to probe $B^{(1)}$ dark matter as is summarized in fig.\ref{DIRECTresults}.
152: \begin{figure}[!ht]
153: \begin{center}
154: \includegraphics[height=2.2cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{KKDM_fig1}}
155: \includegraphics[height=2.5cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{KKDM_fig3}}
156: \end{center}
157: \caption[]{Leading Feynman graphs for effective $B^{(1)}$-quark scattering through
158: the exchange of a KK quark (both $q^{(1)}_L$ and $q^{(1)}_R$) and through the exchange of a zero-mode Higgs boson.}
159: \end{figure}
160: %
161: \begin{figure}[!ht]
162: \begin{center}
163: \includegraphics[height=6cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{KKDM_dirdet_1_050}}
164: \includegraphics[height=7cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{KKDM_scatter}}
165: \end{center}
166: \caption{Left figure is from \cite{Cheng:2002ej}: Predicted spin-dependent (dark-shaded, blue) and spin-independent (light-shaded, red) proton cross
167: sections. The predictions are for $m_h = 120$ Gev and $0.01 \le \Delta =
168: (m_{q^1} - m_{B^1}) / m_{B^1} \le 0.5$, with contours for specific intermediate
169: $\Delta$ labeled. Right figure is from \cite{Servant:2002hb}: Predictions for $B^{(1)}$-nucleon cross sections in the
170: spin-dependent -- spin-independent plane where three
171: parameters are varied: $m_{B^{(1)}}$ in the 600-1200 GeV range, $\Delta$ in
172: the 5-15 $\%$ range and $m_h$ in the 100-200 GeV range. We cannot expect a spin-independent cross section larger than $10^{-9}$ pb if we remain in this most likely region of parameter space.}
173: \label{DIRECTresults}
174: \end{figure}
175:
176: Indirect detection through gamma-rays
177: \cite{Cheng:2002ej,Bertone:2002ms,Bergstrom:2004cy,Baltz:2004ie,Bergstrom:2004nr}, neutrinos and synchrotron flux
178: \cite{Bertone:2002ms}, positrons \cite{Cheng:2002ej,Hooper:2004xn}, antiprotons \cite{Barrau:2005au} or through antideuterons \cite{Baer:2005tw} has also been considered.
179: The neutrino spectrum from LKP annihilation in the Sun was investigated in
180: \cite{Hooper:2004xn}. An interesting feature of KK dark matter is, in constrast with the neutralino, that annihilation into fermions is not helicity suppressed and there can be a direct annihilation into $e^+ e^-$ leading to a very valuable positron signal from LKP annihilation into the galactic halo \cite{Cheng:2002ej}.
181: %
182:
183: \section{THE LZP IN WARPED GUTS}
184: %\section{The LZP in Warped GUTs}
185: \label{LZPsection}
186:
187: The interest in the phenomenology of extra dimensions over the last few years has been motivated by the goal of understanding the weak scale. The only extra-dimensional geometry which really addresses the hierarchy problem is the Randall-Sundrum geometry.
188: Particle physics model building in this framework has been flourishing and a favorite class of models has emerged: that where all SM fields propagate in the bulk of AdS$_5$, except for the Higgs (or alternative physics responsible for electroweak symmetry breaking) which is localized on the IR brane. In addition, the electroweak gauge group should be extended to $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)$. Those models were embedded into a GUT in Refs.~\cite{Agashe:2004ci,Agashe:2004bm} and it is in this context that a viable dark matter appears:
189: A stable KK fermion can arise as a consequence of imposing proton stability in a way very reminiscent to R-parity stabilizing the LSP in supersymmetric models. The symmetry is called $Z_3$ and is a linear combination of baryon number and $SU(3)$ color.
190: As soon as baryon number is promoted to be a conserved quantum number, the following transformation becomes a symmetry:
191: %
192: \begin{equation}
193: \Phi \rightarrow e^{ 2 \pi i \left( B - \frac{ n_c - \bar{ n }_c }{3}
194: \right) } \Phi
195: \end{equation}
196: %
197: where $B$ is baryon-number of a given field $\Phi$ (proton has baryon-number $+1$) and
198: $n_c$ ($\bar{n}_c$) is its number of colors (anti-colors).
