1: %\documentclass[prl,nofootinbib,twocolumn]{revtex4}
2: %\documentclass[prl,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}
3: \documentclass[prd,showpacs]{revtex4}
4: %\documentclass[prd,preprint]{revtex4}
5: \usepackage{epsfig}
6: %\usepackage{amssymb}
7: %\usepackage{feynmf}
8: %\usepackage{axodraw}
9: %\usepackage{slashed}
10: \usepackage{graphicx}
11:
12:
13: \newcommand{\gsim}{\lower.7ex\hbox{$\;\stackrel{\textstyle>}{\sim}\;$}}
14: \newcommand{\lsim}{\lower.7ex\hbox{$\;\stackrel{\textstyle<}{\sim}\;$}}
15:
16:
17: \begin{document}
18:
19: \title{Lightest Higgs Boson and Relic Neutralino in the MSSM with CP Violation}
20:
21:
22: \author{Jae Sik Lee$^{\dagger}$ and Stefano Scopel$^*$}
23: \affiliation{
24: $^{\dagger}$ Center of Theoretical Physics, School of
25: Physics, Seoul National University, Seoul, 151--747, Korea\\
26: $^*$ Korea Institute for Advanced Study, Seoul
27: 130-722, Korea}
28:
29: %\date{\today}
30: \pacs{12.60.Jv, 95.35.+d, 14.80.Cp}
31: %pacs included:
32: % 12.60.Jv Supersymmetric models
33: % 95.35.+d Dark matter
34: % 14.80.Cp Non-standard-model Higgs bosons
35:
36:
37: \begin{abstract}
38: We discuss the lower bound to the lightest Higgs boson $H_1$ in the
39: minimal supersymmetric extension of the standard model (MSSM) with explicit
40: CP violation, and the phenomenology of the lightest relic neutralino
41: in the same scenario. In particular, adopting the CPX benchmark
42: scenario, we find that the combination
43: of experimental constraints coming from LEP, Thallium Electric Dipole
44: Moment (EDM) measurements, quorkonium decays, and $B_s\rightarrow \mu\mu$ decay
45: favours a region of the
46: parameter space where the mass of $H_1$ is in the range $7~{\rm GeV}\lsim
47: M_{H_1}\lsim 10$ GeV, while $3 \lsim \tan\beta\lsim 5$.
48: %with quite mild assumptions on the Thallium EDM and $B(B_s\rightarrow \mu\mu)$.
49: %where $\tan\beta$ is
50: %the ratio of the vacuum expectation values of the two Higgs doublets
51: %of the model.
52: %This range can be relaxed to: $7\lsim M_{H_1}\lsim$ 10
53: %GeV, $3\lsim \tan\beta\lsim$ 5, with quite mild assumptions on the
54: %Thallium EDM.
55: Assuming a departure from the usual GUT relation among gaugino masses
56: ($|M_1| \ll |M_2|$), we find that through resonant annihilation to
57: $H_1$ a neutralino
58: %with mass \gsim 2.9 GeV
59: as light as 2.9 GeV can be a viable dark matter candidate in this
60: scenario.
61: %In fact, through resonant annihilation to $H_1$ the
62: %neutralino thermal relic density can be either tuned within the range
63: %compatible to WMAP or virtually erased, allowing for alternative
64: %non-thermal mechanisms.
65: We call this the CPX light neutralino scenario, and discuss its
66: phenomenology showing that indirect Dark Matter searches
67: %, which are more promising than direct detection,
68: are compatible with the present experimental constraints, as long as
69: $m_\chi\lsim M_{H_1}/2$. On the other hand, part of the range
70: $m_\chi\gsim M_{H_1}/2$ which is allowed by cosmology is excluded by
71: antiproton fluxes.
72: %, also when existing uncertainties in the propagation
73: %model are considered.
74: %This scenario is representative of any
75: %situation where resonant annihilation keeps the relic abundance below
76: %its observational limit. In particular, when $m_{\chi}<m_R/2$, where
77: %$m_R$ is the mass of the resonance, the high--temperature annihilation
78: %cross section in the early Universe which enters into the calculation
79: %of the relic abundance is strongly enhanced by the presence of the
80: %resonance, while the corresponding zero--temperature cross section
81: %responsible of neutralino annihilations in the halo of our Galaxy is
82: %not. This can lead in a natural way to the correct relic abundance
83: %while indirect signals remain within the bounds from DM searches.
84:
85: \end{abstract}
86:
87: \maketitle
88:
89: \baselineskip 1.5em
90:
91:
92: \section{Introduction}
93:
94: Supersymmetry (SUSY) is considered one of the most natural extensions
95: of the Standard Model (SM), providing elegant solutions to puzzles as
96: diverse as the SM hierarchy problem, the high--energy unification of
97: the gauge coupling constants and the existence of the Dark Matter (DM)
98: in the Universe. In particular, in R--parity conserving SUSY scenarios
99: the lightest neutralino turns out to be an ideal thermal DM
100: candidate~\cite{susy_review}, providing in a natural way the correct
101: amount of Cold Dark Matter (CDM) that is needed to drive structure
102: formation, and which is necessary to explain the latest data on the
103: energy budget of the Universe from WMAP~\cite{wmap3}.
104:
105: Unfortunately, our ignorance about the details of the SUSY breaking
106: mechanism implies that phenomenological analysis on the SUSY DM
107: depend in general on a huge parameter space with more than 100
108: independent soft masses and couplings. This parameter space is usually
109: drastically resized by making use of as many simplifying assumptions
110: as possible. For instance, parameters related to flavour--mixing are
111: supposed to be strongly suppressed to match the experimental
112: constraints, and are often neglected. On the other hand, in
113: theoretically motivated setups as in specific SUSY--breaking
114: scenarios, like in the minimal Supergravity (SUGRA) ~\cite{SUGRA}, the
115: number of free parameters is strongly reduced, improving
116: predictability. However, some other assumptions are simply suggested by
117: simplicity, such as taking soft--breaking parameters real.
118:
119: In particular, many recent analysis have addressed this latter
120: aspect~\cite{APLB,CPHIGGS,HeinCP,CPNSH,
121: CPsuperH_ELP,INhiggs,Gondolo_CP,Nihei,Belanger}, since it has been realized
122: that CP violating phases in the soft terms can considerably enrich the
123: phenomenology without violating existing constraints. This is also
124: theoretically motivated by the fact that the smallness of neutrino
125: masses implied by observation possibly calls for some exotic source of
126: CP violation additional to Yukawa couplings, in order to explain
127: Baryogenesis.
128: % adding so also this issue to the already sizable
129: %problem--solving (wish--)list of supersymmetry.
130:
131: %Throwing in more free parameters as CP phases to the already
132: %complicated game of neutralino DM phenomenology can in principle lead
133: %to even more involved and less conclusive scenarios. However, an
134: %exception is provided by the particular case when a well defined
135: %corner of the parameter space is singled out by the combination of
136: %several experimental constants.
137: In the CP--conserving SUGRA scenario, the so--called
138: ``stau--coannihilation'', ``Higgs--funnel'' and ``focus point''
139: benchmark solutions are well known examples of a situation where,
140: thanks to a combination of different experimental constraints, quite
141: simple and well defined phenomenological pictures emerge, at the price
142: of a certain amount of tuning ~\cite{SUGRA}. In this article we point
143: out that a similar situation occurs in an effective Minimal
144: Supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model (MSSM) with all soft
145: parameters fixed at the electro--weak scale, when CP violation and
146: departure from unification of gaugino masses are considered.
147:
148: In particular, we wish to address here the issues of the lower bound
149: for the mass of the lightest Higgs boson $H_1$ and that of the lightest
150: possible mass for the relic neutralino $\chi$, when standard
151: assumptions are made for the origin and evolution of its relic
152: density. In fact, by combining present experimental constraints, a
153: very simple picture (albeit tuned) emerges, where the mass of the
154: lightest Higgs boson $H_1$ is found to be in the range $7\lsim M_{H_1}
155: \lsim$ 7.5 GeV, with the ratio of the two vacuum expectation values
156: almost fixed, $\tan\beta\simeq$ 3. This range can be relaxed to:
157: $7\lsim M_{H_1}\lsim$ 10 GeV and $3\lsim \tan\beta\lsim$ 5, with quite
158: mild assumptions on the Thallium EDM. In this scenario, resonant
159: annihilations of neutralinos with mass $m_{\chi}\simeq M_{H_1}/2$
160: through $H_1$ exchange in the $s$ channel can drive their thermal
161: relic abundance within the limits coming from observation, for values
162: of $m_\chi$ significantly below those allowed in CP--conserving
163: scenarios ~\cite{mchi_lowerbound} (to our knowledge, the issue of
164: resonant $\chi$ annihilation in the context of CP violation was first
165: raised at the qualitative level in ~\cite{Gondolo_CP}).
166:
167: In the following we will analyse in detail the implications for direct
168: and indirect DM searches of these light neutralinos, which we will
169: refer to as the CPX light neutralino scenario, concluding that it is
170: indeed viable scenario, with prospects of detection in future
171: experiments.
172:
173: The plan of the paper is as follows. In Section II the CPX scenario
174: in the MSSM with CP violation is introduced. In Section III we discuss
175: various experimental bounds. Section IV is devoted to the discussion
176: of the cosmological relic density of CPX light relic neutralinos, and
177: Section V to their phenomenology in DM searches. Our conclusions are
178: contained in Section VI.
179:
180:
181: \section{MSSM with explicit CP violation: the CPX scenario}
182:
183: The tree level Higgs potential of the MSSM is invariant under CP
184: transformations. However, CP can be explicitly broken at the loop
185: level.
186: In the presence of sizable CP phases in the relevant soft SUSY breaking
187: terms, a significant mixing between the scalar and pseudo--scalar
188: neutral Higgs bosons can be generated
189: ~\cite{APLB,CPHIGGS,HeinCP}. As a consequence of this CP--violating mixing,
190: the three neutral MSSM Higgs mass eigenstates, labeled in order of
191: increasing mass as $M_{H_1}\le M_{H_2} \le M_{H_3}$, have no longer
192: definite CP parities, but become mixtures of CP-even and CP-odd
193: states. In this scenario, all masses are usually calculated as a
194: function of the charged Higgs boson mass $M_{H^\pm}$, instead of the
195: pseudoscalar Higgs mass $M_A$, which is no longer a physical parameter. Much
196: work has been devoted to studying the phenomenological features of this
197: radiative Higgs-sector CP violation in the framework of the MSSM
198: ~\cite{CPNSH,CPsuperH_ELP}.
199:
200: Due to the large Yukawa couplings, the CP-violating mixing among the
201: neutral Higgs bosons is dominated by the contribution of
202: third-generation squarks and is proportional to the combination:
203: \begin{equation}
204: %\frac{3}{16\pi^2}\frac{\Im{\rm
205: % m}(A_f\,\mu)}{m^2_{\tilde{f}_2}-m^2_{\tilde{f}_1}},
206: %\frac{3}{16\pi^2}\frac{\Im{\rm
207: % m}(A_f\,\mu)}{m_{SUSY}^2}\label{eq:ratio},
208: \frac{3}{16\pi^2}\frac{\Im{\rm
209: m}(A_f\,\mu)}{m_{\tilde{f}_2}^2-m_{\tilde{f}_1}^2}\label{eq:ratio},
210: \end{equation}
211: \noindent with $f=t,b$. Here $\mu$ is the Higgs--mixing parameter in
212: the superpotential and $A_f$ denotes the trilinear soft coupling. In
213: particular, the amount of CP violation is enhanced when the product of
214: $|A_{b,t}|$ and $|\mu|$ is larger than the difference of the sfermion
215: masses squared. At the two--loop level, also the gluino mass
216: parameter $M_3$ becomes relevant through threshold corrections to the
217: top- and bottom-quark Yukawa couplings. This contribution depends on
218: the combination ${\rm Arg}(M_3\,\mu)$ and can be important especially
219: when $\tan\beta\equiv v_2/v_1$ is large, where $v_2$ and $v_1$ are the
220: vacuum expectation values of the neutral components of the two Higgs
221: doublets that give masses to up--type and down--type quarks,
222: respectively. More CP phases become relevant by including subdominant
223: radiative corrections from other sectors ~\cite{INhiggs}.
224:
225: In presence of CP violation, the mixing among neutral Higgs bosons is
226: described by a 3$\times$3 real orthogonal matrix $O$, instead of a
227: 2$\times$2 one. The matrix $O$ relates the electro--weak states to the
228: mass eigenstates as:
229: \begin{equation}
230: (\phi_1\,,\phi_2\,,a)^{T}=O\,(H_1\,,H_2\,,H_3)^T\,.
