DESY 18-076, IPMU18-0094

Twin SIMPs

Yonit Hochberg1,∗ Eric Kuflik1,† and Hitoshi Murayama2,3,4,5‡ 1Racah Institute of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91904, Israel 2Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA 3Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA 4Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe (WPI), University of Tokyo, Kashiwa 277-8583, Japan and 5DESY, Notkestraße 85, D-22607 Hamburg, Germany

The hierarchy problem and the identity of dark matter are two of the central driving forces in particle physics. Twin Higgs models provide an elegant solution to the little hierarchy problem, while Strongly Interacting Massive Particles (SIMPs) provide an appealing dark matter candidate. Here we show that SIMPs can easily be embedded in the Twin Higgs setup, such that dark matter and the hierarchy problem can be addressed in a single framework. This also provides a natural explanation to the proximity between the confinement scale of SIMP dark matter and the strong scale of QCD.

INTRODUCTION playing the role of dark matter [10]. The Wess-Zumino- Witten term [11–13] generates the requisite 3 → 2 self- The hierarchy problem between the electroweak scale interactions [10], and the equilibration between the dark and higher energy scales is one of the most pressing prob- sector and the SM can be obtained e.g. via a kinetically lems in particle physics. The discovery of the Higgs bo- mixed hidden photon [14, 15], with many novel experi- son at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in 2012 along mental signatures [14–16]. with the lack of experimental evidence for new weak-scale Since SIMPs are generic in QCD-like sectors, and twin particles highlights this problem further. Indeed, recent Higgs theories contain a QCD-like sector, it is appealing years have sparked new directions for solving the hierar- to try and merge these two notions into one: namely, to chy problem. For instance, Twin Higgs models address embed SIMP dark matter into the QCD sector of twin the hierarchy problem without introducing new parti- Higgs. Then, SIMPs would be the pseudo-scalar mesons cles charged under the Standard Model (SM) [1]. The in the twin QCD sector. In what follows, we show that presence of a mirror sector with its own gauge group of this can easily be done, obtaining a natural theory with strongly self-interacting sub-GeV dark matter while ad- SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1) is assumed, with a Z2 symme- try that relates the SM and mirror twin sectors acting dressing the hierarchy problem. (For other works on dark to protect the Higgs mass from quadratic divergences at matter in twin Higgs models, see e.g. Refs. [17–20].) Moreover, the similarity of the confining scales between one loop. Small breaking of the Z2 symmetry is needed in order to obtain a phenomenologically viable Higgs sec- QCD and the SIMP dynamics, as is requisite for a SIMP, tor. (For other variations of neutral naturalness, see e.g. is naturally explained in such a framework: Since twin Refs. [2–8].) Thus twin Higgs models (and other theories QCD effects enter the Higgs potential at two loops [21], of neutral naturalness) contain a QCD-like sector, similar the twin Higgs solution to the hierarchy problems re- to QCD of the SM but not identical to it. quires the twin QCD coupling and scale—namely the SIMP sector in the framework presented here—to be sim- The search for the identity of dark matter is also one ilar to that of the QCD sector itself. of the greatest mysteries of modern physics. The lack arXiv:1805.09345v1 [hep-ph] 23 May 2018 of experimental observation of Weakly Interacting Mas- sive Particles (WIMPs) has led in recent times to a surge of new ideas for dark matter with various mass scales CONCEPT and interactions. The Strongly Interacting Massive Par- ticle (SIMP) [9] is such a dark matter candidate, where The ingredients of our setup are as follows. The light- the freeze-out of 3 → 2 self-annihilations set the relic est particles in the twin sector are the twin mesons, which abundance. The kinetic energy generated in the system are identified with SIMP dark matter. All other twin par- by this process must be shed, which can be achieved via ticles annihilate or decay into these twin mesons or SM thermalization between the dark and visible sectors. The particles. The twin fermions are heavier than the light SIMP setup then predicts dark matter of order a few hun- twin quarks that form the SIMP dark matter. Since all dreds of MeV, with strong self-interactions and very weak Yukawa couplings except for that of the top quark are ir- couplings to the visible sector. Importantly, SIMPs are relevant to the hierarchy problem due to their smallness, generic in QCD-like theories of dynamical chiral symme- this spectrum does not spoil the twin Higgs mechanism. try breaking, with the pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone bosons The twin photon and twin neutrinos (be they Dirac or 2

2 Standard Model sector twin sector meson M particle content mM ∝ mM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 θ (3, 1) u c¯ , c u¯ , √ (u u¯ − c c¯) 2m 0 m (1 + ∆) 2 u π + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ∆ ¯ ¯ 0 0 t Z t’ D (2, 2) u d , c d , u s¯ , c s¯ mu + md mπ(1 + 2 ) h 2 h’ − 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ∆ 2 0 0 10 D (2, 2) d u¯ , s u¯ , d c¯ , s c¯ mu + md mπ(1 + 2 ) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ∆ Z W Z’ W’ ¯ 0 0 η (1, 1) 2 (d d + s s¯ − u u¯ − c c¯ ) mu + md mπ(1 + 2 ) ⟺ 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 π (1, 3) d s¯ , s d¯ , √ (d d¯ − s s¯ ) 2m 0 m 10 2 d π b ν’ τ b’ τ τ’ 0 ν’ TABLE I. Decomposition of the meson SU(4)f 15-plet under 10 c μ μ’ SU(2) × SU(2) × U(1) . The 3rd column shows the lin- ν’ U D EM e e’ ear combination of quark masses that determines the meson –1 γ’ 10 μ masses-squared. The 4th column shows the mass splittings. mass [GeV] s c’,u’ s’,d’ From top to bottom, the meson masses go from heaviest to 10–2 lightest, assuming md0 = ms0 < mu0 = mc0 = md0,s0 (1 + 2∆). d –3 f/v=1 10 u e massive (as can be achieved via the St¨uckelberg mech- anism for the U(1)0 gauge boson). At temperatures of 10–4 ν ,ν ,ν ,γ Y τ μ e order the GeV-scale, only four light twin quarks, the twin gluons, and possibly the massive twin photon are around. The global SU(2) invariance dictates m 0 = m 0 , FIG. 1. A sample spectrum of twin particles. Here we f u c md0 = ms0 . We arbitrarily take md0,s0 < mu0,c0 = use f/v = 1 to demonstrate the Z2 invariance between the visible and twin sectors for t, h, Z, W ; lighter particles are md0,s0 (1 + 2∆), with a mass splitting ∆ . 10%. An subject to Z2-breaking effects without spoiling the solution approximate SU(4)f flavor symmetry for the twin QCD to the hierarchy problem. In practice, twin sector masses are exists in addition to the twin U(1)EM, and is broken to raised by a factor of f/v & 3. SU(2)U × SU(2)D × U(1)EM by ∆. The two SU(2)’s are broken to the diagonal subgroup SU(2)f by the twin weak interaction SU(2)L, and the remaining global sym- Majorana) are likewise heavy, and can decay away. The metry is SU(2)f × U(1)EM. typical cosmological problem of twin Higgs models, where Twin QCD confines and produces a 15-plet of too-large contributions to Neff often arise, is thus natu- mesons M in the adjoint representation of the approxi- rally absent here. mate SU(4)f symmetry. Table I shows the meson decom- Amongst the first two generations of twin position, as well as the combination of quark masses that quarks, we impose an exact global SU(2)f symme- generates the masses-squared of the mesons. The