199: This symmetry actually exists in the SM but SM particles are not charged under it since only colored particles carry baryon number in the SM. In Refs.~\cite{Agashe:2004ci,Agashe:2004bm}, and more generally in higher dimensional GUTs, baryon number can be assigned in such a way that there exists exotic KK states with the gauge quantum numbers of a lepton and which carry baryon number as well as KK quarks which carry non-standard baryon number. These particles carry a non-zero $Z_3$ charge. The lightest of these, called the Lightest $Z_3$ Particle (LZP), is stable since it cannot decay into SM particles.
200:
201: So, who is the LZP? We recall that in extra-dimensional GUTs, there is a need for a replication of GUT multiplets to avoid fast proton decay. Zero modes (SM particles) come from different GUT multiplets. Consequently, in a given multiplet, there are KK modes without the corresponding zero-modes.
202: The mass spectrum of KK fermions is determined by their bulk mass, called $c$ in Planck mass units, and the boundary conditions (BC) at the TeV and Planck brane. All KK modes of a given multiplet have the same $c$.
203: The $c$ parameter also fixes the localization of the wave function of the zero modes.
204: BC are commonly modelled by either Neumann ($+$)
205: or Dirichlet ($-$) BC\footnote{for a comprehensive description
206: of boundary conditions of fermions on an interval, see \cite{Csaki:2003sh}.} in orbifold compactifications.
207: 5D fermions lead to two chiral fermions in 4D, one
208: of which only gets a zero mode to reproduce the chiral SM fermion.
209: SM fermions are associated with ($++$) BC (first sign is for Planck brane, second
210: for TeV brane).
211: The other chirality is ($--$) and does not have zero mode. In the particular case of the breaking of the grand unified gauge group to the SM,
212: Dirichlet boundary conditions are assigned on the Planck brane for
213: fermionic GUT partners which do not have zero modes, they have
214: ($-+$) boundary conditions\footnote{Consistent extra dimensional GUT models require a replication of GUT multiplets as zero modes SM particles are obtained from different multiplets.}.
215: When computing the KK spectrum of $(-+)$ fermions
216: one finds that for $c < 1/2$ the lightest KK fermion
217: is lighter than the lightest KK gauge boson.
218: For the particular
219: case $c < -1/2$, the mass of this KK fermion is exponentially
220: smaller than that of the gauge KK mode!
221: Fig. \ref{LZPmass} shows the mass of the lightest ($-+$) KK fermion as a function of $c$ and for different values of the KK gauge boson mass $M_{KK}$.
222: There is an intuitive argument for the lightness of
223: the KK fermion:
224: for $c \ll 1/2$, the zero-mode of the fermion with $(++)$ boundary condition
225: is localized near the TeV brane.
226: Changing the boundary condition to $(-+)$
227: makes this ``would-be'' zero-mode massive, but since it is localized near the TeV
228: brane, the effect of changing the boundary condition on the Planck
229: brane is suppressed, resulting in a small mass for the would-be zero-mode.