231: \label{eq:omix}
232: \end{equation}
233: \noindent
234: %In the following we will indicate with
235: We note that the elements $O_{\phi_1 i}$ and $O_{\phi_2 i}$ are
236: the CP-even components of the $i$-th Higgs
237: boson, while $O_{a i}$ is the corresponding CP-odd component.
238:
239: The Higgs-boson couplings to the SM and SUSY particles could be modified
240: significantly due to the CP violating mixing.
241: Among them, one of the most important ones may be the Higgs-boson coupling to a pair
242: of vector bosons, $g_{H_iVV}$, which is responsible for the production of Higgs
243: bosons at $e^+e^-$ colliders:
244: \begin{equation}
245: {\cal L}_{HVV}=gM_W\left(W_\mu^+W^{-\mu}+\frac{1}{2c_W^2}Z_\mu Z^\mu\right)
246: \sum_{i=1}^3 g_{H_iVV}H_i\,,
247: \label{eq:hvvinterx}
248: \end{equation}
249: where
250: \begin{equation}
251: g_{H_iVV}=c_\beta \, O_{\phi_1i}+s_\beta \, O_{\phi_2 i}\,,
252: \end{equation}
253: \noindent when normalized to the SM value. Here we have used the following abbreviations:
254: $s_\beta\equiv\sin\beta$, $c_\beta\equiv\cos\beta$.
255: $t_\beta=\tan\beta$, etc.
256: %$s_{2\beta}\equiv\sin\,2\beta$,
257: %$c_{2\beta}\equiv\cos\,2\beta$, $s_W\equiv\sin\theta_W$,
258: %$c_W\equiv\cos\theta_W$, etc.
259: We note that the two vector bosons $W$ and $Z$ couple only to the
260: CP-even components $O_{\phi_{1,2} i}$ of the $i$-th Higgs mass
261: eigenstate, and the relevant couplings may be strongly
262: suppressed when the $i$-th Higgs boson is mostly CP-odd, $O^2_{ai}\sim
263: 1 \gg O_{\phi_1i}^2\,,O_{\phi_2i}^2$.
264:
265: The so called CPX scenario has been defined as a showcase benchmark
266: point for studying CP-violating Higgs-mixing phenomena ~\cite{CPX}. Its
267: parameters are all defined at the electro--weak scale, and are chosen
268: in order to enhance the combination in Eq.(\ref{eq:ratio}).
269: %, without violating other constraints (see next section).
270: In this scenario,
271: SUSY soft parameters are fixed as follows:
272: %
273: \begin{eqnarray}
274: && \hspace{-2cm}
275: M_{\tilde{Q}_3} = M_{\tilde{U}_3} = M_{\tilde{D}_3} =
276: M_{\tilde{L}_3} = M_{\tilde{E}_3} = M_{\rm SUSY}\,,
277: \nonumber \\
278: && \hspace{-2cm}
279: |\mu|=4\,M_{\rm SUSY}\,, \ \
280: |A_{t,b,\tau}|=2\,M_{\rm SUSY} \,, \ \
281: |M_3|=1 ~~{\rm TeV}\,,
282: \label{eq:mssm-intro-CPXdef}
283: \end{eqnarray}
284: %
285: \noindent where, with a usual notation, $Q$, $L$, $U$, $D$ and $E$
286: indicate chiral supermultiplets corresponding to left-- and
287: right--handed quarks and leptons. In this scenario $\tan\beta$,
288: $M_{H^\pm}$, and $M_{\rm SUSY}$ are free parameters.
289: As far as CP phases are concerned, we adopt, without loss of generality, the
290: convention ${\rm Arg}(\mu)=0$, while we assume a common phase for all
291: the $A_f$ terms, $\Phi_A\equiv {\rm Arg}(A_t)={\rm Arg}(A_b)={\rm
292: Arg}(A_\tau)$. As a consequence of this, we end--up with two free
293: physical phases: $\Phi_A$ and $\Phi_3={\rm Arg}(M_3)$.
294:
295: In addition to the parameters fixed by the CPX scenario,
296: we need to fix the gaugino masses $M_{1,2}$ for our study.
297: We take them as free parameters
298: independently of $M_3$ since, for them, we chose to relax the usual
299: relations at the electro-weak scale:
300: $M_i/M_j=g_i^2/g_j^2$ with $g_{i,j}$=gauge coupling constants,
301: which originate from the
302: assumption of gaugino--mass unification at the GUT scale.
303: %
304: The neutralino $\chi$ is defined as usual as the lowest-mass linear
305: superposition of $B$-ino $\tilde{B}$, $W$-ino $\tilde{W}^{(3)}$, and of the
306: two Higgsino states $\tilde{H}^0_1$, $\tilde{H}^0_2$:
307:
308: \begin{equation}
309: \chi\equiv a_1 \tilde{B}+a_2\tilde{W}^{(3)}+a_3 \tilde{H}^0_1+a_4 \tilde{H}^0_2.
310: \end{equation}
311:
312: \noindent
313:
314: In Ref.~\cite{light_neutralinos} it was proved that in a
315: CP--conserving effective MSSM with $|M_1| << |M_2|$ light neutralinos
316: of a mass as low as 7 GeV are allowed. Indeed, for $|M_1| << |M_2|$
317: the LEP constraints do not apply, and the lower bound on the
318: neutralino mass is set by the cosmological bound. As shown in
319: \cite{light_neutralinos}, these neutralinos turn out to be mainly
320: $B$-inos, $a_1\simeq 1$ and $m_{\chi}\simeq |M_1|$, with a small
321: Higgsino component given by:
322: \begin{equation}
323: \frac{|a_3|}{|a_1|}\simeq \sin\theta_W\sin\beta \frac{M_Z}{\mu},
324: \label{eq:a3_a1}
325: \end{equation}
326: \noindent where $\theta_W$ is the Weinberg angle and $M_Z$ is the
327: Z--boson mass. In the following we will assume vanishing phases for
328: $M_1$ and $M_2$, and we will fix for definiteness $M_2$=200 GeV (the
329: phenomenology we are interested in is not sensitive to these
330: parameters in a significant way). On the other hand, we will vary
331: $M_1$, which is directly correlated to the lightest neutralino mass
332: $m_{\chi}$.
333:
334: In this work, we rely on {\tt CPsuperH} ~\cite{CPsuperH} for the computation of
335: mass spectra and couplings in the MSSM Higgs sector.
336:
337: \section{Experimental constraints on the CPX scenario}
338:
339: \subsection{LEP2 searches}
340: %LEP
341: The most relevant feature of the CPX scenario for our analysis is
342: that the lightest Higgs boson $H_1$ can be very light, $M_{H_1}\lsim$ 10 GeV,
343: with the other two neutral Higgs bosons significantly heavier, $M_{H_{2,3}}\gsim$ 100 GeV,
344: when $\Phi_A \sim 90^{\rm o}$ and $M_{H^\pm} \sim 130$ GeV
345: for moderate values of $3 \lsim \tan\beta \lsim 10$.
346: %
347: In this case, the lightest Higgs boson is mostly CP odd and its
348: production at LEP is highly suppressed since $|g_{H_1 VV}|\ll 1$
349: though it is kinematically accessible. On the other hand, the second--lightest
350: Higgs $H_2$ can be produced together with a $Z$ boson since its
351: complementary coupling $g_{H_2 VV}$ is sizeable. But its mass is close to the
352: kinematical limit $\sim 110$ GeV and, moreover,
353: it dominantly decays into two $H_1$'s. Depending on $M_{H_1}$, the lightest
354: Higgs boson decays into two $b$ quarks or two $\tau$ leptons.
355: This leads to a dominant production and decay mode containing 6 jets in the final
356: state, a topology which was covered by LEP2 with a very low efficiency.
357: %(the experimental strategy was to employ a standard 4b analysis by
358: %forcing with suitable jet definitions the 6--jet topologies into
359: %4--jet ones). On the other hand, if $M_{H_1}< 2 m_b$, the dominant
360: %decay mode of $H_1$ is to a $\tau$--lepton pair, which is even more
361: %difficult to detect.
362: The similar situation occurs for $H_1$--$H_2$ pair production.
363: Therefore, in the presence of CP-violating mixings, a
364: very light Higgs bosons with $M_{H_1} \lsim$ 10 GeV could easily
365: escape detection at LEP2.
366:
367: For the CPX scenario, taking $\Phi_A=\Phi_3=90^\circ$ and $M_{\rm
368: SUSY}=0.5$ TeV, the combined searches of the four LEP collaborations
369: at $\sqrt{s}= 91 - 209$ GeV reported the following two
370: allowed regions~\cite{LEP_HIGGS}:
371: \begin{eqnarray}
372: &{\bf R1}:&\;\;\; M_{H_1} \lsim 10 \;\; {\rm GeV}\;\;\;\;
373: {\rm for}\;\; 3 \lsim \tan\beta \lsim 10,\nonumber\\
374: &{\bf R2}:&\;\;\; 30\;\; {\rm GeV} \lsim M_{H_1} \lsim 50\;\; {\rm
375: GeV}\;\;\;\; {\rm for} \;\; 3 \lsim \tan\beta \lsim 10.
376: \label{eq:lep}
377: \end{eqnarray}
378: \noindent
379: These regions will not be fully covered even at the LHC for $\tan\beta
380: \lsim 7 \;({\bf R1})$ and $\lsim 5 \;({\bf R2})$ ~\cite{M.Schumacher}.
381: In our analysis we will focus on region ${\bf R1}$.
382:
383: We observe that in the scenario analysed by the LEP collaborations one
384: has $|\mu|$=2 TeV. For this large value of $|\mu|$, the neutralino is
385: a very pure $B$-ino configuration, with a Higgsino contamination
386: $a_3\simeq$0.02 (see Eq. \ref{eq:a3_a1}). As will be shown in Section
387: \ref{section:relicdensity}, this has important consequences for the
388: phenomenology of relic neutralinos, in particular suppressing their
389: annihilation cross section, and restricting the possibility of having
390: a relic abundance in the allowed range only to the case of resonant
391: annihilation. So, the exploration of different possibilities with
392: lower values of $|\mu|$ could in principle be very relevant for relic
393: neutralinos. However, this would require a re--analysis of LEP data
394: which is beyond the scope of this paper.
395:
396:
397: %EDM
398: \begin{figure}[t]
399: %\hspace{ 2.0cm}
400: \vspace{0.0cm}
401: %\centerline{\epsfig{figure=dtl_yupsilon_last.eps,height=14cm,width=14cm}}
402: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=dtl.eps,height=14cm,width=14cm}}
403: \vspace{-0.5cm}
404: \caption{{\it The Thallium EDM $\hat{d}_{\rm Tl} \equiv d_{\rm Tl}
405: \times 10^{24}$~$e\,cm$ in the CPX scenario with $M_{\rm SUSY}=0.5$ TeV
406: in the region $M_{H_1} \lsim 15$ GeV and $3 < \tan\beta < 10$. The different shaded
407: regions correspond to different ranges of $|\hat{d}_{\rm Tl}|$, as
408: shown: specifically, the narrow region consistent with the current thallium
409: EDM constraint, $|\hat{d}_{\rm Tl}|<1$, is denoted by black squares.
410: In the blank unshaded region we have $|\hat{d}_{\rm Tl}|>100$. The region
411: below the thick solid line is excluded by data on $\Upsilon(1S)$ decay
412: \protect\cite{upsilon_visible}. For comparison, the thin line shows
413: an estimation of the same boundary obtained using the tree-level coupling
414: taking $O_{a1}$=1, i.e. $|g^P_{H_1\bar{b}b}| = \tan\beta$. Also shown are
415: the three contour lines of
416: the rescaled $\hat{B}(B_s\rightarrow \mu\mu)\equiv
417: (B_s\rightarrow \mu\mu) \times 10^7$: $\hat{B}(B_s\rightarrow \mu\mu)=2$ (solid),
418: 20 (dotted), and 200 (dashed).}}
419: \label{fig:dtl}
420: \end{figure}
421:
422: \subsection{Electric Dipole Moments}
423: CP phases in the MSSM are significantly constrained by the EDM
424: measurements. In particular, the EDM of the Thallium atom provides
425: currently the most stringent constraint on the MSSM scenario of our
426: interest. The atomic EDM of $^{205}$Tl gets its main contributions
427: from two terms ~\cite{KL,PR}:
428: \begin{equation}
429: d_{\rm Tl}\,[e\,cm]\ =\ -585\cdot d_e\,[e\,cm]\:
430: -\: 8.5\times 10^{-19}\,[e\,cm]\cdot (C_S\,{\rm TeV}^2)+ \cdots\,,
431: \end{equation}
432: where $d_e$ denotes the electron EDM and $C_S$ is the coefficient of
433: the CP-odd electron-nucleon interaction ${\cal
434: L}_{C_S}=C_S\,\bar{e}i\gamma_5 e\,\bar{N}N$. The dots denote
435: sub-dominant contributions from 6-dimensional tensor and
436: higher-dimensional operators. The above quantity is constrained
437: by the experimental $2-\sigma$ upper bound on the Thallium EDM, which
438: is~\cite{THEDMEXP}:
439: \begin{equation}
440: |d_{\rm Tl}|\ \lsim\ 1.3\times 10^{-24}\,[e\,cm]\; .
