1. 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/ , hep-ph/ )
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

2. 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)

3. Excess of Diffuse Gamma Rays has same spectrum in all
directions compatible with WIMP mass of 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.

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

5. 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 GeV and
squarks and sleptons are
O(1 TeV)
WMAP
EGRET
Stau coannihilation
mA resonance

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

7. 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

8. 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!

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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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%

13. 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

14. 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??

15. 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≈ GeV)
Mt=175

16. Alternate SUSY approaches to DM

17. 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

18. 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

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

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

21. 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