230: %
231: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
232: \begin{figure}[!ht]
233: \begin{center}
234: \includegraphics[width=8.80cm,height=7.5cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{KKDM_mLZP2}}
235: \caption[]{Mass of the lightest KK fermion as a function of its $c$ parameter for different values of the KK gauge boson mass. From bottom to top, $M_{KK}=$3, 5, 7, 10 TeV. For large and negative $c$, the KK fermion can be infinitely light. For KK fermions belonging to the GUT multiplet containing the RH top, $c \sim -1/2$.}
236: \label{LZPmass}
237: \end{center}
238: \end{figure}
239: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
240:
241: We have just seen that in warped GUT models, there is not a single KK scale since the scale for KK fermions can be different from the scale of KK gauge bosons. Now, among the light KK fermions, the one which is the lightest is the one with the smallest $c$ parameter. This means that the lightest KK fermion will come from the GUT multiplet which contains the top quark. Indeed, the top quark, being the heaviest SM fermion, is the closest to the TeV brane. This is achieved by requiring a negative $c$\footnote{More details can be found in \cite{Agashe:2004ci,Agashe:2004bm}. }. Thus, all $(-+)$ KK fermions in the GUT multiplet containing the SM top quark are potentially light. Mass splittings between KK GUT partners of the top quark can have various origins, in particular due to GUT breaking in the bulk as discussed in \cite{Agashe:2004ci,Agashe:2004bm}. There is large freedom here and the identification of the LZP comes from phenomenological arguments:
242: Indeed, the only massive elementary Dirac fermion (with a mass in the 1 GeV - 1 TeV range) which could be a viable dark matter candidate is the neutrino. If such a neutrino had the same coupling to the $Z$ as in the SM, however, it would be excluded by direct detection experiments. Its coupling to the $Z$, therefore, must be suppressed\footnote{Note that in SUSY, such constraints are weaker because of the Majorana nature of the neutralino.}. Thus, we are left with the possibility of a KK Right-Handed (RH) neutrino. In models where the electroweak gauge group is extended to $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)$, the RH neutrino has gauge interactions in particular with the additional $Z^{\prime}$. Nevertheless, its interactions with ordinary matter are feeble because they involve the additional gauge bosons which have a large mass ($ M_{KK}\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}} \raise1pt\hbox{$>$}} 3$ TeV). This opens the possibility of a weakly interacting Dirac RH neutrino.
243: In principle, the LZP is not necessarily the lightest KK particle. There might be
244: lighter KK modes but which are unstable because they are not charged under $Z_3$.
245: In practise though, and in the models of \cite{Agashe:2004ci,Agashe:2004bm}, the RH neutrino LZP
246: turns out to be the lightest KK particle due to various phenomenological constraints.
247:
248: In summary, the LZP is a Kaluza--Klein fermion, which is a four-component spinor and vector-like object. As explained in great detail in Ref.~\cite{Agashe:2004bm}, it can be naturally very light, much lighter than the KK scale of Randall-Sundrum models, namely $M_{KK}\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}} \raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}$ 3 TeV. This is because the RH chirality is localized near the TeV brane while the LH one is near the Planck brane. The overlap of wave functions is small, resulting in a small Dirac KK mass. Its lightness is related to the top quark's heaviness but not entirely fixed by it, so that LZPs in the mass range of approximately 20 GeV to a few TeV can be considered. We refer to the LZP as if it were a chiral fermion
249: because only the RH chirality has significant interactions and the other chirality decouples. In addition, the LZP
250: has the same gauge quantum numbers as the RH neutrino of $SO(10)$ or Pati--Salam. As a result, we refer to it as a ``Dirac RH neutrino".
251:
252: Via the AdS/CFT correspondence, the Randall-Sundrum scenario is dual to a 4D composite Higgs scenario,
253: in which the unification of gauge couplings has recently been studied \cite{Agashe:2005vg}. In this case, the LZP maps to some low-lying hadron at the composite scale. We also point out that in Refs.~\cite{Agashe:2004ci,Agashe:2004bm}, the strong coupling scale is close to the curvature scale so that ${\cal O} (1)$ variations in calculations are expected. Results of \cite{Agashe:2004ci,Agashe:2004bm} should therefore be considered as representative rather than a complete description.
254:
255:
256: \subsection{Relic Density}
257:
258: An interesting feature of warped GUT models is that
259: GUT states such as $X, Y$ gauge bosons appear at the TeV scale (via the KK excitations). In $SO(10)$, there are also the $X^{\prime}, Y^{\prime}$, $X_s$, $Z^{\prime}$, etc. that the LZP can couple to.
260: The LZP couples to the TeV KK gauge bosons of $SO(10)$. In addition, when electroweak symmetry is broken, $Z-Z^{\prime}$ mixing induces a coupling of the RH neutrino to the SM $Z$ gauge boson. This coupling is suppressed by $(M_Z/M_{Z^{\prime}})^2$. If $M_{Z^{\prime}}\sim$ few TeV (the mass of KK gauge bosons is set by $M_{KK} $), the size of this coupling will typically be ideal for a WIMP. There is actually a second source for the $Z$-LZP coupling, which we will not discuss here but refer the reader to Ref.~\cite{Agashe:2004bm} for a detailed explanation. The point is that there is enough freedom in the model under consideration to treat the LZP-$Z$ coupling as an almost arbitrary parameter.