441: \end{equation}
442:
443: The contributions of the first and second generation phases,
444: e.g.~$\Phi_{A_{e,\mu}}$, $\Phi_{A_{d,s}}$ etc., to EDMs can be
445: drastically reduced either by assuming these phases sufficiently
446: small, or if the first- and second-generation squarks and sleptons are
447: sufficiently heavy. However, even
448: when the contribution of the first and second generation phases to
449: EDM's is suppressed, there are still sizeable contributions to EDMs
450: from Higgs-mediated two loop diagrams ~\cite{CKP}. Their explicit forms
451: for $(d_e/e)^H$ and $C_S$ may be found in Ref.~\cite{Ellis:2005ik},
452: expressed in the conventions and notations of {\tt
453: CPsuperH}~\cite{CPsuperH}.
454:
455: In Fig.~\ref{fig:dtl}, we show the rescaled Thallium EDM $\hat{d}_{\rm
456: Tl} \equiv d_{\rm Tl} \times 10^{24}$ in units of $e\,cm$ in the
457: $M_{H_1}$-$\tan\beta$ plane. Here, we consider only the
458: contributions from the Higgs-mediated two--loop diagrams.
459: Different ranges of $|\hat{d}_{\rm Tl}|$ are shown explicitly
460: by different shadings. In the blank unshaded region we have obtained
461: $|\hat{d}_{\rm Tl}|>100$.
462: %
463: We find that a cancellation between the contributions from $(d_e/e)^H$
464: and $C_S$ occurs when $\tan\beta < 5$. This cancellation is
465: responsible for the narrow region denoted by black squares with
466: $|\hat{d}_{\rm Tl}|<1$, where it is at the level of about about 5 \%.
467:
468: Finally, we note that the Thallium EDM constraint can be evaded by
469: assuming cancellations between the two--loop contributions considered
470: here and other contributions, such as those from first-- and
471: second--generation sfermions discussed above.
472: %possibly
473: %uncorrelated one-loop contributions which
474: %are not included here.
475: %In our scenario, depending on the choice of $\Phi_{A_{e,\mu}}$ and
476: %$\Phi_{A_{d,s}}$ the contributions to the Thallium EDM of the first
477: %and second generation is virtually uncorrelated to the other
478: %phenomenological quantities relevant for our analysis, namely to the
479: %Higgs and the neutralino masses and couplings. This contribution can
480: %be easily made to vanish, or adjusted to cancel the Thallium EDM from
481: %$(d_e/e)^H$ and $C_S$.
482: In this way the allowed region shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dtl} can be
483: enlarged. The amount of cancellation can be directly read--off from
484: Fig.~\ref{fig:dtl}. For instance, in the region $|\hat{d}_{\rm
485: Tl}|<10$ it would be less severe than 1 part in 10 (10 \%).
486:
487: \subsection{Bottomonium decay}
488: \label{sec:quarkonium}
489:
490: In the region {\bf R1}, see Eq.~(\ref{eq:lep}),
491: %combined with
492: %the Thallium EDM constraint shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dtl} allows a
493: %range for the Higgs boson mass $H_1$ where the bottomonium decay
494: the bottomonium decay
495: channel $\Upsilon(1S)\rightarrow \gamma H_1$ is kinematically
496: accessible ~\cite{higgs_hunter_guide}.
497: There are two experimental
498: limits on this process, depending on whether the $H_1$ decays to
499: visible particles ~\cite{upsilon_visible} or to invisible
500: ones~\cite{upsilon_invisible}. The second case is allowed when
501: 2$m_{\chi}<M_{H_1}$, so that $H_1$ can decay to neutralinos which
502: escape detection. On the other hand, in the case 2$m_{\chi}>M_{H_1}$
503: also the three--body decay (i.e. with a non--monochromatic $\gamma$
504: spectrum) $\Upsilon(1S)\rightarrow \gamma \chi\chi$ has been
505: constrained ~\cite{upsilon_visible}. The branching ratio for the
506: two--body decay calculated in our scenario is related to its SM
507: counterpart by~\cite{higgs_hunter_guide}:
508:
509: \begin{equation}
510: B(\Upsilon(1S)\rightarrow \gamma\, H_1)_{SUSY}=
511: B(\Upsilon(1S)\rightarrow \gamma\, H_1)_{SM}\times (g^P_{H_1\bar{b}b})^2\,,
512: \label{eq:upsilon}
513: \end{equation}
514:
515: \noindent where $g^P_{H_1\bar{b}b}$ denotes the Higgs coupling to two
516: $b$ quarks given by $g^P_{H_1\bar{b}b}=-O_{a1}\tan\beta$ at the tree level.
517: This implies that
518: the experimental upper bounds on this process can be directly
519: converted to a constraint in the plane $\tan\beta$--$M_{H_1}$. The
520: result is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:dtl}, where the thin (red) line corresponds
521: to the limit obtained by setting
522: $(g^P_{H_1\bar{b}b})^2=\tan^2\beta$. Finite--threshold corrections
523: induced by the gluino and chargino exchanges can modify the coupling
524: $g^P_{H_1\bar{b}b}$, although this effect is negligible at low values
525: of $\tan\beta$. Moreover, although for our choice of parameters $H_1$
526: is mostly pseudoscalar, $O_{a1}$ can be smaller than 1 up to about
527: 20\%. The thick solid line in Fig.~\ref{fig:dtl} shows the bottomonium
528: constraint when the threshold corrections and $O_{a1}$ are fully included.
529:
530: From Fig.~\ref{fig:dtl} one can see that, when the following
531: constraints are combined: (i) the LEP constraint; (ii) Thallium EDM;
532: (iii) the limit from bottomonium decay,
533: the allowed parameter space is reduced to:
534: \begin{equation}
535: 7 \;\;{\rm GeV} \lsim M_{H_1}\lsim 7.5 \;\;{\rm GeV}
536: ~~{\rm and}~~ \tan\beta\simeq 3.
537: \label{eq:tanb_mh1}
538: \end{equation}
539: \noindent This region may be enlarged to
540: \begin{equation}
541: 7 \;\;{\rm GeV} \lsim M_{H_1}\lsim 10 \;\;{\rm GeV}
542: ~~{\rm and}~~ 3\lsim \tan\beta\lsim 5\,,
543: \label{eq:tanb_mh1_enlarged}
544: \end{equation}
545: \noindent if we assume 10 \%-level cancellation in the
546: Thallium EDM.
547:
548: In light of the above discussion and for definiteness, from now on we
549: will fix $M_{H_1}$=7.5 GeV and $\tan\beta$=3 in our analysis. Taking
550: into account the CPX parameter choice of Eq.(\ref{eq:mssm-intro-CPXdef})
551: with $\Phi_A=\Phi_3=90^\circ$ and $M_{\rm SUSY}=0.5$ TeV,
552: this implies, in particular: $M_{H^{\pm}}\simeq$ 147 GeV,
553: %this implies, in particular: $M_{H^{\pm}}\simeq$ 147.066 GeV,
554: $M_{H_2}\simeq$ 108 GeV, $M_{H_3}\simeq$ 157 GeV.
555:
556: \subsection{Other constraints}
557: \label{sec:other}
558:
559: As will be discussed in the following sections, if the pseudoscalar
560: Higgs boson mass is in the range (\ref{eq:tanb_mh1}), a CPX light
561: neutralino with $m_{\chi}\lsim M_{H_1}/2$ can be a viable DM
562: candidate. Due to their very pure $B$-ino composition, and to the
563: quite low value of $\tan\beta$, neutralinos in this mass range evade
564: constraints coming from accelerators. For instance, in the CPX light
565: neutralino mass range the present upper bound to the invisible width
566: of the $Z$--boson implies $|a_3^2-a_4^2|\lsim$ a few percent, a
567: constraint easily evaded in this case.
568:
569: As far as Flavour Changing Neutral Currents (FCNC) are concerned, they
570: strongly depend on the assumptions about flavour violation in the
571: squark sector. For instance, assuming squarks diagonal in flavour, the
572: SUSY contribution to the $b\rightarrow s\gamma$ decay rate is
573: dominated by chargino--stop and $H^{\pm}$--W loops, which are strongly
574: suppressed in our case by the low value of $\tan\beta$ and by the fact
575: that there are no light masses to compensate this.
576:
577: The situation is potentially different in the case of the decay
578: $B_s\rightarrow \mu\mu$, since its dominant SUSY contribution scales
579: as $\tan^6\beta\,|\mu|^2/M_{H_1}^4$ and may have a resonance
580: enhancement when $H_1$ is so light that $M_{H_1}\sim M_{B_s}$.
581: Neglecting the threshold corrections which are not so important in our
582: case, we estimate the branching ratio based on the approximated
583: expression~\cite{Ibrahim:2002fx}
584: \begin{equation}
585: B(B_s\rightarrow \mu\mu)\simeq
586: \frac{2\,\tau_{B_s}\,M_{B_s}^5\,f_{B_s}^2}{64\pi} \left|C
587: \right|^2(O_{\phi_1 1}^4+O_{a 1}^4)
588: \label{eq:bsmumu}
589: \end{equation}
590: with
591: \begin{equation}
592: C\equiv
593: \frac{G_F\alpha}{\sqrt{2}\pi}V_{tb}V_{ts}^*\left(\frac{\tan^3\beta}{4 \sin^2\theta_W}\right)
594: \left[\frac{m_\mu \,m_t\, |\mu|}{M_W^2 (M_{H_1}^2-M_{B_s}^2)}\right]
595: \left(\frac{\sin 2 \theta_{\tilde{t}}}{2} \right)\Delta f_3
596: \end{equation}
597: \noindent where $\Delta f_3=f_3(x_2)-f_3(x_1)$ with
598: $x_i=m^2_{\tilde{t_i}}/|\mu|^2$ and $f_3(x)=x\log x/(1-x)$ and
599: $\theta_{\tilde{t}}$ the stop mixing angle~\footnote{Following the
600: calculation in Ref.~\protect\cite{dedes}, one might get a different
601: expression than that of Eq. (\protect\ref{eq:bsmumu}), in that the
602: branching ratio would scale as: $(O_{\phi_1 1}^2+O_{a 1}^2)^2$.} .
603: %
604: In Fig.~\ref{fig:dtl}, we show three contour lines of the rescaled
605: $\hat{B}(B_s\rightarrow \mu\mu)\equiv (B_s\rightarrow \mu\mu) \times
606: 10^7$: $\hat{B}(B_s\rightarrow \mu\mu)=2$ (solid), 20 (dotted), and
607: 200 (dashed).
608: %
609: For the parameters chosen by combining the results from LEP2 searches,
610: Thallium EDM, and Bottomonium decay, Eq. (\ref{eq:tanb_mh1}), we get:
611: $B(B_s\rightarrow \mu\mu)_{CPX}\simeq 6\times 10^{-7}$ taking
612: $f_{B_s}=0.23$ GeV. This is three times larger than the present 95 \%
613: C.L. limit~\cite{bsmumu_limit}: $B(B_s\rightarrow \mu\mu)<2\times
614: 10^{-7}$. This can be easily made consistent with the present
615: experimental constraint if some mild cancellation takes place. The ``GIM
616: operative point'' mechanism discussed in Ref.~\cite{dedes} may be an
617: example of such cancellation, when the squark mass matrices are
618: flavour diagonal. In particular, we find that $B(B_s\rightarrow
619: \mu\mu)_{CPX}$ is consistent to the experimental upper bound by
620: choosing $0.8\lsim \rho\lsim 0.9$, where $\rho\equiv
621: m_{\tilde{q}}/M_{\rm SUSY}$ is the hierarchy factor introduced in
622: Ref.~\cite{dedes}, with $m_{\tilde{q}}$ the soft mass for squarks of
623: the first two generations~\footnote{To be consistent with the the
624: present $B(B_s\rightarrow \mu\mu)$ limit, one may take a point in the
625: region above the $\hat{B}(B_s\rightarrow \mu\mu)=2$ line in
626: Fig.~\ref{fig:dtl} where one needs a cancellation in the Thallium EDM.
