Dark Matter Annihilation to Neutrinos Carlos A. Arguelles,¨ 1, ∗ Alejandro Diaz,2, y Ali Kheirandish,3, z Andr´esOlivares-Del-Campo,4, x Ibrahim Safa,5, 1, { and Aaron C. Vincent6, 7, 8, ∗∗ 1Department of Physics & Laboratory for Particle Physics and Cosmology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA 2Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139 USA 3Department of Physics & Center for Multimessenger Astrophysics Institute for Gravitation and the Cosmos, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park PA 16802 USA 4Institute for Particle Physics Phenomenology (IPPP), Durham University, Durham, UK 5Department of Physics & Wisconsin IceCube Particle Astrophysics Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA 6Department of Physics, Engineering Physics and Astronomy, Queen's University, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada 7Arthur B. McDonald Canadian Astroparticle Physics Research Institute, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada 8Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Waterloo, ON N2L 2Y5, Canada We review the annihilation of dark matter into neutrinos over a range of dark matter masses from MeV=c2 to ZeV=c2. Thermally-produced models of dark matter are ex- pected to self-annihilate to standard model products. As no such signal has yet been detected, we turn to neutrino detectors to constrain the \most invisible channel." We review the experimental techniques that are used to detect neutrinos, and revisit the expected contributions to the neutrino flux at current and upcoming neutrino experi- ments. We place updated constraints on the dark matter self-annhilation cross section to neutrinos hσvi using the most recently available data, and forecast the sensitivity of upcoming experiments such as Hyper-Kamiokande, DUNE, and IceCube Gen-2. Where possible, limits and projections are scaled to a single set of dark matter halo parame- ters for consistent comparison. We consider Galactic and extragalactic signals of s, p, and d-wave annihilation processes directly into neutrino pairs, yielding constraints that range from hσvi ∼ 2:5 × 10−26 cm3s−1 at 30 MeV=c2 to 10−17 cm3s−1 at 1011 GeV=c2. Experiments that report directional and energy information of their events provide much stronger constraints, outlining the importance of making such data public. CONTENTS References 25 I. Introduction1 II. Dark matter annihilation3 A. Galactic contribution4 B. Extragalactic contribution4 I. INTRODUCTION C. Velocity-dependent annihilation6 III. Experimental Methods6 A. Statistical Methods8 The Standard Model (SM) of particle physics is the 1. Background-agnostic methods8 framework that describes matter and its interactions at 2. Background-informed methods9 the most fundamental level. Despite overwhelming suc- B. Neutrino Detection Methods 10 cess as a predictive theory, observations indicate that 1. Neutrino energies below 10 MeV 10 2. Neutrino energies between 10 MeV and 1 GeV 10 the SM is incomplete. Neutrinos have nonzero masses, 3. Neutrino energies from 1 GeV to 107 GeV 11 yet the Higgs mechanism that provides masses for the 4. Neutrino energies above 107 GeV 12 other SM fermions cannot account for the chiral nature of arXiv:1912.09486v3 [hep-ph] 10 Jun 2021 neutrinos and their interactions unless additional particle IV. Results 12 A. Velocity-dependent annihilation 21 content is added to the model. Additionally, overwhelm- B. Dark matter halo uncertainties 21 ing astrophysical and cosmological evidence points to the existence of a new species of weakly-interacting parti- V. Discussion & Conclusions 21 cles { dark matter (DM) { which accounts for 85% of ∼ Acknowledgements 25 the mass budget of the Universe. Local stellar dynam- ics, galactic rotation curves (Persic et al., 1996; Rubin and Ford, 1970), cluster dynamics (Smith, 1936; Zwicky, 1937), and gravitational lensing (e.g. Jee and Tyson, ∗ [email protected] 2009; Jee et al., 2007) all point to mass-to-light ratios y [email protected] in astrophysical objects that are much higher than could z [email protected] x [email protected] be accounted for by stellar objects and gas (for a histor- { [email protected] ical overview see Bertone and Hooper, 2018). Measured ∗∗ [email protected] primordial abundances of light elements tell us that Big 2 Bang Nucleosynthesis requires a total baryon density1 of These models introduce heavy neutrino states, sometimes only Ωb 0:05, while the Cosmic Microwave Background called dark neutrinos, which could also provide a pos- (CMB) and∼ other probes of large scale structure require sible explanation of the MiniBooNE anomaly (Ballett the total density of nonrelativistic matter to be Ωm 0:3. et al., 2019a,b,c; Bertuzzo et al., 2018). \Secret" neu- 2 ∼ trino interactions with dark matter have recently become A leading hypothesis for the nature of this new non- a very active field of investigation, where constraints baryonic component is the Weakly Interacting Massive have been obtained using high-energy astrophysical neu- Particle (WIMP). The relic abundance of WIMPs to- trinos (Arguelles¨ et al., 2017; Capozzi et al., 2018; Cherry day was set as they fell out of equilibrium with the et al., 2016; Choi et al., 2019; Davis and Silk, 2015; Farzan high-temperature plasma of the early Universe. When and Palomares-Ruiz, 2014, 2019; Kelly and Machado, 3 the temperature, T , fell below the DM mass, mχ , the 2018; Murase and Shoemaker, 2019; Pandey et al., 2019), equilibrium distribution became Botlzmann-suppressed, solar neutrinos (Capozzi et al., 2017), cosmology (Baren- namely exp( mχ=T ). At some point, the expansion boim et al., 2019; Olivares-Del Campo et al., 2018a), ac- rate H(t∼), became− larger than the thermally-averaged celerator neutrino experiments (Aguilar-Arevalo et al., self-annihilation rate, preventing further annihilation 2017; Arguelles¨ et al., 2018; Hostert, 2019) and colliders into SM particles, freezing-out the relative density of DM (Primulando and Uttayarat, 2018). particles. The WIMP scenario predicts the observed relic Neutrinos are light, neutral, and notoriously difficult abundance of DM for values of the thermally-averaged to detect. If DM annihilates to heavy states such as self-annihilation rate σv 3 10−26 cm3s−1 regardless muons, quarks, or weak bosons, a neutrino signal will h i ' × of the final annihilation channel. be produced. Unless annihilation occurs in an optically Thermal production of weakly-interacting DM in the thick environment, the associated photon signal will al- Early Universe implies possible ongoing self-annihilation ways be easier to detect. We thus choose to focus on the to SM particles wherever DM exists today. Significant ef- most invisible channel: direct annihilation of DM into fort has gone into searches for indirect signatures of DM neutrino-antineutrino pairs, whose energy will be equal annihilation. Annihilation to most SM states yields an to the DM rest mass, i.e. Eν = mχ. abundance of photons with energies on the order of 10% The past two decades have seen extraordinary progress of the DM mass, such that some of the strongest con- in the field of neutrino physics. Observations span a wide straints on particle DM models are from the (non) ob- energy range, from the MeV pp solar neutrino flux (Agos- servation of X- and gamma-ray signals from the Milky tini et al., 2018) to the PeV (106 GeV) high-energy astro- Way and its satellite galaxies; see e.g. (Albert et al., physical neutrinos (Aartsen et al., 2013, 2014c; Schneider, 2017b; Hoof et al., 2018). Cosmic-ray signatures pro- 2019). Furthermore, limits exist all the way up to ZeV vide similarly constraining limits, reports of excesses (1012 GeV) (Aab et al., 2015a; Aartsen et al., ∼2018). notwithstanding; see (Boudaud et al., 2020) and refer- With these observations, a multitude of experimental ences therein. constraints have been derived on the DM annihilation As X- and gamma-ray experiments rely, by design, cross section to neutrino pairs, either by experimental on electromagnetic signals, they are optimal for prob- collaborations themselves or by independent authors re- ing links between the dark sector and quarks or charged casting results of previous searches. The goal of this work leptons, although neutrino detectors can still play a role is to collect, when available, existing constraints on the in these searches (Cappiello and Beacom, 2019). There is χχ νν¯ annihilation channel, and otherwise to com- a distinct possibility, however, that the principal portal pute! such limits from available data. We focus on the through which the DM interacts with the SM is via the two most promising sources of DM annihilation signal: neutrino sector (Blennow et al., 2019). This naturally 1) the dark matter halo of the Milky Way, in which we arises in \scotogenic" models, in which neutrino mass are deeply embedded, and 2) the full cosmic flux from generation occurs through interactions with the dark sec- the sum of all DM halos within our cosmological horizon. tor (Alvey and Fairbairn, 2019; Baumholzer et al., 2019; Our main results are a set of constraints on a con- Boehm et al., 2008; Escudero et al., 2017a,b; Farzan and stant (s-wave) thermally averaged annihilation cross sec- Ma, 2012; Hagedorn et al., 2018; Patel et al., 2019). tion σv . Where possible, we also compute constraints on p-waveh i ( σv (v=c)2) and d-wave ( σv (v=c)4) suppressed annihilations.h i / These results areh i provided / in 1 By baryonic we refer here to stable nonrelativistic matter made Figures2{6. We cover a mass range from 1 MeV to of SM particles including neutrons, protons and electrons. 1015 MeV. While the upper limit is a function of exper- 2 2 More precisely, the baryon density is inferred to be Ωbh = imental reach, neutrino-coupled dark matter is severely 2 0:0224 ± 0:0001 and the (cold) DM density is Ωch = 0:120 ± constrained below 10 MeV based on its modification 0:001 (Aghanim et al., 2018), where Ωi is the ratio of the density ∼ of component i to the critical density, and the Hubble constant of Neff , the energy density in relativistic particles dur- −1 −1 is H0 ≡ h100 km s Mpc .