Evidence for WIMP Dark Matter Wim de Boer, Marc Herold, Christian Sander, Valery Zhukov Univ. Karlsruhe Alex Gladyshev, Dmitri Kazakov Dubna Outline (see astro-ph/0408272, hep-ph/0408166) EGRET Data on diffuse Gamma Rays shows excess in all sky directions with the SAME spectrum Halo parameters from sky map WIMP mass from spectrum Data consistent with Supersymmetry

Excess of Diffuse Gamma Rays above 1 GeV as measured by EGRET satellite (9 yrs of data) A B C Prel. Inv. Compton 0 Bremsstrahlung Strong, Moskalenko, Reimer, to be published D E F A: inner Galaxy (l=±300, |b|<50) B: Galactic plane avoiding A C: Outer Galaxy D: low latitude (10-200) E: intermediate lat. (20-600) F: Galactic poles (60-900)

Excess of Diffuse Gamma Rays has same spectrum in all directions compatible with WIMP mass of 50-100 GeV Important: if experiment measures gamma rays down to 0.1 GeV, then normalizations of DM annihihilation and background can both be left free, so one is not sensitive to abso- lute background estimates, BUT ONLY TO THE SHAPE, which is much better known.

Diffuse Gamma Rays for different sky regions B C D E F DMA  Boostfactor <2> If boost factor, i.e. clustering, similar in all directions, then signal strength determines DM density 

EGRET excess interpreted as DM consistent with WMAP, Supergravity and electroweak constraints MSUGRA can fulfill all constraints from WMAP, LEP, b->s, g-2 and EGRET simultaneously, if DM is neutralino with mass in range 50-100 GeV and squarks and sleptons are O(1 TeV) WMAP EGRET Stau coannihilation mA resonance

SUSY Mass spectra in mSUGRA Charginos, neutralinos and gluinos light LSP largely Bino  DM may be supersymmetric partner of CMB

Executive Summary xy xz Expected Profile Observed Outer Ring Inner Ring DM halo disk bulge Rotation Curve x y z 2003, Ibata et al, Yanny et al. FG FR Halo profile

Positron fraction and antiprotons from DM annihilation Positrons Positrons Antiprotons Antiprotons SAME Halo and WIMP parameters as for GAMMA RAYS but fluxes strong function of propagation models!

Supersymmetry at linear collider pb x-section! Karl Ecklund, Cornell

Impact of collider data on uncertainties in relic density B. Allanach, G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov Introduction Coannihilation scenarios in mSUGRA and MSSM Focus point and funnel region Some remarks beyond mSUGRA

LC-Cosmology Cosmology (relic density of dark matter) strongly constrains SUSY models, in particular, in mSUGRA, points to specific scenarios for SUSY searches at colliders With WMAP : .094 < W h2 < .128 (2 sigma) PLANCK expects precision of 2% LHC will test SUSY Dark Matter hypothesis (can also have some LSP signal from direct detection experiments), with precision measurements of SUSY parameters at LHC/LC can one match the precision of the relic density measurement by WMAP/PLANCK hence consistency check on cosmological model

pmSUGRA: coannihilation Mass difference (NLSP-LSP) is crucial parameter For relic density prediction at 10% need to know to 1 GeV For PLANCK ~.2GeV LC can make precise measurements of sleptons with small ΔM (Zhang et al, LCWS), Martyn(LCWS) To have accurate prediction of relic density in this scenario need also to know precisely the cross-section Precision required on absolute mass scale (keeping ΔM constant) 10-20% Precision required on mixing angle: 5-10%

pmSUGRA: coannihilation … Cross-sections also depend on MSSM parameters of neutralino/gaugino sector. In region relevant for LC500, WMAP level of accuracy requires ~ 5-10% level tanβ ~ 10-20% level In MSSM, SFitter/Fittino forSPS1A find  ~2% (LHC) 1%(LC) tanβ ~ 40% (LHC) 15%(LHC+LC) Error on determination of tanβ might limit the accuracy to which the relic density can be predicted Issue specially for PLANCK

pmSUGRA: focus point Situation is much better in pmSUGRA by assuming the spectrum to be measured Dependence on top yukawa for calculating spectrum drops out Mt dependence only in the cross-section, sensitive only near threshold (0.5GeV required for WMAP) Most important parameters are the ones that determine the Higgsino content of LSP –also determines couplings to Higgs/Z ,M1~% level LSP mass ~5-10% level Mb is known well enough for PLANCK accuracy Need ILC Means per-mil level for PLANCK can this be done at ILC??

Heavy Higgs annihilation Heavy Higgs resonance (funnel) Heavy Higgs enhanced coupling to b quarks Large width Acceptable relic density if M(LSP)-MA/2 ~ΓA Main annihilation channel into bb pairs Most of Heavy Higgs annihilation region at large tanβ is not accessible to LC500 (or LHC). Even at low M1/2, important contribution of diagram with heavy Higgs exchange (as well as slepton exchange) possible far from resonance even if M(LSP)<200GeV Constraint from b->sγ important What are relevant parameters and how precisely should they be measured to get precise estimate of relic density (MA≈300-400GeV) Mt=175

Alternate SUSY approaches to DM

Purpose of this presentation Help to define new SUSY working points - not necessarily mSUGRA - experimentally challenging (if needed) to launch new experimental studies on DM for future colliders LC and LHC

Introduction mSUGRA has been/is the favourite framework used for collider phenomenology There are other possible schemes e.g. : - without gaugino unification (e.g. AMSB) - without scalar universality (3d generation, Higgs parameters free) - string inspired models - …. mSUGRA has various problems, in particular: - FNCC, CPV (EDM limits for n and e) - tp

Colliders and Cosmology MicrOMEGAs Pt B ‘WMAP’ 7 % LHC ~15 % ‘Planck’ ~2 % CL ~3 % LHC pt B: Battaglia et al hep-ph/0306219 LC: precision similar for most other co-annihilation points A C D G I L consistent with WMAP

What about non universal gauginos with heavy sfermions ? For Co-annihilation: P. Bambade et al. hep-ph/0406010 H. Baer et al hep-ph/0405210 Focus Co-annih What about Focus type ? What about non universal gauginos with heavy sfermions ?

Conclusions There are certainly SUSY DM solutions very distinct from co-annihilation to be studied Focus and SpS type solutions deserve investigations These solutions could be less precisely measured at LC than needed for cosmology if tanb is large (to be confirmed) The mass degenerate chargino/neutralino solutions do not seem relevant to explain a large fraction of the DM result from WMAP (to be confirmed) Let’s agree on some study points for LC/LHC after fixing discrepancies between codes