627: We note that an appropriate choice of the phases $\Phi_{A_{e,\mu}}$,
628: $\Phi_{A_{d,s}}$ always allows to make the parameter region of
629: Eq.~(\protect\ref{eq:tanb_mh1_enlarged}) consistent with the Thallium
630: EDM constraint when $\rho\simeq$ 0.9. We keep Eq.~(\ref{eq:tanb_mh1})
631: as our reference point, assuming cancellation in $B(B_s\rightarrow
632: \mu\mu)$.}.
633:
634: As far as the SUSY contribution to the anomalous magnetic dipole
635: moment of the muon $\delta a_{\mu}^{SUSY}$ is concerned, as is well
636: known uncertainties in the SM make a comparison with the experimental results
637: difficult. In particular, by combining the SM hadronic vacuum
638: polarization results obtained from $e^+e^-$ and $\tau^+\tau^-$ data,
639: the SM calculation turns out to be compatible with observation, and
640: the following 2--$\sigma$ allowed interval for $\delta a_{\mu}^{SUSY}$
641: is found~\cite{light_neutralinos}: -160$\lsim \delta
642: a_{\mu}^{SUSY}\times 10^{11}\lsim 680$. The corresponding contribution
643: from light neutralinos in the CPX scenario falls comfortably into this
644: range: $\delta a_{\mu\;CPX}^{SUSY}\times 10^{11}\simeq 1.5$ (to
645: estimate this we have assumed for the trilinear coupling of the smuon
646: the same value of the trilinear couplings of the third family given in
647: Eq. (\ref{eq:mssm-intro-CPXdef})).
648:
649:
650:
651: \section{The relic density}
652: \label{section:relicdensity}
653: Taking into account the latest data from the cosmic microwave data
654: (CMB) combined with other observations~\cite{wmap3} the 2--$\sigma$
655: interval for the DM density of the Universe (normalized to the
656: critical density) is:
657: \begin{equation}
658: 0.096<\Omega_m h^2<0.122\,,
659: \label{eq:wmap3}
660: \end{equation}
661: \noindent where $h$ is the Hubble parameter expressed in units of 100
662: km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$. In Eq.(\ref{eq:wmap3}) the upper bound on
663: $\Omega_m h^2$ establishes a strict upper limit for the abundance of
664: any relic particle. In particular, the neutralino relic abundance is
665: given by the usual expression:
666: \begin{equation}
667: \Omega_{\chi} h^2 = \frac{x_f}{{g_{\star}(x_f)}^{1/2}} \frac{3.3 \cdot
668: 10^{-38} \; {\rm cm}^2}{\widetilde{<\sigma_{ann} v>}},
669: \label{eq:omega}
670: \end{equation}
671: \noindent where $\widetilde{<\sigma_{ann} v>} \equiv x_f {\langle
672: \sigma_{\rm ann} \; v\rangle_{\rm int}}$, ${\langle \sigma_{\rm ann}
673: \; v\rangle_{\rm int}}\equiv\int_{T_0}^{T_f} \langle \sigma_{\rm ann}
674: \; v\rangle \;dT/m_{\chi}$ being the integral from the present
675: temperature $T_0$ up to the freeze-out temperature $T_f$ of the
676: thermally averaged product of the annihilation cross-section times the
677: relative velocity of a pair of neutralinos $\sigma_{\rm ann} \; v$,
678: $x_f$ is defined as $x_f \equiv \frac{m_{\chi}}{T_f}$ and
679: ${g_{\star}(x_f)}$ denotes the relativistic degrees of freedom of the
680: thermodynamic bath at $x_f$. For the determination of $x_f$ we adopt a
681: standard procedure ~\cite{kolb_turner}.
682:
683: In absence of some resonant effect, the natural scale of the
684: annihilation cross section times velocity $\sigma_{ann} v$ of CPX
685: light neutralinos is far too small to keep the relic abundance below
686: the upper bound of Eq.(\ref{eq:wmap3}) (in particular they are very
687: pure $B$--inos and their mass is below the threshold for annihilation
688: to bottom quarks, which is usually the dominant channel of
689: $\sigma_{ann} v$ for light neutralinos
690: ~\cite{light_neutralinos}). However, when $m_{\chi}\simeq M_{H_1}/2$
691: neutralinos annihilate through the resonant channel
692: $\chi\chi\rightarrow H_1\rightarrow standard\; particles$, bringing
693: the relic abundance down to acceptable values. In the Boltzmann
694: approximation the thermal average of the resonant $\sigma_{ann} v$ to
695: the final state $f$ can be obtained in a straightforward way from the
696: following relation among interaction rates:
697: \begin{equation}
698: \frac{n_{\chi}^2}{2}<\sigma_{ann} v>_{{\rm res},f} = <\Gamma(\chi\chi\rightarrow f)>=<\Gamma(\chi\chi\rightarrow
699: H_1)B(H_1\rightarrow f)>=n_{H_1}\Gamma_{\chi}\frac{K_1(x_{H_1})}{K_2(x_{H_1})}B_f,
700: \label{eq:resonant}
701: \end{equation}
702: \noindent where brackets indicate thermal average, $\Gamma_{\chi}$ is
703: the zero--temperature $H_1$ annihilation amplitude to neutralinos and
704: the thermal average of this quantity is accounted for by the ratio of
705: modified Bessel functions of the first kind $K_1$ and $K_2$, $B_f$ is
706: the $H_1$ branching ratio to final state $f$, $n_i=g_i m_i^3
707: K_2(x_i)/(2 \pi^2 x_i)$ are the equilibrium densities with
708: $x_i=m_i/T$, $T$ the temperature, and $g_i$ the corresponding internal
709: degrees of freedom, $g_{\chi}=2$, $g_{H_1}$=1. The factor of 1/2 in
710: front of Eq.(\ref{eq:resonant}) accounts for the identical initial
711: states in the annihilation. From Eq.(\ref{eq:resonant}), and summing
712: over final states $f$, one gets:
713: \begin{equation}
714: <\sigma_{ann} v>_{\rm res}=\frac{\pi^2 M_{H_1}^2}{
715: m_{\chi}^5}\frac{x_{\chi}
716: K_1(x_{H_1})}{K_2^2(x_{\chi})}\Gamma(H_1)B_{\chi}
717: (1-B_{\chi})\Theta\left (\frac{x_{H_1}}{x_{\chi}}-2 \right),
718: \label{eq:sigmav}
719: \end{equation}
720: \noindent with $B_{\chi}=\Gamma_{\chi}/\Gamma(H_1)$ , $\Gamma(H_1)$
721: the total decay amplitude of $H_1$, while $\Theta$ is the Heaveside
722: step function~\footnote{Our result for $<\sigma_{ann} v>_{\rm res}$ is
723: a factor of 2 larger than the corresponding expression calculated in
724: ~\cite{Gondolo}. We explain this discrepancy with the fact that in
725: ~\cite{Gondolo} the Breit--Wigner expression of the cross section,
726: Eq.(6.1), should be a factor 2 larger, to compensate for a factor 1/2
727: contained in the decay amplitude of the resonance to 2 (identical)
728: neutralinos}.
729:
730: By making use in Eq.(\ref{eq:sigmav}) of the approximations $K_1(z)\simeq K_2(z)\simeq
731: (\pi/(2z))^{1/2}\exp(-z)$, valid for $z\gg 1$, the integral over
732: temperature can be done analytically, leading to:
733:
734: \begin{equation}
735: \widetilde{<\sigma_{ann} v>}_{\rm res}\simeq 4\pi^2\frac{x_f
736: \Gamma(H_1)}{m_{\chi}^3}\frac{B_{\chi}(1-B_{\chi})}{\beta_{\chi}}
737: \sqrt{\frac{\delta(\delta+1)}{2}}\left[1-erf\left(
738: \sqrt{2(\delta-1)x_f}\right) \right ],
739: \label{eq:sigmatilde}
740: \end{equation}
741: \noindent where $\delta\equiv M_{H_1}/(2 m_{\chi})$,
742: $\beta_{\chi}=\sqrt{1-\delta^{-2}}$ and $erf(x)=2/\sqrt{\pi}\int_0^x
743: exp(-t^2)\;dt$.
744:
745: %mchi_omega
746: \begin{figure}[t]
747: %\hspace{ 2.0cm}
748: \vspace{0.0cm}
749: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=mchi_omega.ps,width=8cm,bbllx=17, bblly=175,
750: bburx=504, bbury=666}}
751: \vspace{-0.5cm}
752: \caption{{\it Relic abundance as a function of the neutralino mass
753: $m_{\chi}$ for the CPX scenario with $M_{H_1}$=7.5 GeV, $\tan\beta$=3,
754: $M_{\rm SUSY}$=0.5 TeV and $\Phi_{A}=\Phi_3=90^\circ$. The two
755: horizontal lines indicate the interval of Eq.(\protect\ref{eq:wmap3}).
756: The circle, where $\Omega_{\chi} h^2=(\Omega_m h^2)_{min}$, is
757: discussed as ``case A'' in Section \protect\ref{section:dmsearches}.
758: \label{fig:mchi_omega}}}
759: \end{figure}
760:
761:
762: The result of our calculation is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:mchi_omega},
763: where the neutralino relic abundance $\Omega_{\chi} h^2$ is shown as a
764: function of the mass $m_{\chi}$. In this calculation the annihilation
765: cross section has been calculated including the off--resonance
766: contribution to the annihilation cross section. In this way we have
767: checked that, for $m_{\chi}<M_{H_1}/2$, $\widetilde{<\sigma_{ann}
768: v>}_{\rm res}$ is always the dominant contribution in the calculation
769: of $\Omega_{\chi} h^2$, and Eq.(\ref{eq:sigmatilde}) is an excellent
770: approximation of $\widetilde{<\sigma_{ann} v>}$. The off--resonance
771: contribution to the annihilation cross section is also responsible for
772: regularizing the relic density for $m_{\chi}>M_{H_1}/2$, where
773: $\widetilde{<\sigma_{ann} v>}_{\rm res}$ is vanishing. The asymmetric
774: shape of the curve in Fig.~\ref{fig:mchi_omega} is due to the fact that
775: thermal motion allows neutralinos with $m_{\chi}<M_{H_1}/2$ to reach
776: the center--of--mass energy needed to create the resonance, while this
777: is not possible for $m_{\chi}>M_{H_1}/2$. In the same figure, the two
778: horizontal lines indicate the range of Eq.(\ref{eq:wmap3}). The point
779: shown as a circle and indicated as ``case A'' will be used in the
780: following section as a representative point to calculate some signals.
781:
782: In Fig.~\ref{fig:mchi_omega} the neutralino mass range allowed by
783: cosmology is: 3.15 GeV $\simeq m_{\chi} \simeq$ 3.83 GeV. Allowing for
784: the variation of $M_{H_1}$ within the range of
785: Eqs.(\ref{eq:tanb_mh1},\ref{eq:tanb_mh1_enlarged}), this range is
786: enlarged to:
787: \begin{equation}
788: 2.93 \;\;{\rm GeV} \lsim m_{\chi}\lsim 5\;\; {\rm GeV}.
789: \label{eq:mass_range}
790: \end{equation}
791: \noindent In this scenario the neutralino relic abundance can fall in
792: the range of Eq.(\ref{eq:wmap3}) only with some level of tuning at the
793: boundaries of the allowed mass range. For intermediate values of
794: $m_{\chi}$ either the neutralino is a sub--dominant component of the
795: DM, or some non--thermal mechanism for its cosmological density needs
796: to be introduced. Of course all our considerations are valid if
797: standard assumptions are made about the evolution of the early
798: Universe (e.g. about the reheating temperature at the end of
799: inflation, the energy budget driving Hubble expansion, entropy
800: production, etc).
801:
802:
803: \section{Dark matter searches}
804:
805: \label{section:dmsearches}
806: Neutralinos are CDM particles, and are supposed to clusterize at the
807: galactic level. This implies that they can provide the DM density
808: which is gravitationally measured in our Galaxy. In particular, in
809: this section we will assume for the DM density in the neighborhood of
810: the solar system the reference value $\rho_0$= 0.3 GeV/cm$^3$. When
811: we compare our calculation of $\Omega_{\chi}h^2$ to the interval of
812: Eq.(\ref{eq:wmap3}), we interpret the lower bound on the DM relic
813: density $(\Omega_m h^2)_{min}$=0.096 as the average abundance below
814: which the halo density of a specific CDM constituent has to be
815: rescaled as compared to the total CDM halo density. So, whenever
816: $\Omega_{\chi}h^2<(\Omega_m h^2)_{min}$ we assume that neutralinos
817: provide a local density $\rho_{\chi}$ which is only a fraction of
818: $\rho_0$. For the determination of the rescaling factor
819: $\xi\equiv\rho_{\chi}/\rho_0$ we adopt the standard recipe:
820:
821: \begin{equation}
822: \xi=min[1,\Omega_{\chi} h^2/(\Omega_m h^2)_{min}].