261: %It depends not only on the LZP mass but also on $M_{KK}$, $c_{\nu_L^{\prime}}$ and $g_{10}$.
262:
263: For LZPs lighter than approximately 100 GeV, LZP annihilations proceed dominantly via s-channel $Z$-exchange and annihilations to light quarks, neutrinos and charged leptons are important. For larger masses, annihilation via the t-channel exchange of $X_s$ into top quarks or via s-channel $Z^{\prime}$ exchange into $t \overline{t}$, $b \overline{b}$, $W^+ W^-$ and $Z h$ dominates.
264: LZPs can generate the observed quantity of dark matter thermally in two mass ranges: near the $Z$-resonance ($m_{\rm{LZP}} \approx$ 35-50 GeV) and for considerably heavier masses ($m_{\rm{LZP}} \mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}} \raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}$ several hundred GeV) \cite{Agashe:2004ci,Agashe:2004bm}. Several approximations were made in the relic density calculation of \cite{Agashe:2004ci,Agashe:2004bm}, like using the non-relativistic expansion, neglecting the annihilation via s-channel Higgs exchange as well as co-annihilation with KK $\tau^{\prime}_R$ . A more precise calculation is being carried out using the COMPHEP model for warped GUTs and associated with MICROMEGAS \cite{Belanger:00aa}.
265:
266: Annihilations can vary from one Dirac RH neutrino dark matter model to another, depending on whether, at large LZP mass, annihilations take place via s-channel $Z^{\prime}$ exchange only or also via a t-channel $X_s$--type gauge boson. On the other hand, the elastic scattering cross section is mainly model-independent (determined by the LZP -$Z$ coupling).
267:
268: \subsection{Direct and indirect Detection}
269:
270: Concerning elastic scattering, as is well-known for a Dirac neutrino, the spin independent elastic scattering cross section via a t-channel Z exchange has the form
271: \begin{equation}
272: \sigma_{SI}\propto \left[Z(1-4\sin^2\theta_{\rm{W}})-(A-Z)\right]^2.
273: \label{sigmaSI0}
274: \end{equation}
275: Since $4\sin^2\theta_{\rm{W}} \approx 1$, the coupling to protons is suppressed.
276: Nevertheless, scattering off target nuclei puts the strongest constraints on the $M_{KK} $ scale. As reported in \cite{Agashe:2004ci,Agashe:2004bm}, the prospects for LZP direct detection are extremely good and we expect that all the interesting region of parameter space in this model will be probed by near future direct detection experiments.
277:
278: Indirect detection prospects for the LZP have been studied through three channels in \cite{Hooper:2005fj}:
279: First, the prospects for detecting high-energy neutrinos produced through annihilations of LZPs in the Sun are very encouraging.
280: Annihilations of light LZPs in the Galactic Halo also generate positrons very efficiently.
281: Finally, LZP annihilations near the Galactic center may provide an observable flux of gamma-rays not considerably different than for the case of annihilating neutralinos.
282: \cite{Barrau:2005au} also studied the production of antiprotons from LZP annihilations and \cite{Baer:2005tw} looked at antideuteron fluxes.
283:
284: \subsection{Collider searches}
285:
286: The literature on warped phenomenology so far has dealt with a single
287: KK scale $\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}} \raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}$ 3 TeV, making it difficult to
288: observe KK states in RS at high-energy colliders.
289: This is because most of the work on the
290: phenomenology of Randall-Sundrum geometries have
291: focused on a certain type of boundary conditions for fermionic
292: fields. In section 15 of \cite{Agashe:2004ci,Agashe:2004bm}, we emphasize the interesting
293: consequences for collider phenomenology of boundary conditions which do not lead to zero
294: modes but on the other hand may lead to very light observable Kaluza-Klein states.
295: It is clear that in the models of \cite{Agashe:2004ci,Agashe:2004bm}, all the KK states in the GUT multiplet containing the top quark can be very light thus can be produced at Tevatron or LHC.
