Composite Inelastic Dark Matter

Jay WackerSLAC

CaltechApril 13, 2010

with P. Schuster, D. Alves, S. Behbahbani, M. Lisanti, A. Hook, E. IzaguirrearXiv: 0903.3945, 0911.1997, 0911.4483, 1003.4729....

Dark Matter

80% of the Universe’s mass is unknownDiscovering its nature is a great open question

Most DM model building linksweak scale/hierarchy problem

WIMP Miracle drives a lot of the thinkingDM is a thermal relic for 1000 GeV weakly interacting particle

Cold/MassiveWhat we know:

Suppressed EM & Strong interactionsIsn’t strongly self-interacting

Status of Dark Matter

DAMAPAMELA

ATICFERMI Electrons

WMAP HazeINTEGRAL

Not your grandfather’s DM Candidate

Hints at non-trivial mass scales & interactions

CoGeNT

Secluded Sectors“Hidden Valleys”

Standard Model

Secluded Sector

L = φsecluded Oportal

Oportal = FµνY hL|h|2 jµ

B−L etc, , , , λY ,

Weak Connection

High Energy/Intensity

Slow decays back to SM

Secluded Sectors“Hidden Valleys”

Standard Model

Secluded Sector

L = φsecluded Oportal

Oportal = FµνY hL|h|2 jµ

B−L etc, , , , λY ,

Weak Connection

High Energy/Intensity

Slow decays back to SM

Secluded Sectors“Hidden Valleys”

Standard Model

Secluded Sector

Ubiquitous in Top-Down Models

Dark Matter might be a secluded sectorHard part is getting rid of additional gauge groups & matter

L = φsecluded Oportal

Oportal = FµνY hL|h|2 jµ

B−L etc, , , , λY ,

Weak Connection

Dark Matter Model BuildingOccam’s Razor vs. Principle of Plentitude

“No possibilities which remain eternally possible will go unrealized”

“Plurality should not be positedwithout necessity”

When searching in the dark, Occam’s Razor can lead to blind spots!

Dark Matter Model Building

Models illustrate new mechanisms and new experiments

Gauge theories appear in SM & many BSM constructions

Minimality may not be best guide to Dark Matter’s existence

Why should 20% of the mass, have all the fun?

Occam’s Razor vs. Principle of Plentitude“No possibilities which remain eternally

possible will go unrealized”“Plurality should not be posited

without necessity”

When searching in the dark, Occam’s Razor can lead to blind spots!

Plan of Talk

DAMA & Inelastic Dark Matter

Composite dark matter models

Experimental Prospects

Discussion

Direct Detection

Dark matter scatters off nuclei in detectors

Measure nuclear recoil spectrum

χ

χ

N

N

average over initial DM velocities

dR

dER=

ρDM

mDM mN

�dσ

dERv

�[Counts/kg day/keV]

Multiply by exposure [kg day]

Spectrum of Recoils

dR

dER∝

� vesc

vmin

d3vdσ

dERv e−v2/v2

0 ∼ e−ER/E0

E0 =2µ2v2

0

mNFalling spectrum ∼ 25 keV

Push to lower energy thresholds

vmin =

�mNER

2µ2

Minimum DM velocity to scatter cause ER recoil

Average over initial DM velocities in the galactic halo

Boltzmann Distribution

DAMA

Annual modulation in WIMP signal

summ

erwin

ter

Modulation amplitude ~2.5% for elastic scattering

�v⊙

�vE �vE

v ≤ vesc + | �vE − �v⊙| v ≤ vesc + | �vE + �v⊙|

NaI Experiment running for 13 years

Amod = RSum −RWin

2-4 keV

Time (day)

Resid

ua

ls (

cp

d/k

g/k

eV

)

DAMA/LIBRA ! 250 kg (0.87 ton"yr)

2-5 keV

Time (day)

Resid

ua

ls (

cp

d/k

g/k

eV

)