823: \label{eq:rescaling}
824: \end{equation}
825:
826: Neutralinos in the halo of our Galaxy can be searched for through
827: direct and indirect methods. In particular, CPX light neutralinos are
828: quite hard to detect through direct detection. Direct detection
829: consists in the measurement of the elastic scattering of neutralinos
830: off the nuclei of a low--background detector. For the mass range of
831: Eq.(\ref{eq:mass_range}), the most stringent upper bound on the
832: neutralino--nucleon coherent elastic cross section $\sigma_{\rm
833: scalar}^{\rm (nucleon)}$ is provided by the CRESST-1 experiment
834: ~\cite{CRESST}, $\sigma_{\rm scalar}^{\rm (nucleon)}\lsim $10$^{-38}$
835: cm$^2$~\footnote{We remind that the DAMA Collaboration measures an
836: annual modulation effect \protect\cite{dama}, compatible to what
837: expected by relic neutralinos in some supersymmetric models
838: \protect\cite{susy_modulation} or by other dark matter candidates
839: \protect\cite{dama2}. The model discussed in the present paper
840: provides elastic cross-sections too low to explain the DAMA modulation
841: effect.}. This value is much above the cross section expected in our
842: scenario, which falls in the range $(\sigma_{\rm scalar}^{\rm
843: (nucleon)})_{CPX}\simeq$ 10$^{-42}$ cm$^2$. This is due to the fact
844: that the neutralino-Higgs coupling which dominates this process is
845: suppressed, since $\tan\beta$ is small and $\chi$'s are very pure
846: $B$-inos due to the large value of $|\mu|$. Moreover, $\sigma_{\rm
847: scalar}^{\rm (nucleon)}$ is dominated by the exchange of scalar Higgs
848: bosons, while $H_1$ is mostly pseudoscalar. Finally, contrary to
849: annihilation, no resonant enhancement is present in the elastic cross
850: section, since scattering proceeds through $t$--channel.
851:
852: For this reason in this section we concentrate on the indirect
853: detection of CPX light neutralinos. In our scenario the neutralino
854: relic density $\Omega_{\chi} h^2$ is driven below the observational
855: limit by the resonant enhancement of the annihilation cross section
856: $\widetilde{<\sigma_{ann} v>}$. The same cross section calculated at
857: present times, $<\sigma_{ann} v>_0$, enters into the calculation of
858: the annihilation rate of neutralinos in our galaxy. This could produce
859: observable signals, like $\gamma$'s, $\nu$'s or exotic components in
860: Cosmic Rays (CR), like antiprotons, positrons, antideuterons.
861:
862: Note, however, that one can have $<\sigma_{ann}
863: v>_0\ll\widetilde{<\sigma_{ann} v>}$. In fact, as already shown in
864: Section \ref{section:relicdensity}, the thermal motion in the early
865: Universe ($x_{\chi}\simeq x_f\simeq 20$) allows neutralino resonant
866: annihilation when $m_{\chi}<M_{H_1}/2$. However, for the same
867: neutralinos the contribution of the resonance to $<\sigma_{ann} v>_0$
868: can be negligible at present times, since their temperature in the
869: halo of our Galaxy is of order $x_{\chi,0}\simeq$10$^{-6}\ll
870: x_f$. This implies that the annihilation cross section can be large
871: enough in the early Universe in order to provide the correct relic
872: abundance, but not so large at present times as to drive indirect
873: signals beyond observational limits.
874:
875: In the following we will discuss expected signals for $\gamma$ rays
876: and antiprotons. The results of our analysis are summarized in
877: Figs.~\ref{fig:gamma_line},\ref{fig:mchi_gamma_egret},\ref{fig:pbar}
878: and \ref{fig:glast}. In all figures observables are calculated in the
879: CPX scenario with $M_{H_1}$=7.5 GeV, $\tan\beta$=3, $M_{\rm SUSY}$=0.5
880: TeV and $\Phi_{A}=\Phi_3=90^\circ$, and plotted as a function of the
881: neutralino mass $m_{\chi}$. The solid lines show our results obtained
882: by adopting the rescaling procedure for the local density explained
883: above, while for comparison, dashed lines are calculated assuming
884: $\rho_{\chi}=\rho_0$. When rescaling is applied, indirect signals are
885: proportional to the combination $\xi\rho_{\chi}^2<\sigma_{ann} v>_0$,
886: so they reach their maximum value when $\Omega_{\chi} h^2=(\Omega_m
887: h^2)_{min}$.
888:
889: For all our results we have adopted, as a reference model, a
890: Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) profile for the DM density:
891:
892: \begin{equation}
893: \rho(r)=\rho_0 \frac{(r_0/a)^{\gamma}[1+(r_0/a)^{\alpha}]^{(\beta-\gamma)/\alpha}}
894: {(r/a)^{\gamma}[1+(r/a)^{\alpha}]^{(\beta-\gamma)/\alpha}}\,,
895: \label{eq:nfw}
896: \end{equation}
897:
898: \noindent where $r_0=8.5$ kpc is the distance of the solar system from
899: the Galactic Center (GC), $a=25$ kpc is the core radius, while
900: $(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)=(1,3,1)$.
901:
902:
903:
904: \subsection{Gamma flux from the Galactic Center}
905:
906:
907: %gamma_line
908: \begin{figure}[t]
909: %\hspace{ 2.0cm}
910: \vspace{0.0cm}
911: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=gamma_line.ps,width=8cm,bbllx=27, bblly=175,
912: bburx=504, bbury=666}}
913: \vspace{-0.5cm}
914: \caption{{\it Rescaled, zero--temperature neutralino annihilation
915: cross section to two photons, as a function of $m_{\chi}$. For the
916: solid line the rescaling factor $\xi$ is calculated according to
917: Eq.~(\protect\ref{eq:rescaling}), while for the dashed one
918: $\xi=1$. The solid horizontal line shows the corresponding constraint
919: from a search for a $\gamma$ line from the GC from EGRET
920: \protect\cite{EGRET_gammaline}. The dashed horizontal line is an
921: estimate for the sensitivity of GLAST \protect\cite{glast} for a
922: similar search, when model $A-N2$ of Ref.\protect\cite{gc_background}
923: is used to extrapolate HESS data to lower energies. Circle: see
924: caption of Fig.~\protect\ref{fig:mchi_omega}.
925: \label{fig:gamma_line}}}
926: \end{figure}
927:
928:
929:
930: %mchi_gamma_egret
931: \begin{figure}[t]
932: %\hspace{ 2.0cm}
933: \vspace{0.0cm}
934: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=mchi_gamma_egret.ps,width=8cm,bbllx=22, bblly=175,
935: bburx=504, bbury=666}}
936: \vspace{-0.5cm}
937: \caption{{\it Continuum $\gamma$ flux from the GC calculated for
938: $E_{\gamma}$=122 MeV. For the solid line the neutralino local density
939: is rescaled according to Eq.~(\protect\ref{eq:rescaling}), while for
940: the dashed one, $\xi=1$. The fluxes are compared to the corresponding
941: measurement from EGRET \protect\cite{EGRET}, shown as the horizontal
942: solid line. Circle: see caption of Fig.~\protect\ref{fig:mchi_omega}.
943: \label{fig:mchi_gamma_egret}}}
944: \end{figure}
945:
946: In Figs.~\ref{fig:gamma_line} and \ref{fig:mchi_gamma_egret} we show our
947: results for a $\gamma$ signal from the GC, which is the most promising
948: source of $\gamma$' from neutralino annihilation. Note that signals
949: from the GC are proportional to the line--of--sight integral (i.e.,
950: performed on a path pointing from the observer to the $\gamma$ source)
951: $\bar{J}\equiv 1/{\Delta\Omega}\int_{l.o.s.} \rho_{\chi}^2 \;dl
952: \;d\Omega$, where $\Omega$ is the pointing angle of observation in the
953: sky and $\Delta\Omega$ is the experimental angular resolution. The
954: quantity $\bar{J}$ is very sensitive to the particular choice of
955: density profile, and may span several orders of magnitude, especially
956: for those models that diverge in the origin, as for the NFW, where a
957: cut--off radius $r_{cut}$ is needed ~\cite{pieri}. In particular, in
958: our calculation we use: $r_{cut}=10^{-2}$ pc.
959:
960: The $\gamma$ signal from neutralinos takes two contributions: a line
961: with $E_{\gamma}=m_{\chi}$, produced by direct annihilation of
962: $\chi$'s to two $\gamma$'s, and a continuum, which is mainly due to
963: the annihilation of $\pi^0$'s produced in the fragmentation and decay
964: of other final states (quarks,gluons and $\tau$'s).
965:
966: In the first case, the zero--temperature annihilation cross section
967: of neutralinos to photons $<\sigma_{ann} v>_{0,\gamma\gamma}$ is
968: usually suppressed, since it takes place at the one--loop
969: level. However, in our case the contribution of the $H_1$ resonance,
970: $\chi\chi\rightarrow H_1\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$ can lead to a strong
971: enhancement of the signal, as is evident from
972: Fig.~\ref{fig:gamma_line}, where our calculation of $\xi^2<\sigma_{ann}
973: v>_{0,\gamma\gamma}$ is compared to the upper bound (horizontal solid
974: line) on the same quantity from EGRET~\cite{EGRET_gammaline} (such
975: analysis has been performed on a region of
976: 10$^{\circ}\times$10$^{\circ}$ around the GC, which, for our
977: assumptions, implies $\bar{J}\simeq$ 120 GeV$^2$ cm$^{-6}$ kpc). In
978: this figure the solid line shows our result when $\xi^2$ is calculated
979: according to Eq.(\ref{eq:rescaling}), while for the dashed line
980: $\xi=1$.
981:
982:
983: In the same figure we also show with a horizontal dashed line an
984: estimate for the prospect of detection of the same quantity with GLAST
985: (in this case we have assumed an angular resolution of
986: $\Delta=10^{-5}$ sr in the calculation of $\bar{J}$, leading to
987: $\bar{J}\simeq$ 2500). This estimate is somewhat uncertain, since HESS
988: ~\cite{hess} has detected a TeV source of $\gamma$'s in the GC which
989: is likely to be of standard origin, representing a background for DM
990: searches, and potentially making detection of new physics in that
991: region more difficult~\cite{gc_background}. Our estimate of the
992: background is obtained by extrapolating the HESS source to lower
993: energies by using the model $A-N2$ described in ~\cite{gc_background}
994: (we have made the same assumptions also to estimate the horizontal
995: solid line in Fig.~\ref{fig:glast}). Our choice of model $A-N2$ is
996: optimistic, since it implies the smallest extrapolated background at
997: low energies among those discussed in ~\cite{gc_background}. Of
998: course, a more conservative choice for the model adopted to explain
999: the HESS source could make prospects of DM detection for GLAST in the
1000: GC much worse.
1001:
1002: As far as the continuum signal is concerned, we have calculated the
1003: $\gamma$ yield from the final states of neutralino annihilation using
1004: {\tt PYTHIA}~\cite{pythia}. The result of the calculation is shown in
1005: Fig.~\ref{fig:mchi_gamma_egret}, where we have evaluated the $\gamma$
1006: flux $\phi_{\gamma}$ from the GC for $E_{\gamma}=122$ MeV, and
1007: compared it with the corresponding flux measurement from EGRET
1008: ~\cite{EGRET}, shown as a horizontal solid line (this particular
1009: energy bin is within the range where the data are well fitted by a
1010: standard background. In this case the flux has been measured in an
1011: angular region of 10$^{\circ}\times$4$^{\circ}$ around the GC, which
1012: corresponds, for our choice of parameters, to $\bar{J}\simeq$ 184
1013: GeV$^2$ cm$^{-6}$ kpc).
1014:
1015: From Figs.~\ref{fig:gamma_line},\ref{fig:mchi_gamma_egret} we can
1016: conclude that, with reasonable choices for the DM density profile,
1017: $\gamma$ signals in our scenario are compatible with observations. In
1018: both figures we have indicated with a circle the point indicated as
1019: ``case A'' in Fig.~\ref{fig:mchi_omega}.
1020:
1021:
1022:
1023: \subsection{Antiproton flux}
1024: \label{section:pbars}
1025:
1026:
1027:
1028: %chi2_pbar
1029: \begin{figure}[t]
1030: %\hspace{ 2.0cm}
1031: \vspace{0.0cm}
1032: \centerline{
1033: \epsfig{figure=panels_pbar.ps,width=14cm,bbllx=64, bblly=193,
1034: bburx=544, bbury=436}
1035: }
1036: \vspace{-0.5cm}
1037: \caption{{\it {\bf Left:} $\chi^2$ calculated for the
1038: top--of--atmosphere $\bar{p}$ flux compared to the experimental data
1039: from BESS and AMS \protect\cite{pbar_data} (explicitly shown in the
1040: right--hand panel). For the solid line the neutralino local density is
1041: rescaled as explained in Section \protect\ref{section:dmsearches}. For
1042: the dashed one, $\xi=1$. The solid horizontal line indicates the 99.5
1043: \% C.L. upper bound for the $\chi^2$. The comparison of the $\chi^2$
1044: with its upper limit allows to set an upper bound to $m_{\chi}$,
1045: indicated by case B and shown as a triangle. On the other hand the
1046: circle indicates case A, introduced in
1047: Fig.~\protect\ref{fig:mchi_omega}.{\bf Right:} Top--of--atmosphere
1048: antiproton flux as a function of the kinetic TOA energy of
1049: $\bar{p}$'s, for the cases $A$ (solid curve) and $B$ (dashes), shown
1050: in the left panel as a circle and a triangle, respectively. In both
1051: cases the lower curve shows the contribution from primaries produced
1052: by neutralino annihilation, while the upper curve is the total flux
1053: where the primary contribution is added to the standard secondary
1054: one. The 32 experimental points \protect\cite{pbar_data} are the same
1055: that are used to calculate the $\chi^2$ shown in the left--hand panel:
1056: full circles: BESS 1995-97; open squares: BESS 1998; stars: AMS.
1057: \label{fig:pbar}}}
1058: \end{figure}
1059:
1060:
1061: As far as light neutralinos are concerned, a particularly stringent
1062: limit is provided by the flux of primary antiprotons that are produced
1063: from the hadronization of neutralino--annihilation final states
1064: ~\cite{indirect,pbars,propagation}. This is due to the fact that the
1065: $\bar{p}$ flux observed experimentally is quite in agreement with that
1066: expected from $\bar{p}$ secondary production from cosmic
1067: rays~\cite{pbar_data}, so that not much room is left for exotic
1068: contributions. Moreover, as all other annihilation processes, the
1069: primary neutralino signal scales with the neutralino number density
1070: $\propto 1/m_{\chi}^2$, so it is enhanced for light masses. However,
1071: once they are produced in the DM halo, primary $\bar{p}$'s interact
1072: with the magnetic field of the Galaxy, and a complex propagation model
1073: is needed in order to calculate the fraction of them that reaches the
1074: Earth. Unfortunately, the main parameters of the propagation model are
1075: fixed by using secondary CR data (such as the $B$/$C$ ratio) which
1076: mainly depend on the galactic disk, while primary $\bar{p}$'s from
1077: neutralino annihilation are produced in the galactic halo. This
1078: induces uncertainties in the primary flux as large as two orders of
1079: magnitude ~\cite{pbars}. In particular, for our analysis we have used
1080: the public code provided by Ref.~\cite{propagation} for the $\bar{p}$
1081: propagation. Although the code of Ref.~\cite{propagation} is a
1082: simplified one, where in particular energy--redistribution effects are
1083: neglected, it serves well our needs for checking the viability of our
1084: scenario. In the left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:pbar} we show the
1085: $\chi^2$ calculated by comparing the sum of the primary and secondary
1086: top-of-atmosphere (TOA) $\bar{p}$ fluxes to the experimental data from
1087: BESS and AMS. In particular, for the calculation of the $\chi^2$ we
1088: have used the same 32 data points from BESS 1995-97, BESS 1998 and AMS
1089: 1998~\cite{pbar_data} shown in the right panel. For our calculation we
1090: have used a solar modulation parameter $\phi$= 500 MV, corresponding to
1091: the period of minimal solar activity when these experiments have taken
1092: data. Moreover, in order to be conservative, we have used the minimal
1093: propagation model in Table III of Ref.~\cite{propagation},
1094: i.e. $\delta$=0.85, $K_0$=0.0016 kpc$^2$ Myr$^{-1}$, $L$=1 kpc,
1095: $V_c$=13.5 km/s and $V_A=$ 22.4 km/s for the propagation parameters
1096: $\delta$ and $K_0$, for the size of the diffusion zone $L$, and for
1097: the galactic wind $V_c$. In absence of a SUSY contribution we find
1098: $\chi^2\simeq$30, which confirms the good agreement between the data
1099: and the standard secondary production (for this latter flux we use the
1100: quantity calculated in ~\cite{propagation}). As a conservative upper
1101: bound for the $\chi^2$ we take $\chi^2=60$, which for 32 degrees of
1102: freedom implies a statistical disagreement at the level of 99.5
1103: \%. This value is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:pbar} as a solid horizontal
1104: line.
1105:
1106:
1107:
1108:
1109: \begin{figure}[t]
1110: %\hspace{ 2.0cm}
1111: \vspace{0.0cm}
1112: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=glast.ps,width=8cm,bbllx=22, bblly=175,
1113: bburx=504, bbury=666}}
1114: \vspace{-0.5cm}
1115: \caption{{\it Expected signal for GLAST \protect\cite{glast} for a
1116: gamma continuum flux from the Galactic Center as a function of the
1117: $\gamma$ energy for the cases $A$ (solid curve) and $B$ (dashes)
1118: indicated in Fig.~\protect\ref{fig:mchi_omega},
1119: \protect\ref{fig:gamma_line} and \protect\ref{fig:mchi_gamma_egret} as
1120: a circle and a triangle, respectively. The horizontal line is an estimate
1121: of the background for GLAST (see text).
1122: \label{fig:glast}}}
1123: \end{figure}
1124:
1125:
1126: From Fig.~\ref{fig:pbar} one can see that, even when the rescaled
1127: neutralino local density is used, the $\chi^2$ from $\bar{p}$ data
1128: exceeds 60 for $m_{\chi}\simeq$ 3.77 GeV. This values for the
1129: neutralino mass is indicated with a triangle (case B), along with the
1130: circle which indicates case A introduced in Fig.~\ref{fig:mchi_omega}.
1131: Both cases are shown in the right--hand panel, where the upper curves
1132: show the total $\bar{p}$ fluxes, while the lower curves show the SUSY
1133: contributions.
1134:
1135: %pbar
1136: %\begin{figure}[t]
1137: %\hspace{ 2.0cm}
1138: %\vspace{0.0cm}
1139: %\centerline{\epsfig{figure=pbar.ps,width=8cm,bbllx=41, bblly=191,
1140: % bburx=507, bbury=645}}
1141: %\vspace{-0.5cm}
1142: %\caption{{\it Top--of--atmosphere antiproton flux as a function of the
1143: %kinetic TOA energy of $\bar{p}$'s, for the cases $A$ (solid curve) and
1144: %$B$ (dashes), indicated in Fig.~\protect\ref{fig:mchi_omega} as a
1145: %circle and a triangle, respectively. In both cases the lower curve shows
1146: %the contribution from primaries produced by neutralino annihilation,
1147: %while the upper curve is the total flux where the SUSY $\bar{p}$
1148: %primary flux is added to the standard secondary one. The 32
1149: %experimental points \protect\cite{pbar_data} are the same that are
1150: %used to calculate the $\chi^2$ shown in
1151: %Fig.~\protect\ref{fig:chi2_pbar}: full circles: BESS 1995-97;
1152: %open squares: BESS 1998; stars: AMS.
1153: %\label{fig:pbar}}}
1154: %\end{figure}
1155:
1156: From the discussion of this section, where $m_{H_1}$=7.5 GeV and
1157: $\tan\beta$=3, we obtain for $m_{\chi}$ the allowed range: 3.15 GeV
1158: $\lsim m_{\chi} \lsim$ 3.77 GeV. The boundaries of this range
1159: correspond to the cases A and B introduced previously. Assuming for
1160: $M_{H_1}$ and $\tan\beta$ the range of Eqs. (\ref{eq:tanb_mh1},
1161: \ref{eq:tanb_mh1_enlarged}) this interval for $m_{\chi}$ is enlarged
1162: to 2.93 GeV $\lsim m_{\chi} \lsim$ 5 GeV.
1163:
1164: We conclude this section by showing and example for the prospects of
1165: detection for cases A and B in future DM searches: in
1166: Fig.~\ref{fig:glast} the $\gamma$ continuum flux from the GC is
1167: estimated for GLAST (we have assumed here an angular resolution of
1168: $\Delta=10^{-5}$ sr in the calculation of $\bar{J}$, leading to
1169: $\bar{J}\simeq$ 2500). This flux is compared to an estimate of the
1170: background for the same detector, shown as a horizontal line,
1171: calculated with the same assumptions as in Fig.~\ref{fig:gamma_line},
1172: where model $A-N2$ of Ref.\protect\cite{gc_background} is used to
1173: extrapolate HESS data to lower energies.
1174:
1175:
1176: \section{Conclusions}
1177:
1178: In the present paper we have discussed the lower bound to the lightest
1179: Higgs boson $H_1$ in the MSSM with explicit CP violation, and the
1180: phenomenology of the lightest relic neutralino in the same scenario.
1181: In particular, we have examined the parameter space region
1182: $M_{H_1}\lsim 10$ GeV and $3\lsim \tan\beta \lsim 10$,
1183: in the CPX scenario, an interval which has not been excluded by
1184: the combined searches of the four LEP collaborations.
1185: %In the present paper we have examined the MSSM parameter space region
1186: %{\bf R1} which has not been excluded in the CPX scenario
1187: %by the combined searches of the four LEP collaborations.
1188: %The region is characterized by the lightest Higgs boson with $M_{H_1}\lsim 10$ GeV
1189: %and medium values of $\tan\beta$, $3\lsim \tan\beta \lsim 10$.
1190: %
1191: We find that the combination of experimental constraints coming from
1192: Thallium EDM measurements and quorkonium decays restricts the region
1193: allowed by LEP to: $7~{\rm GeV} \lsim M_{H_1}\lsim 7.5$ GeV, $\tan\beta
1194: \simeq 3$. In this range, the branching ratio $B(B_s\rightarrow
1195: \mu\mu)$ is compatible to the present experimental upper bounds
1196: provided some moderate cancellation is allowed between the stop--loop
1197: contribution and that of other squarks. Furthermore, the allowed
1198: parameter space can be relaxed to $7~{\rm GeV}\lsim M_{H_1} \lsim
1199: 10~{\rm GeV}$ and $3\lsim \tan\beta \lsim 5$ if a cancellation less
1200: severe than 1 part in 10 is also assumed in Thallium EDM between
1201: two--loop contributions and, for example, those depending from first-- and
1202: second--generation phases.
1203: %indirect constraints coming from the
1204: %Thallium EDM and $B_s\rightarrow \mu\mu$ decay can be evaded by
1205: %assuming cancellation which is less severe than 1 part in 10.
1206:
1207: For the above choice of parameters and assuming a departure from the
1208: usual GUT relation among gaugino masses ($|M_1| \ll |M_2|$) we find
1209: that neutralinos with $2.9~{\rm GeV} \lsim m_{\chi}\lsim 5~{\rm GeV}$
1210: can be viable DM candidates. We refer to them as CPX light
1211: neutralinos. In particular, in the CPX scenario the neutralino is a
1212: very pure $B$-ino configuration, suppressing its Higgs--mediated cross
1213: sections. However, through resonant annihilation to $H_1$ the thermal
1214: relic density of neutralinos with $m_{\chi}\simeq M_{H_1}/2$ can be
1215: either tuned within the range compatible to WMAP or virtually erased,
1216: allowing for alternative non-thermal mechanisms. The cosmologically
1217: allowed range for $m_{\chi}$ extends to $m{\chi}\lsim M_{H_1}/2$ due
1218: to the effect of thermal motion in the early Universe.
1219: %
1220: %Finally, we have discussed the phenomenology of CPX light neutralinos,
1221: We also have discussed the phenomenology of CPX light neutralinos,
1222: showing that signals for indirect Dark Matter searches
1223: %, which are more promising than direct detection,
1224: are compatible with the present experimental constraints, as long as
1225: $m_\chi\lsim M_{H_1}/2$. On the other hand, part of the range
1226: $m_\chi\gsim M_{H_1}/2$ allowed by cosmology is excluded by antiproton
1227: fluxes.
1228:
1229: %Finally, we note that our study shows some generic features
1230: %of the model beyond the MSSM with explicit CP violation
1231: %in which Higgs bosons may escape the LEP searches and the
1232: %observed amount of the DM is explained through resonance annihilation,
1233: %like as in the next--to--minimal supersymmetric
1234: %model (NMSSM) ~\cite{NMSSM1,NMSSM2}.
1235:
1236: Finally, we note that our study shares some generic features with other
1237: models such as the next--to--minimal supersymmetric model (NMSSM), in
1238: which a light Higgs boson may escape LEP searches and the observed amount
1239: of DM is explained through neutralino resonant annihilation
1240: ~\cite{NMSSM1,NMSSM2}.
1241:
1242: %The region of the MSSM parameter space discussed in the present paper
1243: %is compatible to observation at the price of some amount of
1244: %tuning. However, it is well defined, depends on a restricted number of
1245: %parameters, and allows for a (semi) analytic calculation of most
1246: %relevant quantities such as the relic density and the neutralino
1247: %composition. Moreover, it is representative of any situation where
1248: %resonant annihilation keeps the neutralino relic density below its
1249: %observational upper limit (an example of this situation is the ``Higgs
1250: %funnel'' scenario in SUGRA models, or the NMSSM model of
1251: %Refs.~\cite{NMSSM1,NMSSM2}).
1252: %A general feature of this kind of scenario is that, when
1253: %$m_{\chi}<m_R/2$, where $m_R$ is the mass of the resonance, the
1254: %high--temperature annihilation cross section in the early Universe
1255: %which enters into the calculation of the relic abundance is strongly
1256: %enhanced by thermal motion, while the corresponding zero--temperature
1257: %cross section responsible of neutralino annihilations in the halo of
1258: %our Galaxy is not. This leads in a natural way to the correct relic
1259: %abundance while indirect signals remain within the bounds from DM
1260: %searches.
1261:
1262:
1263: \section*{Acknowledgments}
1264: The work of J.S.L. was supported in part by
1265: the Korea Research Foundation (KRF)
1266: and the Korean Federation of Science and Technology Societies Grant
1267: and in part by the KRF grant KRF--2005--084--C00001
1268: funded by the Korea Government (MOEHRD, Basic Research Promotion Fund).
1269: S.S. would like to thank A. Bottino for useful discussions.
1270:
1271:
1272: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1273:
1274: \def\plb#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B#1}, #2 (#3)}
1275: \def\npb#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B#1}, #2 (#3)}
1276: \def\prd#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D#1}, #2 (#3)}
1277: \def\prl#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf #1}, #2 (#3)}
1278: \def\rmp#1#2#3{Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf #1}, #2 (#3)}
1279: \def\mpl#1#2#3{Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf A#1}, #2 (#3)}
1280: \def\rep#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf #1}, #2 (#3)}
1281: \def\sci#1#2#3{Science {\bf #1}, #2 (#3)}
1282: \def\astro#1#2#3{Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf #1}, #2 (#3)}
1283: \def\epj#1#2#3{Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ {\bf C#1}, #2 (#3)}
1284: \def\jhep#1#2#3{JHEP {\bf #1}, #2 (#3)}
1285: \def\ptp#1#2#3{Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf #1}, #2 (#3)}
1286: \def\ijmp#1#2#3{Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf A#1}, #2 (#3)}
1287:
1288: %%========================================================================================
1289: %% General reviews on SUSY DM
1290: %\cite{Chung:2003fi}
1291: \bibitem{susy_review} For some recent reviews, see, for instance
1292: D.~J.~H.~Chung, L.~L.~Everett, G.~L.~Kane, S.~F.~King, J.~D.~Lykken and L.~T.~Wang,
1293: %``The soft supersymmetry-breaking Lagrangian: Theory and applications,''
1294: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 407}, 1 (2005)
1295: [arXiv:hep-ph/0312378];
1296: G.~Jungman, M.~Kamionkowski and K.~Griest,
1297: %``Supersymmetric dark matter,''
1298: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 267}, 195 (1996)
1299: [arXiv:hep-ph/9506380], and references therein.
1300:
1301:
1302: %%=========================================================================================
1303: %% A%\cite{Spergel:2006hy}
1304: \bibitem{wmap3}
1305: D.~N.~Spergel {\it et al.},
1306: %``Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) three year results:
1307: %Implications for cosmology,''
1308: arXiv:astro-ph/0603449.
1309: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0603449;%%nalysis from on WMAP3
1310:
1311:
1312: %%=========================================================================================
1313: %%Bibliography on SUGRA
1314: \bibitem{SUGRA}
1315: V.~Berezinsky, A.~Bottino, J.~R.~Ellis, N.~Fornengo, G.~Mignola and S.~Scopel,
1316: %``Neutralino dark matter in supersymmetric models with nonuniversal scalar
1317: %mass terms,''
1318: Astropart.\ Phys.\ {\bf 5}, 1 (1996)
1319: [arXiv:hep-ph/9508249];
1320: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9508249;%%
1321: J.~R.~Ellis, K.~A.~Olive, Y.~Santoso and V.~C.~Spanos,
1322: %``Supersymmetric dark matter in light of WMAP,''
1323: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 565}, 176 (2003)
1324: [arXiv:hep-ph/0303043];
1325: M.~Battaglia, A.~De Roeck, J.~R.~Ellis, F.~Gianotti, K.~A.~Olive and L.~Pape,
1326: %``Updated post-WMAP benchmarks for supersymmetry,''
1327: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 33}, 273 (2004)
1328: [arXiv:hep-ph/0306219];
1329: R.~Arnowitt, B.~Dutta and B.~Hu,
1330: %``Dark matter, muon g-2 and other SUSY constraints,''
1331: arXiv:hep-ph/0310103.
1332:
1333:
1334:
1335: \bibitem{APLB} A. Pilaftsis, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58} (1998) 096010;
1336: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 435} (1998) 88.
1337:
1338: \bibitem{CPHIGGS}
1339: %\bibitem{PW}
1340: A. Pilaftsis and C.E.M. Wagner, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 553} (1999) 3;
1341: %\bibitem{Demir}
1342: D.A. Demir, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60} (1999) 055006;
1343: %\bibitem{CDL}
1344: S.Y. Choi, M. Drees and J.S. Lee, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 481} (2000) 57;
1345: %\bibitem{CEPW}
1346: M. Carena, J. Ellis, A. Pilaftsis and C.E.M. Wagner,
1347: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 586} (2000) 92;
1348: %\bibitem{CEPW2}
1349: M. Carena, J. Ellis, A. Pilaftsis and C.E.M. Wagner,
1350: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 625} (2002) 345.
1351:
1352: \bibitem{HeinCP} S.~Heinemeyer, Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C {\bf 22} (2001) 521;
1353: %\cite{Frank:2006yh}
1354: %\bibitem{Frank:2006yh}
1355: M.~Frank, T.~Hahn, S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik, H.~Rzehak and G.~Weiglein,
1356: %``The Higgs boson masses and mixings of the complex MSSM in the
1357: %Feynman-diagrammatic approach,''
1358: arXiv:hep-ph/0611326.
1359: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0611326;%%
1360:
1361: %\cite{Accomando:2006ga}
1362: %\bibitem{Accomando:2006ga}
1363: \bibitem{CPNSH}
1364: E.~Accomando {\it et al.},
1365: %``Workshop on CP studies and non-standard Higgs physics,''
1366: arXiv:hep-ph/0608079.
1367: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0608079;%%
1368:
1369: %\cite{Ellis:2006eh}
1370: %\bibitem{Ellis:2006eh}
1371: \bibitem{CPsuperH_ELP}
1372: J.~R.~Ellis, J.~S.~Lee and A.~Pilaftsis,
1373: %``Higgs phenomenology with CPsuperH,''
1374: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 21} (2006) 1405
1375: [arXiv:hep-ph/0605288].
1376: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0605288;%%
1377:
1378: \bibitem{INhiggs} T. Ibrahim and P. Nath, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}
1379: (2001) 035009; Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 015005;
1380: S.~W.~Ham, S.~K.~Oh,E.~J.~Yoo, C.~M.~Kim and D.~Son, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68} (2003)
1381: 055003.
1382:
1383: \bibitem{Nihei}
1384: %\cite{Nihei:2005va}
1385: %\bibitem{Nihei:2005va}
1386: T.~Nihei,
1387: %``Suppression of the neutralino relic density with supersymmetric CP
1388: %violation,''
1389: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73} (2006) 035005
1390: [arXiv:hep-ph/0508285].
1391: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0508285;%%
1392:
1393: \bibitem{Belanger}
1394: G.~Belanger, F.~Boudjema, S.~Kraml, A.~Pukhov and A.~Semenov,
1395: %``Relic density of neutralino dark matter in the MSSM with CP violation,''
1396: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 115007 (2006)
1397: [arXiv:hep-ph/0604150].
1398: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0604150;%%
1399:
1400:
1401: \bibitem{Gondolo_CP}
1402: P.~Gondolo and K.~Freese,
1403: %``CP-violating effects in neutralino scattering and annihilation,''
1404: JHEP {\bf 0207}, 052 (2002)
1405: [arXiv:hep-ph/9908390].
1406: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9908390;%%
1407:
1408: \bibitem{mchi_lowerbound}
1409: A.~Bottino, F.~Donato, N.~Fornengo and S.~Scopel,
1410: %``Lower bound on the neutralino mass from new data on CMB and implications
1411: %for relic neutralinos,''
1412: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 043506 (2003)
1413: [arXiv:hep-ph/0304080].
1414: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0304080;%%
1415:
1416:
1417: \bibitem{CPX}
1418: M.~Carena, J.~R.~Ellis, A.~Pilaftsis and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,
1419: %``CP-violating MSSM Higgs bosons in the light of LEP 2,''
1420: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 495} (2000) 155
1421: [arXiv:hep-ph/0009212].
1422: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0009212;%%
1423:
1424:
1425: %%Bibliography on light neutralino cosmology
1426: \bibitem{light_neutralinos}
1427: A.~Bottino, N.~Fornengo and S.~Scopel,
1428: %``Light relic neutralinos,''
1429: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 063519 (2003)
1430: [arXiv:hep-ph/0212379].
1431: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212379;%%
1432:
1433: \bibitem{CPsuperH}
1434: J.~S.~Lee, A.~Pilaftsis, M.~Carena, S.~Y.~Choi, M.~Drees, J.~R.~Ellis and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,
1435: %``CPsuperH: A computational tool for Higgs phenomenology in the minimal
1436: %supersymmetric standard model with explicit CP violation,''
1437: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 156}, 283 (2004)
1438: [arXiv:hep-ph/0307377].
1439: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307377;%%
1440:
1441:
1442: \bibitem{LEP_HIGGS}
1443: %\cite{Abbiendi:2004ww}
1444: %\bibitem{Abbiendi:2004ww}
1445: G.~Abbiendi {\it et al.} [OPAL Collaboration],
1446: %``Search for neutral Higgs boson in CP-conserving and CP-violating MSSM
1447: %scenarios,''
1448: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 37} (2004) 49
1449: [arXiv:hep-ex/0406057];
1450: OPAL Physics Note PN505, {\tt http://opal.web.cern.ch/Opal/pubs/physnote/html/pn505.html};
1451: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0406057;%%
1452: %\cite{Heister:2001kr}
1453: %\bibitem{Heister:2001kr}
1454: A.~Heister {\it et al.} [ALEPH Collaboration],
1455: %``Final results of the searches for neutral Higgs bosons in e+ e- collisions
1456: %at s**(1/2) up to 209-GeV,''
1457: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 526} (2002) 191
1458: [arXiv:hep-ex/0201014];
1459: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0201014;%%
1460: %\cite{Abdallah:2003ip}
1461: %\bibitem{Abdallah:2003ip}
1462: J.~Abdallah {\it et al.} [DELPHI Collaboration],
1463: %``Final results from DELPHI on the searches for SM and MSSM neutral Higgs
1464: %bosons,''
1465: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 32} (2004) 145
1466: [arXiv:hep-ex/0303013];
1467: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0303013;%%
1468: %\cite{Achard:2002zr}
1469: %\bibitem{Achard:2002zr}
1470: P.~Achard {\it et al.} [L3 Collaboration],
1471: %``Search for neutral Higgs bosons of the minimal supersymmetric standard
1472: %model in e+ e- interactions at s**(1/2) up to 209-GeV,''
1473: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 545} (2002) 30
1474: [arXiv:hep-ex/0208042]; P. Bechtle in Ref.~\cite{CPNSH}.
1475:
1476: \bibitem{M.Schumacher}
1477: M. Schumacher in Ref.~\cite{CPNSH}.
1478:
1479:
1480: \bibitem{KL} I.B. Khriplovich and S.K. Lamoreaux, {\em CP Violation
1481: Without Strangeness} (Springer, New York, 1997).
1482:
1483: \bibitem{PR} For a recent review, see, M.~Pospelov and A.~Ritz,
1484: %``Electric dipole moments as probes of new physics,''
1485: Annals Phys.\ {\bf 318} (2005) 119.
1486:
1487:
1488: \bibitem{THEDMEXP}
1489: %\cite{Regan:2002ta}
1490: %\bibitem{Regan:2002ta}
1491: B.~C.~Regan, E.~D.~Commins, C.~J.~Schmidt and D.~DeMille,
1492: %``New limit on the electron electric dipole moment,''
1493: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 88} (2002) 071805.
1494: %%CITATION = PRLTA,88,071805;%%
1495:
1496:
1497: \bibitem{CKP} For two-loop Higgs-mediated contributions to EDMs in the
1498: CP-violating MSSM, see D. Chang, W.-Y. Keung and A. Pilaftsis,
1499: Phys.\
1500: Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 82} (1999) 900; A. Pilaftsis, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf
1501: 644} (2002) 263; D.~A.~Demir, O.~Lebedev, K.~A.~Olive, M.~Pospelov
1502: and
1503: A.~Ritz, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 680} (2004) 339;
1504: K.~A.~Olive, M.~Pospelov, A.~Ritz and Y.~Santoso,
1505: %``CP-odd phase correlations and electric dipole moments,''
1506: arXiv:hep-ph/0506106.
1507:
1508:
1509: %\cite{Ellis:2005ik}
1510: \bibitem{Ellis:2005ik}
1511: J.~R.~Ellis, J.~S.~Lee and A.~Pilaftsis,
1512: %``Resonant CP violation in Higgs radiation at e+ e- linear collider,''
1513: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72} (2005) 095006
1514: [arXiv:hep-ph/0507046].
1515: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0507046;%%
1516:
1517:
1518: \bibitem{higgs_hunter_guide} J.F. Gunion, H.E. Haber, G. Kane and
1519: S. Dawson, {\it The Higgs Hunter's Guide} (Perseus Publishing,
1520: Cambridge, MA, 1990).
1521:
1522:
1523: \bibitem{upsilon_visible}
1524: P.~Franzini {\it et al.},
1525: %``LIMITS ON HIGGS BOSONS, SCALAR QUARKONIA, AND ETA (B)'S FROM RADIATIVE
1526: %UPSILON DECAYS,''
1527: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 35}, 2883 (1987).
1528: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D35,2883;%%
1529:
1530: \bibitem{upsilon_invisible}
1531: R.~Balest {\it et al.} [CLEO Collaboration],
1532: %``Upsilon (1s) $\to$ gamma + noninteracting particles,''
1533: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 51}, 2053 (1995).
1534: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D51,2053;%%
1535:
1536: %\cite{Ibrahim:2002fx}
1537: \bibitem{Ibrahim:2002fx}
1538: T.~Ibrahim and P.~Nath,
1539: %``CP violation effects on B/(s,d)0 --> l+ l- in supersymmetry at large
1540: %tan(beta),''
1541: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 016005
1542: [arXiv:hep-ph/0208142].
1543: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208142;%%
1544:
1545: %\bibitem{arnowitt}
1546: % R.~Arnowitt, B.~Dutta, T.~Kamon and M.~Tanaka,
1547: % %``Detection of B/s --> mu+ mu- at the Tevatron Run II and constraints on the
1548: % %SUSY parameter space,''
1549: % Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 538}, 121 (2002)
1550: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0203069].
1551: % %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0203069;%%
1552:
1553: \bibitem{bsmumu_limit}
1554: A.~Abulencia {\it et al.} [CDF Collaboration],
1555: %``Search for $B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-$ and $B_d \to \mu^+ \mu^-$ decays in
1556: %$p\bar{p}$ collisions with CDF II,''
1557: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 95}, 221805 (2005)
1558: [Erratum-ibid.\ {\bf 95}, 249905 (2005)]
1559: [arXiv:hep-ex/0508036];
1560: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0508036;%%
1561: D.~Acosta {\it et al.} [CDF Collaboration],
1562: %``Search for $B_s^0 \to \mu^+ \mu^-$ and $B_d^0 \to \mu^+ \mu^-$ decays in
1563: %$p\bar{p}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 1.96$ TeV,''
1564: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 93}, 032001 (2004)
1565: [arXiv:hep-ex/0403032];
1566: V.~M.~Abazov {\it et al.} [D0 Collaboration],
1567: %``A search for the flavor-changing neutral current decay $B_s^0 \to \mu^+
1568: %\mu^-$ in $p\bar{p}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 1.96$ TeV with the D\O\
1569: %detector,''
1570: {\it ibidem} {\bf 94}, 071802 (2005)
1571: [arXiv:hep-ex/0410039];
1572: %\cite{Abulencia:2005pw}
1573: %\bibitem{Abulencia:2005pw}
1574: A.~Abulencia {\it et al.} [CDF Collaboration],
1575: %``Search for $B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-$ and $B_d \to \mu^+ \mu^-$ decays in
1576: %$p\bar{p}$ collisions with CDF II,''
1577: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 95} (2005) 221805
1578: [Erratum-ibid.\ {\bf 95} (2005) 249905]
1579: [arXiv:hep-ex/0508036].
1580: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0508036;%%
1581:
1582:
1583:
1584: \bibitem{dedes}
1585: A.~Dedes and A.~Pilaftsis,
1586: %``Resummed effective Lagrangian for Higgs-mediated FCNC interactions in the
1587: %CP-violating MSSM,''
1588: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 015012 (2003)
1589: [arXiv:hep-ph/0209306].
1590: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209306;%%
1591:
1592:
1593: \bibitem{kolb_turner}
1594: E. W. Kolb, M. S. Turner, {\it The Early Universe}, Addison Wesley.
1595:
1596:
1597: \bibitem{Gondolo}
1598: P.~Gondolo and G.~Gelmini,
1599: %``Cosmic abundances of stable particles: Improved analysis,''
1600: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 360}, 145 (1991).
1601: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B360,145;%%
1602:
1603: \bibitem{CRESST}
1604: J.~Jochum {\it et al.},
1605: %``Limits on WIMP dark matter using sapphire cryogenic detectors,''
1606: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 124}, 189 (2003);
1607: G.~Angloher {\it et al.},
1608: %``Dark matter search with CRESST cryogenic detectors,''
1609: Phys.\ Atom.\ Nucl.\ {\bf 66}, 494 (2003)
1610: [Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 66}, 521 (2003)].
1611:
1612: \bibitem{dama}
1613: R.~Bernabei {\it et al.},
1614: %``Dark matter search,''
1615: Riv.\ Nuovo Cim.\ {\bf 26N1}, 1 (2003)
1616: [arXiv:astro-ph/0307403].
1617: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0307403;%%
1618:
1619:
1620: \bibitem{susy_modulation}
1621: A.~Bottino, F.~Donato, N.~Fornengo and S.~Scopel,
1622: %``Light neutralinos and WIMP direct searches,''
1623: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 037302 (2004)
1624: [arXiv:hep-ph/0307303].
1625: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307303;%%
1626:
1627: \bibitem{dama2}
1628: R.~Bernabei {\it et al.},
1629: %``Investigating pseudoscalar and scalar dark matter,''
1630: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 21}, 1445 (2006)
1631: [arXiv:astro-ph/0511262].
1632: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0511262;%%
1633:
1634:
1635: \bibitem{EGRET_gammaline}
1636: A.~R.~Pullen, R.~R.~Chary and M.~Kamionkowski,
1637: %``Search with EGRET for a gamma ray line from the galactic center,''
1638: arXiv:astro-ph/0610295.
1639: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0610295;%%
1640:
1641: \bibitem{glast} See for instance,
1642: \verb+ www-glast.slac.stanford.edu/software/IS/glast_lat_performance.htm+.
1643:
1644: \bibitem{gc_background}
1645: G.~Zaharijas and D.~Hooper,
1646: %``Challenges in detecting gamma-rays from dark matter annihilations in the
1647: %galactic center,''
1648: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 103501 (2006)
1649: [arXiv:astro-ph/0603540].
1650:
1651: \bibitem{EGRET}
1652: S.~D.~Hunger {\it et al.},
1653: %``EGRET observations of the diffuse gamma-ray emission from the galactic
1654: %plane,''
1655: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 481}, 205 (1997).
1656: %%CITATION = ASJOA,481,205;%%
1657:
1658: \bibitem{pieri}
1659: N.~Fornengo, L.~Pieri and S.~Scopel,
1660: %``Neutralino annihilation into gamma-rays in the Milky Way and in external
1661: %galaxies,''
1662: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 103529 (2004)
1663: [arXiv:hep-ph/0407342].
1664: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0407342;%%
1665:
1666: \bibitem{hess}
1667: F.~Aharonian {\it et al.} [The HESS Collaboration],
1668: Astron.\ Astrophys. {\bf 425}, L13 (2004).
1669:
1670: \bibitem{pythia}
1671: T.~Sjostrand, S.~Mrenna and P.~Skands,
1672: %``PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual,''
1673: JHEP {\bf 0605}, 026 (2006)
1674: [arXiv:hep-ph/0603175].
1675: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0603175;%%
1676:
1677: \bibitem{indirect}
1678: A.~Bottino, F.~Donato, N.~Fornengo and S.~Scopel,
1679: %``Indirect signals from light neutralinos in supersymmetric models without
1680: %gaugino mass unification,''
1681: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 015005 (2004)
1682: [arXiv:hep-ph/0401186].
1683: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0401186;%%
1684:
1685: \bibitem{pbars}
1686: A.~Bottino, F.~Donato, N.~Fornengo and P.~Salati,
1687: %``Which fraction of the measured cosmic ray antiprotons might be due to
1688: %neutralino annihilation in the galactic halo?,''
1689: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 123503 (1998)
1690: [arXiv:astro-ph/9804137];
1691: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9804137;%%
1692: A.~Bottino, F.~Donato, N.~Fornengo and P.~Salati,
1693: %``Antiproton fluxes from light neutralinos,''
1694: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 083518 (2005)
1695: [arXiv:hep-ph/0507086].
1696: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0507086;%%
1697:
1698:
1699: \bibitem{propagation}
1700: D.~Maurin, R.~Taillet and C.~Combet,
1701: %``Approximate formulae for exotic GCR anti-p and anti-d: Fluxes and
1702: %astrophysical uncertainties,''
1703: arXiv:astro-ph/0609522. To calculate
1704: the $\bar{p}$ propagation we have used the
1705: code provided by the authors at the
1706: link: \verb+ http://wwwlapp.in2p3.fr/~taillet/mtc/mtc_code.tar+.
1707: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0609522;%%
1708:
1709: \bibitem{pbar_data}
1710: S.~Orito {\it et al.} [BESS Collaboration],
1711: %``Precision measurement of cosmic-ray antiproton spectrum,''
1712: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 84}, 1078 (2000)
1713: [arXiv:astro-ph/9906426];
1714: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9906426;%%
1715: T.~Maeno {\it et al.} [BESS Collaboration],
1716: %``Successive measurements of cosmic-ray antiproton spectrum in a positive
1717: %phase of the solar cycle,''
1718: Astropart.\ Phys.\ {\bf 16}, 121 (2001)
1719: [arXiv:astro-ph/0010381];
1720: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0010381;%%
1721: M.~Aguilar {\it et al.} [AMS Collaboration],
1722: %``The Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (Ams) On The International Space Station.
1723: %I: Results From The Test Flight On The Space Shuttle,''
1724: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 366} (2002) 331
1725: [Erratum-ibid.\ {\bf 380} (2003) 97].
1726: %%CITATION = PRPLC,366,331;%%
1727:
1728:
1729:
1730: \bibitem{NMSSM1}
1731: F.~Ferrer, L.~M.~Krauss and S.~Profumo,
1732: %``Indirect detection of light neutralino dark matter in the NMSSM,''
1733: arXiv:hep-ph/0609257.
1734:
1735: \bibitem{NMSSM2}
1736: J.~F.~Gunion, D.~Hooper and B.~McElrath,
1737: %``Light neutralino dark matter in the NMSSM,''
1738: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73} (2006) 015011
1739: [arXiv:hep-ph/0509024];
1740: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0509024;%%
1741: %\cite{Dermisek:2006py}
1742: %\bibitem{Dermisek:2006py}
1743: R.~Dermisek, J.~F.~Gunion and B.~McElrath,
1744: %``Probing NMSSM scenarios with minimal fine-tuning by searching for decays of
1745: %the Upsilon to a light CP-odd Higgs boson,''
1746: arXiv:hep-ph/0612031.
1747: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0612031;%%
1748:
1749:
1750: \end{thebibliography}
1751: \end{document}
1752: