Dark Matter through the Axion Portal Jesse Thaler (UC Berkeley)

arXiv:0810.5397 with Yasunori Nomura

Recent progress with Jeremy Mardon and Daniel Stolarski Astrophysical source? )) - 0.4 + – (e

! SNR/Pulsars are e e machines 0.3 PAMELA )+ + (e ! 0.2 [Blasi, Hall, Hooper, Kistler, Pohl, Profumo, Serpico, Stanev, Yuksel, ...] ) / ( + (e ! 0.1 Muller & Tang 1987

MASS 1989 TS93 Dark matter decay? HEAT94+95 CAPRICE94 τ ~ 1026 sec ~ (M )4/TeV5 AMS98 GUT

Positron fraction HEAT00 0.02 Clem & Evenson 2007 [Arvanitaki, Bi, Chen, Dimopoulos, Dubovsky, Graham, Hamaguchi, PAMELA Harnik, Hisano, Ibarra, Ishiwata, Kawasaki, Kohri, Liu, Matsumoto, 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 Moroi, Nakayama, Nardi, Nojiri, Pospelov, Rajendran, Sannino, Shirai, Energy (GeV) Strumia, Takahashi, Torii, Tran, Trott, Yanagida, Yin, Yuan, Zhang, Zhu, ...] FIG. 3: PAMELAConfirms positron fraction HEAT/AMS with other experimental anomaly data. The positron fraction measured by the PAMELA experiment compared with other recent experimental data[24, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35]. One standard deviation error bars are shown. If not visible, they lie inside the data points.

a shower tail catcher scintillator (S4) and a neutron detector. The ToF system provides Dark matter annihilation? ATICa fast signal for triggering the data acquisition and measures the time-of-flight and ioniza- 3 tion energy losses (dE/dx) of traversing particles. It also allows down-going particles to <σv> ~ 10 x WIMP thermal freezeout be reliably identified. Multiple tracks, produced in interactions above the spectrometer, were rejected by requiring that only one strip of the top ToF scintillator (S1 and S2) layers registered an energy deposition (’hit’). Similarly no hits were permitted in either top scintil- [Allahverdi, Arkani-Hamed, Baek, Bai, Barger, Bergstrom, Bertone, Bi, lators of the AC system (CARD and CAT). The central part of the PAMELA apparatus is Bringmann, Brun, Chen, Cholis, Chun, Cirelli, Delahaye, Delaunay, Dobler, 12 Donato, Dutta, Edsjo, Fairbairn, Feldman, Finkbeiner, Fox, Goodenough, Grajek, Hamaguchi, Han, Harnik, Hisano, Hooper, Huh, Ibe, Ishiwata, Kadastik, Kamionkowski, Kane, Kawasaki, Keung, Kim, Ko, Kohri, Kribs, Kyae, Lattanzi, Lineros, Liu, March-Russell, Marfatia, Matsumoto, Maurin, Moroi, Murayama, Nakayama, Nath, Nelson, Nojiri, Nomura, Park, Perez, Phalen, Pierce, Poppitz, Pospelov, Profumo, Raidal, Richardson-McDaniel, Ritz, Salati, Santoso, Shaughnessy, Silk, Simet, Slatyer, Spitzer, Stebbins, Strumia, Takahashi, Taoso, JT, Confirms PPB-BETS anomaly Torii, Watson, Weiner, West, Yanagida, Yin, Yuan, Zhang, Zhu, Zupan, Zurek, ...] New source of galactic Paradigm shift in astrophysics? electrons/positrons! in dark matter physics? DM Annihilation Interpretation?

What is Physics of EWSB connection? ! Physics of Dark Matter

Mass is 10x larger )) - 0.4 (e

! than standard 0.3 )+ + (e

! 0.2 SUSY neutralino! ) / ( + (e ! 0.1 Muller & Tang 1987 Annihilation rate is MASS 1989

TS93 HEAT94+95 1000x larger than

CAPRICE94 AMS98 thermal freezeout!

Positron fraction HEAT00 0.02 Clem & Evenson 2007 PAMELA Lepton-rich 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 Energy (GeV) annihilation!

FIG. 3: PAMELA positron fraction with other experimental data. The positron fraction measured by the PAMELA experiment compared with other recent experimental data[24, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35]. One standard deviation error bars are shown. If not visible, they lie inside the data points. a shower tailThere catcher scintillator (S4) are and a neutron certainly detector. The ToF system provides DM models that can explain PAMELA/ATIC a fast signal for triggering the data acquisition and measures the time-of-flight and ioniza- tion energy losses (dE/dx) of traversing particles. It also allows down-going particles to be reliably identified. Multiple tracks, produced in interactions above the spectrometer, were rejected by requiring that only one strip of the top ToF scintillator (S1 and S2) layers registered an energy deposition (’hit’). Similarly no hitsArewere permitted inthere either top scintil- models as compelling as lators of the AC system (CARD and CAT). The central part of the PAMELA apparatus is 12 the standard SUSY neutralino? The Axion Portal Novel connection between EWSB and DM!

3 c W = WYukawa + λSHuHd + κS + ξSΨΨ

Independent motivation: PQ limit of NMSSM (has light “axion”) Common origin for Higgsino and DM mass! Simple construction to explain PAMELA/ATIC as DM annihilation

Novel collider signatures! Rare Υ decays to γ μ+ μ– at BaBar/Belle Modified Higgs physics at Tevatron/LHC Muon-rich SUSY cascade decays (no, not CDF anomaly)

As well as interesting constraints from LEP, direct detection, gamma ray and neutrino telescopes, ... The Axion Portal Outline

A Revised TeV-Scale Paradigm?

Introducing the Axion Portal

Connecting DM and EWSB

Galactic Signals and Constraints A Revised TeV-Scale Paradigm?

Introducing the Axion Portal DM and Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking

Connecting DM and EWSB

Galactic Signals and Constraints Basic Setup Goal: Heavy dark matter with enhanced halo annihilation and large annihilation rate to leptons Model: Fermion mass from spontaneous symmetry breaking [Nomura, JT] = ξSψψc L − s i a mDM,fa TeV S = f + exp ∼ a √ √ f ! 2" # 2 a $ mDM = ξfa scalar s: enhanced halo annihilation ms 1–10 GeV (non-perturbative effects for ms << fa) ∼(hierarchy problem?) “axion” a: annihilation to leptons ma > 2m (S hu hd coupling make a like a heavy DFSZ axion) ! ∼ Thermal Relic Abundance

ψ s = ξSψψc L − σv (v2) s i a ! "∼O S = fa + exp √2 √2 fa ψ¯ s ! " # $ fa GeV 2000 ψ a 1500! " 1000 σv (v2) (micrOMEGAs result) ! "∼O 500 ¯ ψ a 0 mDM GeV 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

! " ψ a m2 σv = DM + (v2) 128πf 4 σv (v0) ! " a O ! "∼O 26 3 3 10− cm /sec ¯ ! × ψ s (standard WIMP thermal relic) Halo Annihilation Scalar s mediates attractive force between DM –3 Non-perturbative annihilation enhancements at vhalo ~ 10 = ξSψψc !+ Dominant s Decay L − ξ2 a α ψ ξ ≡ 4π a !− 1 2 + s = s(∂µa) ! L √2fa s s s a ··· a ¯ s Axion Portal to SM ψ m α m !− + B α DM to ξ s a ! ξ 2 ! ms vhalo mDM 2 2 ma m! (Need to explain why s is so light) + a Γa !! = c! 2 ! → 16π fa vhalo < αξ

(S hu hd coupling gives standard model fields U(1)PQ charges)

Too many Too many CERN Beam Dump K → π a galactic γ in galactic Too many galactic + – 0 excludes fa < 10 TeV Decays π π π antiprotons γ from τ decays

ma

2me 2mµ mρ + mπ 2mτ 2mb m m 2m K π ! p − (All these constraints can be avoided for leptophilic axion) 360 MeV

2 6 4 TeV Br(Υ aγ) 3 10− sin β + → ∼ × f µ ! a " n =1, 2, 3 a CLEO: < few x 10–6 from 20M Υ(1S) Υ(nS) µ− Belle: ~50M Υ(3S) on tape! BaBar: ~110M Υ(3S) & ~50M Υ(2S) on tape! γ The Axion Portal DM mass from SSB s: enhanced halo annihilation c = ξSψψ a: annihilation to leptons L − (U(1) : 360 MeV < ma < 800 MeV, Rare Υ Decays) + s i a PQ µ S = fa + exp a √2 √2 fa ! " # $ Υ(nS) µ−

+ γ Annihilation in halo... ! ψ a !− mDM,fa TeV !+ ∼ s s s ··· a ψ¯ s a !− ...and at freezeout !+ fa GeV !− ms 1–10 GeV 2000 ∼ 1500! "

1000

500 ma > 2m 0 mDM GeV ! 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 ∼ ! " A Revised TeV-Scale Paradigm?

Introducing the Axion Portal

Connecting DM and EWSB A Supersymmetric Axion Portal

Galactic Signals and Constraints Adding Supersymmetry Focus on a heavy Peccei-Quinn axion 2 –1 –1 2 –1 –1 = A Sh h ξSψψc L − λ u d − 3 c SUSY extension: W = λSHuHd + κS + ξSΨΨ

PQ-symmetric NMSSM SUSY Axion Portal: (Solves μ problem with spontaneous U(1)PQ violation) Just add DM [Ciafaloni, Pomarol; Hall, Watari] [Nomura, JT] Higgsino and DM masses have common origin! (Assuming DM is a thermal relic, no free parameters beyond PQ-SUSY!)

For light scalar s, need small λ and small SUSY breaking for Ψ/Ψc. Axion a mass from explicit U(1)PQ violation (κ term, say). PQ Limit of NMSSM (with DM) 4 free parameters! Assuming DM thermal relic, same as PQ-SUSY

c mDM,fa W = λSHuHd + ξSΨΨ TeV = λA Sh h + m2 h 2 + m2 h 2 Lsoft − λ u d 1| u| 2| d|

mDM,µH , tan β,ma vEW !fa { } 100 GeV µH λfa All else derived from thermal relic or EWSB

2 2 µH = λfa mDM = ξfa tan β = tan β(m1,m2,Aλ) m 10 GeV 2µH 2 2 s λ"fa Aλ = v = v (m ,m ,A ) sin 2β EW EW 1 2 λ

Spectrum controlled by two O(10-1) parameters 2 ms˜ λ" fa 1 GeV µH vEW λ ! ma ≡ fa ≡ fa Constraints and Subtleties

Three states below Z: s, a, ˜s. Mixing angles with Higgs –––– fields O(ε), and LEP bounds safe on direct production mDM,fa TeV for fa at TeV or higher. Chargino bound also satisfied.

Must ensure that ˜s does not overclose the universe. vEW !f Assume ˜s decays to 1-10 eV gravitino, and it is a µ λf 100 GeV cosmologically ok. Actual DM stabilized by additional Z2. H a

mZ –––– 91 GeV

Scalar s can give a large DM-nucleon force. Mild fine- 10 GeV tuning necessary to get Sommerfeld enhancement ms –––– λ"fa without contradicting CDMS/XENON bounds.

2 To have light scalar s, scalar/fermion DM must be nearly ms˜ λ" fa 1 GeV degenerate. Coannihilation shifts preferred values of mDM/fa. ma

mgravitino –––– 1-10 eV Collider Phenomenology Higgs decays to muons via axion portal µ+ (Also, h0 → 2s → 4a→8μ) Since we are in a 4 µ− small λ limit, not Br(h0 aa) λ → h0 + expected to be Br(h b¯b) ∼ λ2 µ dominant mode. 0 → b a

µ− Extended SUSY Cascades with s/a Fields

ET µ+ s˜ ! Would-be lightest neutralino decays to ˜s.

“χ0” µ− a ˜s is typically stable on collider time scales, and gives “massless” missing energy. + standard SUSY final states + Lots of muons from a decays. s a µ “χ0” Lots of muons from s → aa decays. s˜ a µ− + ET µ Because of mixing, χ can decay to Higgs or Z, too. ! 0 µ− A SUSY Axion Portal

Extend PQ-SUSY with DM m ,f c DM a W = λSHuHd + ξSΨΨ TeV

Same number of free parameters vEW !fa mDM,µH , tan β,ma 100 GeV { } µH λfa

µ+ a µ− µ+ h s˜ 0 µ+ 10 GeV a ms λ"fa “χ0” µ− a µ− + standard SUSY final states + s a µ 2 Muon-rich ms˜ λ" fa “χ0” 1 GeV s˜ a µ− Collider E µ+ ! T Signals ma µ− A Revised TeV-Scale Paradigm?

Introducing the Axion Portal

Connecting DM and EWSB

Galactic Signals and Constraints From Positrons to Gamma Rays Cascade Annihilations Axion portal is in broader class of cascade annihilation models [Mardon, Nomura, Stolarski, JT] (Muon Decay) Generic Axion Portal is Two-Step like a One-and-a-Half Step Cascade One-Step (ΨΨ→sa, s→aa, a→ℓℓ) Direct For muon decays, electron spectrum looks as if two extra steps

U(1)PQ Axion Portal is effectively a Three-and-a-Half [see also Cholis, Dobler, Finkbeiner, Goodenough, Step Cascade Weiner; Bergstrom, Bertone, (ΨΨ→sa, s→aa, a→μμ, μ→eνν) Bringmann, Edsjo, Taoso; ...] From Injection to Earth e injection μ→e injection dN dx E! dN dx 100 Direct x! 100 10 ≡ m 10 ! One-Step DM ! 1 1 Direct dN 1 dx dN One-Step 0.1 Two-Step ! n ! 0.1 Two-Step dx ∼ x dx 0.01 n+1 !xn+1 n n 0.01 x (for hierarchical scalar decays) x 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Folded with Galactic Propagation [Moskalenko, Strong; Baltz, Edsjo; Delahaye, Lineros, Donato, Fornengo, Salati; ...] Electrons diffuse in (turbulent) ...and lose energy from inverse galactic magnetic fields (~μG)... Compton scattering, synchrotron. (100 pc)2 dE E2 K ∼ Myr dt ∼ TeV Myr Hard electrons/positrons come from “local” region (< kpc, compare galactic center at 8 kpc) Best Fits for Cascade Models e+e– Cascades μ+μ– Cascades

0.1 0.1 Fraction positron fraction positron fraction + e PAMELA 0.01 PRELIMINARY 0.01 PRELIMINARY

1 10 100 1000 10000 1 10 100 1000 10000 E [GeV] E [GeV]

0.1 0.1 ] ] 1 1 ! ! sr sr 1 1 ! ! s s 2 2 ! ! cm cm 2 2 GeV GeV [ [

) ) Spectrum 0.01 0.01 + + – +e +e ! ! ATIC e e ( ( 3 3 E E + e + PRELIMINARY PRELIMINARY e

1 10 100 1000 10000 1 10 100 1000 10000 E [GeV] E [GeV] Any of these cascades give reasonable fit to PAMELA/ATIC (Approximate HESS electron spectrum also shown) Gamma Rays from FSR Cascade annihilation give softer photons & fewer photons

Photon Spectrum dN α 1 Q Direct: Q = mDM γ EM log in Collinear Limit: dx ∼ π x mµ Cascades: Q = mportal & Softer

DirectDirect to Μ!Μ# toEinasto μ 1-Step1 step to Μ!Μ# toEinasto μ 2-Step2 step to Μ!Μ# toEinasto μ 104 G.C. 104 G.C. mΦ%0.6GeV 104 G.C. mΦ%0.6GeV G.R. G.R. G.R. G.C. mΦ%1GeV G.C. mΦ%1GeV ! ! " G.R. ! " G.R. ! " ! thermal thermal

! thermal v> v>

103 v> 103 103 σ σ σ v>/< v>/< v>/< σ σ σ < <

PRELIMINARY < PRELIMINARY PRELIMINARY 102 102 102 102 103 104 102 103 104 102 103 104 m mDM mDM mDMDM HESS Galactic Center (solid): ~10 pc HESS Galactic Ridge (dashed): ~100 pc Eγ > 250 GeV. Einasto halo profile. Ovals are best fit regions to PAMELA/ATIC. Cascade annihilation weaken FSR gamma ray bounds! (Inverse Compton scattering affects these bounds, but dependent on galactic starlight maps.) Under Investigation... Neutrinos from Galactic Center in Muon Cascades Muon-type neutrinos hit rock, create upward-going muon flux. Important constraints from Super-K [see also Liu, Yin, Zhu; Hisano, Kawasaki, Kohri, Nakayama; ...] For TeV neutrinos, standard assumptions about neutrino-nucleon scattering cross section and muon energy loss start to break down.

Direct Detection Constraints Scalar s: Couples to strange quark through mixing with down-type Higgs. Mediates spin-independent DM-nucleon force. CDMS/XENON bounds very sensitive to mDM, ms, and mixing angle.

Axion a: Only contributes spin-dependent DM-nucleon force, but not at zero velocity. What are the bounds? How does one properly calculate this? (violates micrOMEGAs assumptions) WMAP Haze vs. 408 MHz Radio? A question for the experts Foregrounds meeting, July 16, 2008 WMAP Haze: apparent excess of synchrotron emissions from galactic center (23-61 GHz). [Finkbeiner; Hooper, Dobler, Finkbeiner]

In light of PAMELA/ATIC, DM annihilation uniquely positioned to explain haze [Zhang, Bi, Liu, Liu, Yin, Qiang Yuan, Zhu; ...]

Recent claims that DM annihilation gives too much synchrotron at 408 MHz [Bertone, Cirelli, Strumia, Taoso; Bergstrom, Bertone, Bringmann, Edsjo, Taoso; see also Borriello, Cuoco, Miele]

But 408 MHz sky map used to extract Haze! Q: Is WMAP Haze from DM annihilation consistent with 408 MHz observations? The Axion Portal Straightforward idea... Enhanced halo + c annihilation... ! = ξSψψ S = fa L − " # ψ a !− ...that (re)connects DM and EWSB !+ s s s c ··· a W = λSHuHd + ξSΨΨ ψ¯ s !− ...with copious a + Is this the right explanation lepton production ! for PAMELA/ATIC? !− 0.1 Muon-Rich Collider Signals +

] µ 1 ! sr 1 ! s

2 a ! + µ−

cm µ

2 s˜ h0 +

GeV µ [

“χ0” µ− ) 0.01 a + a +e ! + standard SUSY final states e µ− (

3 + E s a µ µ+ PRELIMINARY “χ0” s˜ a µ− a + 1 10 100 1000 10000 ET µ E [GeV] ! Υ(nS) µ− µ− γ