lightest try. The lightest twin mesons are a flavor triplet   meson states, which are the pions π, are the SIMP dark d0s¯0, s0d¯0, √1 (s0s¯0 − d0d¯0) , which we call pions, π. They matter. A visual representation of the meson spectrum 2 are stable since they are the lightest particles with a is given in Fig. 2. conserved SU(2)f quantum number. Here and below, We note that the global SU(2)f symmetry forbids we denote particles in the twin sector with a prime on Cabbibo–Kobayashi–Maskawa (CKM) mixing among the corresponding SM particles, except for the twin twin quarks. As a result, twin generation number is con- mesons, further defined below. served in this setup. The twin mesons undergo 3 → 2 annihilations [9, 10] via the Wess–Zumino–Witten action of the SU(4)f chiral THERMAL HISTORY Lagrangian [11–13]:

2 µνρσ A simple example of a twin mass spectrum for our L3→2 = 2 5  Tr (π∂µπ∂ν π∂ρπ∂σπ) . (1) 5π fπ framework is shown in Fig. 1. The twin particles at 0 0 0 0 1 the electroweak scale —W , Z , t , h — have similar The meson mass splittings are given by ∼ ( 2 − 1)∆ . masses to their visible sector counterparts due to the 5 − 10% so that all 15 mesons can co-annihilate at the Z2 symmetry. In practice, the ratio of vacuum expecta- freeze-out temperature Tf = mπ/xf ≈ mπ/20. The tion values between the twin and SM sectors is f/v & 3 observed dark matter relic abundance is obtained for and the twin particles are heavier by the common fac- twin pion masses mπ of order a few hundred MeV, in tor. In the early Universe, they decay away quickly. the strongly interacting regime of the theory, mπ/fπ ∼ 0 0 0 ¯0 0 0 0 The neutrinos also decay, νl → l u d , l c s¯ . The bot- 2π [10]. Strong self-scattering cross sections, relevant for tom quark and charged leptons annihilate away b0¯b0 → puzzles in structure formation, are thus expected as well. g0g0, q0q¯0, l0+l0− → γ0γ0, q0q¯0, with negligible abundances. The above features persist even in the presence of small The heavy meson abundances are likewise negligible (see mass splittings amongst the mesons. For further details, Ref. [22] for a detailed analysis). The twin photon is also see Ref. [10]. 3 0 γ γ e− 2 mass e+

η q0 θ0 e− 0 e+ D– s–d γ γ η0 γ0 γ D+ − c–u µ

η q0 π0 µ+ γ0 γ

0 0 0 FIG. 2. A visual representation of the meson spectrum. d or s γ γ e− 0 0 u or c e+

θ W π

u0 or c0 e− During dark matter freezeout, kinetic mixing  between d0 or s0 γ0 γ e+ the twin photon γ0 and the SM γ (sourced by mixing with the twin and SM hypercharge gauge bosons), main- tains thermal equilibrium between the two sectors via the scattering process of twin mesons M off of electrons, FIG. 3. Sample Feynman diagrams for (top to bottom) Me → Me. The allowed parameter space is similar to η → e+e−e+e−, η → µ+µ−, and θ → π e+e−e+e−. The cross that studied in detail in Ref. [15]: Twin photon masses in the diagrams refers to the kinetic mixing between the twin photon γ0 and the SM photon γ. between ∼ 2mπ and 100’s of GeV are viable over a broad range of  values, where kinetic equilibrium between the twin and SM sectors is maintained while the annihila- LIFETIMES tions M +M → SM through γ0 are suppressed compared to the 3 → 2 annihilations. Multiple future experimental We now address the decay rates of the unstable heavy probes are set to test this parameter space (see further twin mesons, η and θ. We begin with the η meson life- discussion below). Note that twin elastically decoupling time. Its decays proceed into two off-shell twin photons relic (ELDER) DM [23, 24] can also be realized in our via the anomaly diagram, with each twin photon decay- framework, where the relic density of twin mesons is set ing into e+e− pairs via the kinetic mixing with the SM by the elastic scattering off of the electrons. photon, or via two loops into a pair of muons (due to helicity suppression). In the twin sector, some of the heavier mesons are The decay rate of the η via the one-loop 4-body process unstable against decays. Among the 15-plet of mesons, (see top diagram of Fig. 3) can be estimated by starting the π, D+ and D− are stable because of their conserved with the standard formula for pion decay via the anomaly quantum numbers: the π’s are the lightest particles with diagram in the SM, replacing the photons with off-shell a non-trivial SU(2) quantum number, while the D±’s f dark photons, and further decaying each of those into an are the lightest particles charged under the twin QED. e+e− pair, which suppresses the decay rate by an addi- The θ and η are, in contrast, unprotected and can thus   42 decay. If they decay too early, they may affect the dark tional factor of α 2 mη . We arrive at the esti- 2π 2m 0 matter abundance during or after the time of freeze- γ mate out [20, 25–28]. On the other hand, if they decay too late, they may affect Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) Γ(η → e+e−e+e−) or the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). In what " #2 " #2 9 α2 m3  2  2  4 follows we show that such constraints can easily be satis- D η 2 −1 α 2 mη ≈ 3 2 −  fied: (I) Early decays can be avoided for lifetimes longer 8π fπ 3 3 2π 2mγ0 −3 −2 than the freeze-out time scale of tf ≈ 10 –10 sec; 1   4 3 GeV 8 (II) Late time decays do not pose a problem since the = 4 × 1011 sec 10−4 m0 heavier mesons annihilate efficiently into pions before γ they decay, and their Boltzmann-suppressed abundances  m 9  α 2 m /f 2 × η D η π . (2) at the time of decay do not affect BBN or CMB. 300 MeV 1/4π 2π 4

Note that our definition of the decay constant fπ follows t [sec] −5 −3 −1 1 3 5 that in Refs. [10, 12, 13] and differs from√ the notation 10 10 10 10 10 10 often used in the SM by a factor of 2 2. The decay is 10−2 fastest for the largest value of kinetic mixing and smallest 10−4 −3 0 τ =105 sec, ∆=10−2 twin photon mass,  ≈ 10 and m ≈ 2mπ. total η γ 10−6 ] η −4 The decay rate of the η via the two-loop 2-body process τη=10 sec, ∆=10 −8 where the dark photons are closed into a loop (see middle 10 [ GeV −10 g diagram of Fig. 3) is helicity suppressed, and hence the / 10 + − −12 final state will be µ µ , with an estimated decay rate mY 10 −14 Γ(η → µ+µ−) 10 −16 " #2 !2 10 9 α2 m3  2  2 m2 D η 2 −1 α 2 mµ η 10−18 ≈ 3 2 −  2 1 101 102 103 104 105 8π fπ 3 3 2π mπ mγ0 x = m/T 1   4 3 GeV 4 = 6 −4 0 10 sec 10 mγ FIG. 4. A schematic description of the sequence of events  m 3  α 2 m /f 2  m 2 × η D η π η (3). for twin SIMPs. Solid (dashed) curves depict the mass times 300 MeV 1/4π 2π mπ total meson (η meson) yield per degree of freedom. At very high temperatures, the 3 → 2 annihilation process reduces While more important for higher mγ0 , this is moderately the abundance of all twin mesons. At x = mπ/T ' 20, the suppressed compared to Eq. (2) for small mγ0 . 3 → 2 annihilations freeze out. Two different lifetimes are The θ meson has the same quantum number as π under shown to illustrate distinct scenarios: (1) Blue curves, τη = 5 −2 ∗ ∗ 10 sec, ∆ = 10 . The decay happens much after chemical the exact SU(2)f , and hence decays as θ → πγ γ → π+ 2(e+e−) via t-channel W -exchange (see bottom diagram decoupling, in which case the pion abundance is not affected by the decays, and the correct dark matter abundance is set by of Fig. 3) . We estimate the 3 → 2 annihilations. (2) Orange curves, τη = 10 sec, ∆ = −4 + − + −
10 . The η decays out of equilibrium with the SM, but Γ θ → π e e e e decays in chemical equilibrium with the other mesons. In this " #2 α2 α ∆m 4 case the dark matter abundance is depleted via the decays, D 02 4 2 π and then freezes out, leading to too small a relic abundance. ≈ GF fπmθ  8π 2π 2mγ0

4  2  8  4 1    αD ∆ v = contribute significantly to the current dark matter den- 2 × 1035 sec 10−4 1/4π 10% f sity. This can be seen in Fig. 4, where we present solu-  8  4 13 3 GeV 2π  mπ  tions to the Boltzmann equations. Solid curves represent × , (4) mγ0 mπ/fπ 300 MeV the total mesons, while the dashed curves represent the η mesons, for different mass splittings and lifetimes. As is which is much longer than the age of the Universe. If evident, for sufficiently large η lifetimes, the pion abun- ∆ < 4m /m , the decay is kinematically forbidden. For e π dance set by the 3 → 2 annihilations is unaffected by the lifetime longer than 1027 sec, the decay does not lead to decays of the heavy η meson. an excessive γ-ray signal from the galactic halo [29]. The decays of η can also potentially cause dissocia- We learn that the η and θ twin mesons can both be tion of light elements after BBN and/or possibly affect present at the time of freeze-out and participate in the the CMB. If the lifetime of η is longer than 106 sec, its 3 → 2 annihilation process. decay may cause distortions in the CMB spectrum, de- After freezeout, the strong interactions among the twin pending on how Boltzmann-suppressed the η abundance mesons can maintain chemical equilibrium between π and is [30]. The BBN constraints may be stronger down to heavier mesons. For instance, with the strong interaction τ ∼ 104 sec for decays to electrons. However, the limits of η have been derived in the literature only for heavy decay- s m2 m2 ing particles, with masses above a few 10’s of GeV (see hσvi = π β , β = 1 − π , (5) ηη→ππ 128πf 4 f f m2 e.g. Ref. [30]), as opposed to the case at hand where the π η decaying particles are O(300 MeV). As a result, the con- this process decouples at straints in the literature are not directly applicable here: the actual BBN constraint in our setup is expected to be −2(mη −mπ )/Tchem hσviηη→ππYπe s(Tchem) ' H(Tchem), weaker. We are not aware of detailed constraints on elec- (6) tromagnetic energy injection during the BBN era when and similarly for other mesons. We find that the heavier the decay products have sub-GeV energies [31]. When meson abundances are Boltzmann suppressed and do not taking into account the Boltzmann suppression of the 5 heavy mesons at the time of decay, we have checked that Higgs decays into twin gluons g0g0, the g0 fragments into the η-lifetime estimated in Eqs. (2) and (3) can eas- mesons. As discussed above, some of the mesons decay ily satisfy the currently derived limits for mass splittings visibly θ → π e+e−e+e− and η → e+e−e+e−, µ+µ−, and −4 ∆ >∼ 10 , and we expect the accurate allowed range to therefore part of the twin jet is visible with narrowly col- be even broader as explained above. limated low-mass lepton pairs. Some of the twin vector We note that kinetic equilibrium between the twin mesons ρ would also mix with the twin photon and lead mesons and SM sectors has been assumed thus far to ρ → γ0∗ → γ∗ → l+l− and be visible. Such phe- throughout. However, depending on (mγ0 , ), the mesons nomenology is reminiscent of Hidden Valley models [34]. may drop out of kinetic equilibrium with the SM soon The twin photon is in essence the kinetically mixed after freeze-out occurs. In this case, the meson system dark photon which has been studied extensively in recent −2 cools more rapidly than the SM sector—Tmeson ∝ a literature. In the near future, the Belle-II experiment will −1 vs. TSM ∝ a —resulting in a more severe Boltzmann improve the sensitivity by at least an order of magnitude, suppression of the heavy meson abundances and weaker substantially cutting into the parameter space [35, 36]. constraints. Belle-II may even do better because their calorimeters do A lower bound on the mass splitting ∆ arises also from not point exactly to the collision point and they hence indirect detection data. This is because the annihilation can avoid cracks that allow a real photon to escape de- process ππ → ηη → SM could, in principle, produce tection [37]. Spectroscopy of the resonance states in the large gamma ray fluxes in the galactic center today. The twin QCD can be performed as well, using single-photon −25 3 −1 current experimental limit is hσvi <∼ 10 cm sec [29], events at low energy lepton colliders [15, 38]. This is par- compared to the naive expectation in our setup of hσvi ≈ ticularly interesting if the b0 is lighter than the b to allow −25 2 −17 3 −1 10 cm × v0 ≈ 10 cm sec , which would be unac- for twin bottomonium spectroscopy. ceptably large. Here, v0 ∼ 220 km/sec is the velocity dis- Twin SIMP dark matter shows promise in direct de- persion at the galactic center. This present-day annihi- tection efforts as well. For example, D± mesons can in- lation process is, however, kinematically forbidden if the teract with the SM particles via the exchange of the mas- mass splitting among the mesons is larger than the typi- sive twin photon. The details depend on the twin meson 2 −6 cal kinetic energy in the galactic halo, ∆ & v0 ≈ 10 . splitting ∆ that determines the Boltzmann suppression of We conclude that the dark matter is not depleted after their abundance. Potential prospects in this mass range freeze-out despite the fact that some of the twin mesons include the use of either electron recoils in semiconduc- decay into the visible sector. Constraints from BBN and tors [39?? , 40], atomic ionization [39, 41], superconduc- indirect detection are evaded for meson mass splittings tors [42, 43], scintillators [44] and two-dimensional tar- −4 −4 −6 ∆ >∼ 10 , while for ∆ ∼ 10 − 10 , a detailed analy- gets such as graphene [45], or the use of nuclear recoils sis of the impact on BBN is required for this light dark in color centers [46, 47] and in superfluid helium [48, 49]. matter mass range—an effort which is underway [31]. It would be interesting to study whether slight modi- fications to the light element abundances are possible SUMMARY and/or if observable γ-ray signals can arise due to the Maxwellian tail in the kinematic distribution of mesons We have proposed a model that addresses both the hi- in the halo. This and other mechanisms to set the twin erarchy problem (via the twin Higgs mechanism) and the pion abundance in this setup beyond the SIMP will be dark matter problem (as a Strongly Interacting Massive explored in detail in future work [32]. Particle, or SIMP). The twin pion-like bound states are the lightest particles in the twin sector, and are stable due an exact global SU(2)f symmetry between the first EXPERIMENTAL SIGNATURES two generations. The relic abundance of dark matter is set through 3 → 2 self-annihilations of the twin mesons The strongest limit to date on twin Higgs theories via the Wess-Zumino-Witten term. The near coincidence arises from the invisible Higgs width. In the Z2-limit, of strong scales between the scale of QCD and that of the electroweak symmetry breaking in both sectors would SIMP sector, as required in the SIMP mechanism, is nat- occur at the same energy scale f = v, and the ob- urally explained in such a framework. served 125 GeV Higgs would contain equal components The framework predicts rich and diverse experimen- in both sectors, decaying invisibly into the twin sector tal probes into its parameter space. Dark matter self- 50% of the time. Clearly this is not the case; the in- scatterings near their current astrophysical limit are ex- visible width of the Higgs dictates f/v & 3 at present. pected, which may address small-scale structure puzzles. The LHC will further improve this limit, and the ILC Precise measurements of the velocity profile of stars in would probe the invisible width down to the 0.3% level dwarf galaxies using the Prime Focus Spectrograph on [33]. We note, however, that the Higgs decay into the the Subaru telescope [50] will further test this. At high twin sector is not entirely invisible in our model. If the energy colliders, final states with missing energy and soft 6 collimated leptons can be produced, as well as entirely [hep-ph]. visible final states. Moreover, low-energy e+e− collid- [10] Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, H. Murayama, T. Volansky, ers such as Super KEK-B and direct detection searches and J. G. Wacker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 021301 (2015), for dark matter are promising experimental avenues for arXiv:1411.3727 [hep-ph]. [11] J. Wess and B. Zumino, Phys. Lett. B37, 95 (1971). testing the theory. We leave a detailed study of the phe- [12] E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B223, 422 (1983). nomenology of this setup to future work [32]. [13] E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B223, 433 (1983). Acknowledgments. We thank Nathaniel Craig, [14] H. M. Lee and M.-S. Seo, Phys. Lett. B748, 316 (2015), Torben Ferber, Masahiro Kawasaki, Kazunori Kohri, arXiv:1504.00745 [hep-ph]. Dan McKinsey, Takeo Moroi, Maxim Pospelov, Matt [15] Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, and H. Murayama, JHEP 05, Pyle and Vetri Velan for useful conversations. We also 090 (2016), arXiv:1512.07917 [hep-ph]. [16] A. Berlin, N. Blinov, S. Gori, P. Schuster, and N. Toro, thank Robert McGehee and Katelin Schutz for comments (2018), arXiv:1801.05805 [hep-ph]. on the manuscript. HM thanks the Alexander von Hum- [17] I. Garc´ıa Garc´ıa, R. Lasenby, and J. March-Russell, boldt Foundation for support while this work was com- Phys. Rev. D92, 055034 (2015), arXiv:1505.07109 [hep- pleted. HM also thanks the hospitality of the DESY The- ph]. ory Group despite his unanticipated interruptions during [18] N. Craig and A. Katz, JCAP 1510, 054 (2015), his stay. The work of YH is supported by the Israel arXiv:1505.07113 [hep-ph]. Science Foundation (grant No. 1112/17), by the Bina- [19] I. Garc´ıa Garc´ıa, R. Lasenby, and J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 121801 (2015), arXiv:1505.07410 tional Science Foundation (grant No. 2016155), by the [hep-ph]. I-CORE Program of the Planning Budgeting Committee [20] M. Farina, JCAP 1511, 017 (2015), arXiv:1506.03520 (grant No. 1937/12), by the German Israel Foundation [hep-ph]. (grant No. I-2487-303.7/2017), and by the Azrieli Foun- [21] N. Craig, A. Katz, M. Strassler, and R. Sundrum, JHEP dation. EK is supported by the Israel Science Foundation 07, 105 (2015), arXiv:1501.05310 [hep-ph]. (grant No. 1111/17), by the Binational Science Foun- [22] M. Geller, S. Iwamoto, G. Lee, Y. Shadmi, and O. Telem, dation (grant No. 2016153) and by the I-CORE Pro- (2018), arXiv:1802.07720 [hep-ph]. [23] E. Kuflik, M. Perelstein, N. R.-L. Lorier, and Y.-D. Tsai, gram of the Planning Budgeting Committee (grant No. (2015), arXiv:1512.04545 [hep-ph]. 1937/12). HM was supported by the NSF under grant [24] E. Kuflik, M. Perelstein, N. R.-L. Lorier, and Y.-D. Tsai, PHY-1638509, and by the U.S. DOE under Contract DE- JHEP 08, 078 (2017), arXiv:1706.05381 [hep-ph]. AC02-05CH11231. HM was also supported by the JSPS [25] P. Bandyopadhyay, E. J. Chun, and J.-C. Park, JHEP Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) (No. 26400241 06, 129 (2011), arXiv:1105.1652 [hep-ph]. and 17K05409), MEXT Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Re- [26] J. A. Dror, E. Kuflik, and W. H. Ng, Phys. Rev. Lett. search on Innovative Areas (No. 15H05887, 15K21733), 117, 211801 (2016), arXiv:1607.03110 [hep-ph]. [27] S. Okawa, M. Tanabashi, and M. Yamanaka, Phys. Rev. by WPI, MEXT, Japan, and by the Binational Science D95, 023006 (2017), arXiv:1607.08520 [hep-ph]. Foundation (grant No. 2016153). [28] J. Kopp, J. Liu, T. R. Slatyer, X.-P. Wang, and W. Xue, JHEP 12, 033 (2016), arXiv:1609.02147 [hep-ph]. [29] R. Essig, E. Kuflik, S. D. McDermott, T. Volansky, and K. M. Zurek, JHEP 11, 193 (2013), arXiv:1309.4091 [hep-ph]. ∗ [email protected] [30] M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri, T. Moroi, and Y. Takaesu, Phys. † eric.kufl[email protected] Rev. D97, 023502 (2018), arXiv:1709.01211 [hep-ph]. ‡ [email protected], [email protected] [31] M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri, and T. Moroi, (private com- [1] Z. Chacko, H.-S. Goh, and R. Harnik, Phys. Rev. Lett. munication). 96, 231802 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0506256 [hep-ph]. [32] Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, R. McGehee, H. Murayama, and [2] Z. Chacko, Y. Nomura, M. Papucci, and G. Perez, JHEP K. Schutz, work in progress. 01, 126 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0510273 [hep-ph]. [33] T. Barklow, K. Fujii, S. Jung, R. Karl, J. List, T. Ogawa, [3] B. Batell and M. McCullough, Phys. Rev. D92, 073018 M. E. Peskin, and J. Tian, Phys. Rev. D97, 053003 (2015), arXiv:1504.04016 [hep-ph]. (2018), arXiv:1708.08912 [hep-ph]. [4] G. Burdman, Z. Chacko, H.-S. Goh, and R. Harnik, [34] M. J. Strassler and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Lett. B651, 374 JHEP 02, 009 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0609152 [hep-ph]. (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0604261 [hep-ph]. [5] H. Cai, H.-C. Cheng, and J. Terning, JHEP 05, 045 [35] A. Soffer (2014) arXiv:1409.5263 [hep-ex]. (2009), arXiv:0812.0843 [hep-ph]. [36] R. Essig, J. Mardon, M. Papucci, T. Volansky, and Y.-M. [6] N. Craig, S. Knapen, and P. Longhi, Phys. Rev. Lett. Zhong, JHEP 11, 167 (2013), arXiv:1309.5084 [hep-ph]. 114, 061803 (2015), arXiv:1410.6808 [hep-ph]. [37] T. Ferber, (private communication). [7] N. Craig, S. Knapen, and P. Longhi, JHEP 03, 106 [38] Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, and H. Murayama, Phys. Rev. (2015), arXiv:1411.7393 [hep-ph]. D97, 055030 (2018), arXiv:1706.05008 [hep-ph]. [8] N. Arkani-Hamed, T. Cohen, R. T. D’Agnolo, A. Hook, [39] R. Essig, J. Mardon, and T. Volansky, Phys. Rev. D85, H. D. Kim, and D. Pinner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 251801 076007 (2012), arXiv:1108.5383 [hep-ph]. (2016), arXiv:1607.06821 [hep-ph]. [40] P. W. Graham, D. E. Kaplan, S. Rajendran, and M. T. [9] Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, T. Volansky, and J. G. Wacker, Walters, Phys. Dark Univ. 1, 32 (2012), arXiv:1203.2531 Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 171301 (2014), arXiv:1402.5143 [hep-ph]. 7

[41] R. Essig, A. Manalaysay, J. Mardon, P. Sorensen, and arXiv:1606.08849 [hep-ph]. T. Volansky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 021301 (2012), [46] R. Essig, J. Mardon, O. Slone, and T. Volansky, Phys. arXiv:1206.2644 [astro-ph.CO]. Rev. D95, 056011 (2017), arXiv:1608.02940 [hep-ph]. [42] Y. Hochberg, Y. Zhao, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. [47] R. Budnik, O. Chesnovsky, O. Slone, and T. Volansky, Lett. 116, 011301 (2016), arXiv:1504.07237 [hep-ph]. (2017), arXiv:1705.03016 [hep-ph]. [43] Y. Hochberg, M. Pyle, Y. Zhao, and K. M. Zurek, JHEP [48] K. Schutz and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 121302 08, 057 (2016), arXiv:1512.04533 [hep-ph]. (2016), arXiv:1604.08206 [hep-ph]. [44] S. Derenzo, R. Essig, A. Massari, A. Soto, and T.-T. [49] S. Hertel, A. Biekert, J. Lin, V. Velan, and D. N. McK- Yu, Phys. Rev. D96, 016026 (2017), arXiv:1607.01009 insey, to appear. [hep-ph]. [50] R. Ellis et al. (PFS Team), Publ. Astron. Soc. Jap. 66, [45] Y. Hochberg, Y. Kahn, M. Lisanti, C. G. Tully, R1 (2014), arXiv:1206.0737 [astro-ph.CO]. and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Lett. B772, 239 (2017),