296: Something very interesting in this model is the multi $W$ final state which can be produced with a large cross section (as illustrated in Fig. \ref{colliderphenowarpedKK}). Some processes can lead to 6 $W$'s in the final state. A COMPHEP code for this model has been written to generate these processes and will soon become available. LHC prospects for some of these signatures are being studied \cite{Unel:00aa}.
297:
298: \begin{figure}[!ht]
299: \begin{center}
300: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{KKDM_colliderbl2}}
301: \includegraphics[width=7cm]{\nonSUSYBSMfigure{KKDM_collidertaul2}}
302: \caption[]{Production of KK quark $b'_L$ and KK lepton $\tau'_L$.}
303: \end{center}
304: \label{colliderphenowarpedKK}
305: \end{figure}
306:
307: \section{COMPARISONS BETWEEN THE LSP, LKP ad LZP}
308: %\section{Comparisons between the LSP, LKP and LZP}
309:
310: Table~\ref{compare-table} gives a brief comparison of the LSP, LKP and LZP.
311: For a more detailed comparison, see the last section of \cite {Hooper:2005fj}.
312:
313: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
314: \begin{table}[!ht]
315: \begin{center}
316: %\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{.4}\small\normalsize
317: \small
318: \begin{tabular}{l|l|l|l} \hline\hline
319: %&&& \\
320: &{LKP} &{LZP} & {LSP}\\
321: &&& \\ \hline \hline
322: %&&& \\
323: Set up & Universal Extra Dimensions & Warped GUTs& SUSY\\
324: %&&& \\
325: \hline \hline
326: %&&& \\
327: Nature of & Gauge boson & Dirac fermion&Majorana fermion\\
328: dark matter particle&&& \\
329: \hline \hline
330: %&&& \\
331: & KK parity: consequence of & $Z_3$: imposed &R-parity: imposed\\
332: Symmetry&geometry if ones assumes& to protect& to protect \\
333: &equal boundary lagrangians &proton stability& proton stability \\
334: & ${(-1)}^n$&$\displaystyle B-\frac{n_c-\overline{n}_c}{3}$&${(-1)}^{3(B-L)+2S}$ \\
335: [2mm] \hline \hline
336: %&&& \\
337: Mass range & $\sim$ 600-1000 GeV & 20 GeV-few TeV&$\sim$ 50 GeV-1 TeV\\
338: %&&& \\
339: \hline \hline
340: %&&& \\
341: Annihilation cross & s-wave & s-wave&p-wave \\
342: section into fermions&&& helicity-suppressed\\
343: %&&& \\
344: \hline \hline
345: %&&& \\
346: Favourite detection & $\bullet$LHC & $\bullet$Direct detection& $\bullet$LHC\\
347: &$\bullet$Indirect detection&$\bullet$LHC& \\
348: &&$\bullet$Indirect detection& \\
349: \hline \hline
350: \end{tabular}
351: \end{center}
352: \caption{Comparison between the wimp dark matter candidates discussed in this review.}
353: \label{compare-table}
354: \end{table}
355: %
356:
357: \section{CONCLUSION}
358: %\section{Conclusion}
359:
360: Alternatives to SUSY dark matter exist and viable examples arise from extra dimensional models.
361: Because of their simplicity, models with Universal Extra Dimensions have attracted much attention. The Minimal UED (MUED) model is an ideal benchmark model and a good starting point as far as the testability of extra dimensional models is concerned. Discriminating between MUED and SUSY at colliders is an active field of study.
362: Most of the interest in UED is due to the possibility of a stable KK particle and in particular to the LKP as dark matter. Direct and indirect detection of the LKP have been investigated.
363: On the other hand, UED do not particularly solve the hierarchy problem.
364: Extra dimensional models with warped geometry do so.
365: Among the Randall-Sundrum realizations, those with the SM fields living in the bulk are the most appealing. In this framework, the EW sector is extended to $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)$.
366: In this report, we have reviewed a GUT embedding of this gauge structure, which we believe leads to a very rich and peculiar phenomenology. For instance, it is possible that the symmetry imposed to prevent proton decay leads to a stable KK particle which can act as dark matter. Note that independently from the existence of a stable KK mode, warped GUTs possess interesting features and there is still a lot to be done as far as phenomenological exploration of RS models with SM in the bulk is concerned.
367:
368:
369: