4.4 Article

Boosted dark matter in IceCube and at the galactic center

期刊

JOURNAL OF HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS
卷 -, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/JHEP04(2015)105

关键词

Beyond Standard Model; Cosmology of Theories beyond the SM

资金

  1. German Research Foundation (DFG) [KO 4820/1-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We show that event excess observed by the IceCube collaboration at TeV-PeV energies, usually interpreted as evidence for astrophysical neutrinos, can be explained alternatively by the scattering of highly boosted dark matter particles. Specifically, we consider a scenario where a similar to 4 PeV scalar dark matter particle phi can decay to a much lighter dark fermion chi, which in turn scatters off nuclei in the IceCube detector. Besides these events, which are exclusively shower-like, the model also predicts a secondary population of events at O(100 TeV) originating from the 3-body decay phi -> chi(chi) over bar (a) , where a is a pseudoscalar which mediates dark matter-Standard Model interactions and whose decay products include neutrinos. This secondary population also includes track-like events, and both populations together provide an excellent fit to the IceCube data. We then argue that a relic abundance of light Dark Matter particles chi, which may constitute a subdominant component of the Dark Matter in the Universe, can have exactly the right properties to explain the observed excess in GeV gamma rays from the galactic center region. Our boosted Dark Matter scenario also predicts fluxes of O(10) TeV positrons and O(100 TeV) photons from 3-body cascade decays of the heavy Dark Matter particle phi, and we show how these can be used to constrain parts of the viable parameter space of the model. Direct detection limits are weak due to the pseudoscalar couplings of chi. Accelerator constraints on the pseudoscalar mediator a lead to the conclusion that the preferred mass of a is >= 10 GeV and that large coupling to b quarks but suppressed or vanishing coupling to leptons are preferred.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据