DAMA/LIBRA ! 250 kg (0.87 ton"yr)

2-6 keV

Time (day)

Resid

ua

ls (

cp

d/k

g/k

eV

)

DAMA/LIBRA ! 250 kg (0.87 ton"yr)

Figure 1: Experimental model-independent residual rate of the single-hit scintillationevents, measured by DAMA/LIBRA,1,2,3,4,5,6 in the (2 – 4), (2 – 5) and (2 – 6)keV energy intervals as a function of the time. The zero of the time scale is January1st of the first year of data taking of the former DAMA/NaI experiment [15]. Theexperimental points present the errors as vertical bars and the associated time binwidth as horizontal bars. The superimposed curves are the cosinusoidal functionsbehaviors A cos!(t ! t0) with a period T = 2!

" = 1 yr, with a phase t0 = 152.5 day(June 2nd) and with modulation amplitudes, A, equal to the central values obtainedby best fit over the whole data including also the exposure previously collected bythe former DAMA/NaI experiment: cumulative exposure is 1.17 ton " yr (see alsoref. [15] and refs. therein). The dashed vertical lines correspond to the maximumexpected for the DM signal (June 2nd), while the dotted vertical lines correspond tothe minimum. See text.

5

2-4 keV

Time (day)

Resid

ua

ls (

cp

d/k

g/k

eV

)

DAMA/LIBRA ! 250 kg (0.87 ton"yr)

2-5 keV

Time (day)

Resid

ua

ls (

cp

d/k

g/k

eV

)

DAMA/LIBRA ! 250 kg (0.87 ton"yr)

2-6 keV

Time (day)

Resid

ua

ls (

cp

d/k

g/k

eV

)

DAMA/LIBRA ! 250 kg (0.87 ton"yr)

Figure 1: Experimental model-independent residual rate of the single-hit scintillationevents, measured by DAMA/LIBRA,1,2,3,4,5,6 in the (2 – 4), (2 – 5) and (2 – 6)keV energy intervals as a function of the time. The zero of the time scale is January1st of the first year of data taking of the former DAMA/NaI experiment [15]. Theexperimental points present the errors as vertical bars and the associated time binwidth as horizontal bars. The superimposed curves are the cosinusoidal functionsbehaviors A cos!(t ! t0) with a period T = 2!

" = 1 yr, with a phase t0 = 152.5 day(June 2nd) and with modulation amplitudes, A, equal to the central values obtainedby best fit over the whole data including also the exposure previously collected bythe former DAMA/NaI experiment: cumulative exposure is 1.17 ton " yr (see alsoref. [15] and refs. therein). The dashed vertical lines correspond to the maximumexpected for the DM signal (June 2nd), while the dotted vertical lines correspond tothe minimum. See text.

5

2-4 keV

Time (day)

Resid

ua

ls (

cp

d/k

g/k

eV

)

DAMA/LIBRA ! 250 kg (0.87 ton"yr)

2-5 keV

Time (day)

Resid

ua

ls (

cp

d/k

g/k

eV

)

DAMA/LIBRA ! 250 kg (0.87 ton"yr)

2-6 keV

Time (day)

Resid

ua

ls (

cp

d/k

g/k

eV

)

DAMA/LIBRA ! 250 kg (0.87 ton"yr)

Figure 1: Experimental model-independent residual rate of the single-hit scintillationevents, measured by DAMA/LIBRA,1,2,3,4,5,6 in the (2 – 4), (2 – 5) and (2 – 6)keV energy intervals as a function of the time. The zero of the time scale is January1st of the first year of data taking of the former DAMA/NaI experiment [15]. Theexperimental points present the errors as vertical bars and the associated time binwidth as horizontal bars. The superimposed curves are the cosinusoidal functionsbehaviors A cos!(t ! t0) with a period T = 2!

" = 1 yr, with a phase t0 = 152.5 day(June 2nd) and with modulation amplitudes, A, equal to the central values obtainedby best fit over the whole data including also the exposure previously collected bythe former DAMA/NaI experiment: cumulative exposure is 1.17 ton " yr (see alsoref. [15] and refs. therein). The dashed vertical lines correspond to the maximumexpected for the DM signal (June 2nd), while the dotted vertical lines correspond tothe minimum. See text.

5

DAMA/LIBRA = 250kg (0.87 ton yr)

Φdm = ndm v

Galactic Dark Matter

WIMP Mass [GeV/c2]

Cro

ss-s

ectio

n [p

b] (n

orm

alis

ed to

nuc

leon

)

090913122401

http://dmtools.brown.edu/ Gaitskell,Mandic,Filippini

101 102 10310-8

10-7

10-6

10-5

Current Limits

WIMP Mass [GeV/c2]

Cro

ss-s

ectio

n [p

b] (n

orm

alis

ed to

nuc

leon

)

090913122401

http://dmtools.brown.edu/ Gaitskell,Mandic,Filippini

101 102 10310-8

10-7

10-6

10-5

DAMA

CRESSTZEPLIN2

ZEPLIN3XENON CDMS

spin-independent

Excludedby a factor

of 30

Inelastic Dark Matter

Tucker-Smith and Weiner, hep-ph/0101138.

Dark matter has two nearly degenerate states

δm ∼ (100 keV)

q

q

χ1

χ2

vmin =1√

2mNER

�mNER

µ+ δm

�

Higher threshold velocity necessary to scatter,Higher typical recoil energies

Lighter nuclei, higher threshold

Scattering off SM transitions between states

Inelastic Dark Matter

3 Consequences

(1) Scatters off of heavier nuclei -- CDMS ineffective

(2) Large recoil energy -- ZEP3 & Xe10 didn’t initialy look

(3) Large modulation fraction -- absolute signal is smaller

Rat

eRecoil Energy (keV)

3 CoincidencesXENON10, CRESST II, ZEPLIN2 all had events

Threshold behavior

Larger Modulation FractionSmaller rate

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

elastic

inelastic

June 2 Dec 2 June 2

# of

Eve

nts

100% modulation

2.5% modulation

Factor of 40 difference in translating modulated to unmodulated rate!

One reason for apparent tension

0 100 200 300 400 500 6000.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

v2f(v

)/10−

4

v0

0 100 200 300 400 500 600velocity

Winter scatteringSummer scattering

vesc

Boost f(v) into Earth’s frame

Recent ExperimentsInelastic DM has a lot in common with Mark Twain

“The report of my death wasan exaggeration”

XENON100 reported 0 events... but ran in late Oct through early Nov.

CRESST reported exclusion

... and won’t release their raw results... but had 40 keV upper threshold

CoGeNT reported anomalous low energy events... points to low mass dark matter (not iDM)

Inelastic Dark Matter

δm

m∼ 10−6

A new number to explain:

Sign of dark sector dynamics?

First of many splittings

New interactions to discover

Changes which questions are interesting

Will be confirmed/refuted in 2010!XENON100

Magnetic moment splittingHyperfine Splittings

Can give very small energy differences

HHF ∼ �µ1 · �µ2 δ3(r)

�µ � g

m�S

Occurs in all bound state systemsFermions + Gauge interactions

Hyperfine Splittings

Hydrogen

∆E ∼ α4 m2e

mp

Heavy Flavor Mesons (B, B*)

∆E ∼Λ2

QCD

mb

Weakly Coupled:

Strongly Coupled:

1 µeV1s s = 0

s = 1

1s s = 0

s = 145 MeV

Open Questions

Inelastic transitions dominate over elastic?

Coupling to Standard Model?

Cosmology constraints?

How will we know?

Can engineer systems with 100 keV mass splittings

Plan of Talk

DAMA & Inelastic Dark Matter

Composite dark matter models

Experimental Prospects

Discussion

SU(N) U(1)d SM

Anatomy of Composite Inelastic Dark MatterSimple Setup, Rich Dynamics

dark quarks kinetic mixing

� FdµνFY µν

Start with left and move right

qH

qL

Composite Inelastic Dark Matter

New SU(Nc) gauge sector confines at scale Λd

qLqHTwo dark quarks

Alves, Behbahani, Schuster, JW, 0903.3945.

Ldark = −12Tr G2

µν + q̄ iD� q + mq̄q

Λdark ∼ exp�− 2π

b0αdark

�

mH � Λdark,mL

No flavor changing effects: stabilizes DM

Cosmology of CiDM

A primordial cosmological dark quark asymmetry(nH − n

H̄) = −(nL − n

L̄) �= 0

Alves, Behbahani, Schuster, JW: 0903.3945 + 1003.4729

Given up Wimp Miracle for asymmetric DMDriven off of SM’s baryon asymmetry?

More heavy quarks than antiquarks More light antiquarks than quarks

nDM

nbaryon� 5 GeV

mDM

Cosmology of CiDM

A primordial cosmological dark quark asymmetry(nH − n

H̄) = −(nL − n

L̄) �= 0

Alves, Behbahani, Schuster, JW: 0903.3945 + 1003.4729

Given up Wimp Miracle for asymmetric DM

bound stateqH q̄LWhen , dark matter is inT � Λd

q̄L

qH

Driven off of SM’s baryon asymmetry?

More heavy quarks than antiquarks More light antiquarks than quarks

nDM

nbaryon� 5 GeV

mDM

States of CiDMAlves, Behbahani, Schuster, JW, 1003.4729.

EBind ∼ α2darkmH

Heavy quarks can bind together

Mesons

Baryons

0 1 2 3 4Heavy Quarks

More deeply bound

Dark Matter Synthesis occurs

Region I: Complete Synthesis is efficient and the CiDM composition is dominated

by heavy baryons BH . DAMA’s signal may arise from inelastic scattering of

the highly suppressed dark meson components, particularly of π(3)d if κnL

is a

decreasing function of nL. The viability of this region requires that the heavy

and light baryons are not visible in direct detection experiments. That will be

further discussed in Sec. 5.

Region II: Nearly Complete Heavy baryons are the dominant component, with a

few percent of the dark matter density in the form of dark pions π(1)d , π(2)

d and π(3)d .

This region is not as extreme as Region I for CiDM. As with Region I, DAMA’s

signal may arise from scattering of the sub-dominant dark meson component.

Region III: Incomplete Synthesis results in a democratic abundance with compa-

rable mass densities for all for states π(1)d , π(2)

d , π(3)d and BH . Here the dominant

number density of dark matter is the π(1)d state and there are other components

of the dark matter to discover.

Region IV: Arrested The complete synthesized and unsynthesized components, BH

and πd, share comparable mass densities, with a few percent in the form of exotic

pions, π(2)d and π(3)

d . The first step of the synthesis chain, π(1)d π(1)

d → π(2)d π(0)

d is the

bottleneck much like deuterium formation slows BBN in the Standard Model. It

only occurs for a brief period, but once the π(2)d has formed, it processes quickly

into BH .

Region V: Inhibited The first step of the synthesis chain is strongly supressed and

the CiDM composition is dominated by π(1)d . Region V is the cosmology taken

in [7]. The heavy baryon component mostly arises through the primordial B(1)

formation described in Sec. 3.2.

A quantitative description of the abundances in each one of these regions is summarized

in Table 3.

Region ρπ(1)d

/ρDM ρπ(2)d

/ρDM ρπ(3)d

/ρDM ρBH/ρDM

I 10−4 − 0.1% 10

−4 − 0.2% 10−3 − 0.9% > 99%

II 0.1%− 4% 0.2%− 5% 0.9%− 11% 80%− 99%

III 4%− 57% 5%− 24% 11%− 17% 9%− 80%

IV 57%− 99% < 5% < 5% 1%− 30%

V > 99% < 10−5 < 10

−5 < 1%

Table 3: The relations on the fractional mass densities that define the regions of darkmatter synthesis in Fig. 1.

– 17 –

IV

I

II

III

V

mlight �d/

�d(MeV)

mH(GeV)

!m=95keV

1 + 1→ 2 + 02 + 1→ 3 + 02 + 2→ 4 + 02 + 2→ 3 + 13 + 1→ 4 + 0

Dark Matter SynthesisA chain reaction, increasingly exothermic

First reaction is potential bottleneckDepends on mass of lightest dark hadron

Q = 2EB −mlight

Q = 10EB −mlight

Q = 32EB

Q = 8EB

Q = 24EB

Splitting of Ground StateMass difference in meson states arises from hyperfine splitting

Coulombic limit

δm ∼ α4dm2

L

mH

Atomic Dark MatterD. E. Kaplan, et al (2009)

For U(1):

ρdπd

spin 0 spin 1

dark pion dark rho

mL

Ener

gy Λd

mH

(Susy version in progress )

q̄L

qH

Splitting of Ground StateMass difference in meson states arises from hyperfine splitting

Coulombic limit

δm ∼ α4dm2

L

mH

Atomic Dark MatterD. E. Kaplan, et al (2009)

For U(1):

ρdπd

spin 0 spin 1

dark pion dark rho

mL

Ener

gy Λd

mH

(Susy version in progress )

q̄L

qH

Confined

δm ∼ Λ2d

mH

mL

q̄L

qH

nρd

nπd

= exp(−δm/Tspin)

Still Satisfy Self-Interaction Limits

Solves de-excitation problem

Spin TemperatureNeed to explain why iDM is in ground state

Self interaction keeps DM in equilibriumρdρd → πdπd

Tspin<∼ 10 keV

Kinetically decouple late, smaller spin temperature

σ

m<∼ 10−2 cm2

g∼ 1 bn

100 GeV

Dark Matter Couplings

Axial-Vector Coupling

Forbids quark masses until U(1)d Higgsed

Jµ

d = q̄Hγµγ5qH − q̄Lγµγ5qL

Couples to a secluded U(1)

How does the U(1) couple to mesons?

πd → −πd ρdµ → (−1)µρdµ

spin 0 meson spin 1 meson

qH q̄L

πd

ρµd

mas

s

Dark Matter Scattering

elasticπd→πd

inelasticπd→ρd

Axial Coupling to Mesons

Elastic

πd→πd

1Λ2

d

π†d∂µπd∂ν F̃µν

d

1Λ2

d

π†d∂µπd ∂νFµν

d

π†d∂µπd Aµ

d

Parit

y Fo

rbid

den

Vani

shes

Axial Coupling to Mesons

Elastic

πd→πd

1Λ2

d

π†d∂µπd∂ν F̃µν

d

1Λ2

d

π†d∂µπd ∂νFµν

d

π†d∂µπd Aµ

d

Parit

y Fo

rbid

den

Vani

shes

Inelastic

πd→ρd

1Λd

π†d∂µρν

dFdµν

Near purely Inelastic

mπd π†dρµ d Aµ

d

Velo

city

Supp

ress

edD

omin

ant

Coupling to Standard Model

DM SMU(1)YU(1)d

ψgut

Kinetically mix U(1)d with U(1)Y

LU(1) = −14Fµν

d Fdµν −14BµνBµν −

�

2Fµν

d Bµν → −14Fµν

d Fdµν −14B�µνB�

µν

Coupling to Standard Model

DM SMU(1)YU(1)d

ψgut

Kinetically mix U(1)d with U(1)Y

LHiggs = |Dµφd|2 − V (φd)→ m2

dA2

d

Higgs U(1)d near the electroweak scale

md = 2gdvφ

LU(1) = −14Fµν

d Fdµν −14BµνBµν −

�

2Fµν

d Bµν → −14Fµν

d Fdµν −14B�µνB�

µν

Coupling to Standard Model

DM SMU(1)YU(1)d

ψgut

Kinetically mix U(1)d with U(1)Y

LHiggs = |Dµφd|2 − V (φd)→ m2

dA2

d

Higgs U(1)d near the electroweak scale

md = 2gdvφ

Gives mass to fermions

mf = yfvφ

LYuk = yLqLqc

Lφ + yHqHqc

Hφ†

LU(1) = −14Fµν

d Fdµν −14BµνBµν −

�

2Fµν

d Bµν → −14Fµν

d Fdµν −14B�µνB�

µν

Coupling to Standard ModelKinetically mix U(1)d with U(1)Y

DM SMU(1)YU(1)d

ψgut

redefine SM photon AEM → AEM − �Ad

L = −F 2d − F 2

EM − �FdFEM + m2AA2

d + JEMAEM + JdAd

kinetic mixing

Holdom 1985

After EWSB:

Coupling to Standard ModelKinetically mix U(1)d with U(1)Y

DM SMU(1)YU(1)d

ψgut

redefine SM photon AEM → AEM − �Ad

L = −F 2d − F 2

EM − �FdFEM + m2AA2

d + JEMAEM + JdAd

kinetic mixing

Holdom 1985

After EWSB:

Lint ∝ �JµemAdµ

L = −F 2d − F 2

EM + m2AA2

d + JEM(AEM − �Ad) + JdAd

SM is milli-charged under dark U(1), DM is neutral under EM

E137

E141

E774

10 MeV 100 MeV 1 GeV 10 GeV 100 GeV

�

mAd

Current Limits on ε

(w/ A. Hook & E. Izaguirre)

CiDM

Υ decays(g − 2)µ

Model independent limits not known for 1 GeV to 200 GeV

Precision EW + High energy Bounds

α(q2) =e2

4π

�1 +

�2q2

q2 + mAd

�

10-2

10-3

10-4

10-5

10-1

CP-Violation

Leads to mixing between states of different paritye.g. πd ↔ a0d

Lcpv = ΘdTrGdG̃dΘ term in dark QCD sector Not necessarily small

chiral rotation removes Θ termmL → 0In limit

sin θpParity violating mixing

Leads to sin θp

Λ2d

π†d∂µπd ∂νFµν

d

Scalar states neutral under U(1)d

20 40 60 80 1000.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

ER!KeVee

CountRate"arbitratyunits#

MDM!200 GeV, MA!1 GeV

Charged Radius Elastic Scattering

Charged Elastic Scattering

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

"0.005

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

ER!KeVee

"cpd!kg!keV#

MDM!200 GeV, #!125 keV, MA!1 GeV

Figure 4: Nuclear recoil spectra characteristic of composite dark matter. In addition to

scattering inelastically, composite dark matter may also scatter elastically through charged

radius scattering, but with a suppressed rate. Left: For a dark matter mass of MDM =

200 GeV and mediator mass MA = 1 GeV, the charged radius recoil spectrum (blue) is

shown alongside the charged scattering spectrum (red). The finite size of the dark matter

suppresses low recoil energy events, thereby pushing the entire recoil spectrum to higher

energies. Consequently, direct detection experiments need to include large nuclear recoil

energies to maximize sensitivity to this kind of elastic scattering. Right: Charged inelastic

scattering (orange) and electric-dipole inelastic scattering (red) are shown alongside the

DAMA recoil spectrum (blue data points), again for MDM = 200 GeV and mediator mass

MA = 1 GeV. The finite dark matter size suppresses low energy events, thereby pushing the

spectrum to slightly higher energies.

11

Erecoil

Suppressed at low

Erecoil

Vector Couplings

Lint =gd

Λ2dark

∂µFµνdark π†

d ∂ν πd

Lint =gd

Λdark�µνσρFdark µν ρ†d σ ∂ρ πd

parity!

Different low energy interactions

velocity suppressed

Elastic transition

Inelastic transition

Dim 6 elastic Charge Radius scattering

10−6 smaller

ER

elastic

charge-radius

Rat

e

Charge-radius scattering difficult to distinguish from inelastic scattering

Charge Radius Scattering

Neutral composite states with charged constituents

Lcr = Fdm(ER)q̄ieA� dq

Fdm(0) = 0 + r2cER

Form-factor suppression from interaction with background field

q

qFdm(ER)πd

πd

γd

sin θp

Λ2d

π†d∂µπd ∂νFµν

d

Plan of Talk

DAMA & Inelastic Dark Matter

Composite dark matter models

Experimental Prospects

Discussion

0 100 200 300 400 500 6000.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

0 100 200 300 400 500 6000

1

2

3

v2f(v

)/10−

4

vesc

v0

velocity

Standard Halo Model

isothermal, isotropic, & Gaussian

f(v) ∝�e−(v/v0)

2− e−(vesc/v0)2

�Θ(vesc − v)

N-body simulations indicate that density falls off more steeply at larger radii

Modified SHM

600

0 100 200 300 400 500 6000.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

velocity

v0

α=1.1

α=0.8)

)

f(v) ∝�e−(v/v0)

2α

− e−(vesc/v0)2α�Θ(vesc − v)

α parameterizes variation in the tail of the distribution

captures qualitative behavior of N-body simulations

vesc

0 100 200 300 400 500 6000

1

2

3

v2f(v

)/10−

4

Will use modified ansatz

Marginalizing over UncertaintiesHow do current experiments constrain parameters?

0.8 ≤ α ≤ 1.25

200 ≤ v0 ≤ 300

500 ≤ vesc ≤ 600

astrophysicsparticle physics

v0, vesc, αmπd , δm,σ

Usually astrophysical parameters are benchmarked

Minimize χ2 over 6 parameters using results from direct detection experiments

Fit to DAMA recoil spectrum

No experiment rules out point at 95% CL

χ2(m, δ, σ, v0, ve,α) =�

�Xpred

i −Xobsi

σi

�2

Parameter Space

mπd ∼ 70 GeVδm ∼ 95 keV

Slow halos

θp = 0, 4%, 6%, 8%

Best fit

v0 ∼ 200 km/sα >∼ 1.0

0.01 0.1 1 10 1001�10�5

5�10�51�10�4

5�10�40.001

0.0050.010

Dark Photon Mass �GeV�

ΕGlobal Fit

DAMA Regions

θp = 0, 6%, 8%

g2d

q4→ g2

d

m4Ad

mAd � gdvφ �gdmπd

yH

DAMABest fits

Difficult to distinguish from DAMA mixed elastic-inelastic scattering

Modulation Amplitude

0 2 4 6 8

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

Recoil Energy �keVee�

counts�kg�

day�keV

ee

cel/cin=0

cel/cin=0.15

θp = 0%, 8%

0 20 40 60 80 100 1200.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

� Events Observed

Frequency

Xenon100Will see a large number of events

(1000 kg-day exposure ~ 1 month!)

100 kg Liquid Xe detectors (upgrade for Xenon10)

Tail down to small < 5 events

0 20 40 60 80 100 1200.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

� Events Observed

Frequency

DAMA rate: 0.02/kg d/keV

Nevents > 0.5 Nevents > 40

Xenon100

0 20 40 60 80

0.05

0.10

0.50

1.00

5.00

Recoil Energy �keV�

counts�keVRecoil Spectrum

: summer

: winter

1000 kg· day

Elastic subcomponent apparent but distorts spectrum, inelastic kinematics get washed out

Directional detection experiments key

Plan of Talk

DAMA & Inelastic Dark Matter

Composite dark matter models

Experimental Prospects

Discussion

Future WorkSusy: New Hierarchy Problem

Discovering other componentsLight Baryons

Heavy Baryons & Multicore Mesons

Generating AsymmetryDecays & Annihilations

Cosmic Ray Signals

SM might be mediator of DM SSB

Collider SignaturesLepton Jets

Nearly Susy bound statesPossible DM forming MACHOS

e+e

!

!+ !

!

qD

!D

!D !!

D

!"#$%&'()*#&+*,'#-.+"!#*/01")0*/

!D

!D

q̄D

!+

!!

!D

!+

!!

!+

!!

!s " !D

23-4/"5-&)")'&0/-(*5506")'!-7')&

!s ! !D

#*89+5:-&;+'#0("5-'<'/)

mA! ! !D

=**&)'!-;#*!8()&-#'(*05-*>>-;+*)*/

!

!!

D !D

!+

!!

Figure 3: Left: Cartoon of an event in which quarks in a simple confined dark sector areproduced through an o!-shell A!. The quarks shower and hadronize into mesons, whichdecay into Standard Model particles. Final states frequently contain many leptons, but canalso include hadrons and long-lived dark states that escape the detector unobserved. Right:Phase space structure of di!erent kinds of events. An o!-shell A! produces jet-like structureif "D !

"s (top), and approximately spherical final states if "D !

"s (middle). In A!/!

radiative return production, the dark-sector final state recoils against a hard photon.

states that can only decay to Standard Model final states. Gauge boson decays are suppressedby two powers of the mixing parameter ", and can be prompt or displaced. Higgs decays canbe suppressed by "4, depending on kinematics, in which case they leave the detectors beforedecaying to visible matter. Typical events in a Higgsed dark sector can produce between4 and 12 Standard Model particles, with leptons being a significant fraction and easiest toobserve. Caricatures of these events, with and without a recoiling photon, are shown inFigure 2. The decay phenomenology is similar in hadron colliders [22], and the pure HiggsedAbelian case for B-factories has been discussed in [16], though the dominant productionmodes and kinematics considered here are quite di!erent.

If the non-Abelian factor of GD is confined, then the physical picture is very similar tothe hidden valley models discussed in [18, 19, 20]. U(1)D mixing mediates production of alight quark-antiquark pair in the dark sector. These states shower and hadronize, producingfew dark-sector mesons with a roughly spherical distribution if the ratio

"s/"D is O(1),

and collimated jets if this ratio is large. Unlike the Higgsed scenario, the multiplicity ofmesons in a typical final state is determined by the ratio of the production energy to "D,not by spectroscopy. Di!erent scenarios are caricatured in Figure 3. These sectors containlight mesons that can only decay to Standard Model final states. A single event can containa combination of prompt and displaced decays, and states that escape the detector. In

8

p p

Collider Signatures

Light mesons

Lepton Jets

Signal Simulation

Sherpa & HerwigDark Showering

Dark HadronizationSherpa & Herwig

Cascading to SM

Need HadronSpectrum + Decays

(w/ A. Haas & Y. Gershtein)

DarkSpecGenAn interface to produce semi-realistichadronic final spectra and decay tables

and interface to Sherpa & Herwig

GaugeSU(N), Sp(2N), SO(N) Partons

Reps (Fund, Adj)Nf, Masses, Spins

Strong DecaysFlavor/CPWeak Decays

SM Neutral Portals

(w/ S. Behbehani)

Conclusions

Inelastic DM is an elegant explanation forDAMA vs the Rest of the World

New scale to explain: New Dynamics

Discovery or Refutation ImminentWithin the year

iDM sensitive to halo: Need to go beyond SHM

New measurements are importantDirectional Detection

Finding DM subcomponentsMeasuring Halo properties