- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review D

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Current dark matter annihilation constraints from CMB and low-redshift data

Mathew S. Madhavacheril1, Neelima Sehgal1, and Tracy R. Slatyer2

  • 1Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York 11794, USA
  • 2Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA

PDF

Phys. Rev. D 89, 103508 – Published 7 May, 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.103508

Abstract

Updated constraints on the dark matter cross section and mass are presented combining cosmic microwave background (CMB) power spectrum measurements from Planck, WMAP9, ACT, and SPT as well as several low-redshift data sets (BAO, HST, and supernovae). For the CMB data sets, we combine WMAP9 temperature and polarization data for l≤431 with Planck temperature data for 432≤l≤2500, ACT and SPT data for l>2500, and Planck CMB four-point lensing measurements. We allow for redshift-dependent energy deposition from dark matter annihilation by using a “universal" energy absorption curve. We also include an updated treatment of the excitation, heating, and ionization energy fractions and provide an updated deposition efficiency factors (feff) for 41 different dark matter models. Assuming perfect energy deposition (feff=1) and a thermal cross section, dark matter masses below 26 GeV are excluded at the 2σ level. Assuming a more generic efficiency of feff=0.2, thermal dark matter masses below 5 GeV are disfavored at the 2σ level. These limits are a factor of ∼2 improvement over those from WMAP9 data alone. These current constraints probe, but do not exclude, dark matter as an explanation for reported anomalous indirect detection observations from AMS-02/PAMELA and the Fermi gamma-ray inner-Galaxy data. They also probe relevant models that would explain anomalous direct detection events from CDMS, CRESST, CoGeNT, and DAMA, as originating from a generic thermal weakly interacting massive particle. Projected constraints from the full Planck release should improve the current limits by another factor of ∼2 but will not definitely probe these signals. The proposed CMB Stage IV experiment will more decisively explore the relevant regions and improve upon the Planck constraints by another factor of ∼2.

View figure in article

Article Text

References (62)

  1. N. Padmanabhan and D. P. Finkbeiner, Phys. Rev. D 72, 023508 (2005).
  2. S. Galli, F. Iocco, G. Bertone, and A. Melchiorri, Phys. Rev. D 80, 023505 (2009).
  3. T. R. Slatyer, N. Padmanabhan, and D. P. Finkbeiner, Phys. Rev. D 80, 043526 (2009).
  4. S. Galli, F. Iocco, G. Bertone, and A. Melchiorri, Phys. Rev. D 84, 027302 (2011).
  5. D. P. Finkbeiner, S. Galli, T. Lin, and T. R. Slatyer, Phys. Rev. D 85, 043522 (2012).
  6. J. M. Cline and P. Scott, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 03 (2013) 044.
  7. R. Diamanti, L. Lopez-Honorez, O. Mena, S. Palomares-Ruiz, and A. C. Vincent, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02 (2014) 017.
  8. S. Galli, T. R. Slatyer, M. Valdes, and F. Iocco, Phys. Rev. D 88, 063502 (2013).
  9. L. Lopez-Honorez, O. Mena, S. Palomares-Ruiz, and A. C. Vincent, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 07 (2013) 046.
  10. C. Weniger, P. D. Serpico, F. Iocco, and G. Bertone, Phys. Rev. D 87, 123008 (2013).
  11. A. Natarajan, Phys. Rev. D 85, 083517 (2012).
  12. P. J. E. Peebles, Astrophys. J. 153, 1 (1968).
  13. R. Bean, A. Melchiorri, and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. D 75, 063505 (2007).
  14. S. Galli, R. Bean, A. Melchiorri, and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. D 78, 063532 (2008).
  15. G. Hütsi, J. Chluba, A. Hektor, and M. Raidal, Astron. Astrophys. 535, A26 (2011).
  16. A. Natarajan and D. J. Schwarz, Phys. Rev. D 80, 043529 (2009).
  17. G. Giesen, J. Lesgourgues, B. Audren, and Y. Ali-Haïmoud, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 12 (2012) 008.
  18. J. M. Shull and M. E. van Steenberg, Astrophys. J. 298, 268 (1985).
  19. X. Chen and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D 70, 043502 (2004).
  20. M. Valdés and A. Ferrara, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 387, L8 (2008).
  21. S. R. Furlanetto and S. J. Stoever, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 404, 1869 (2010).
  22. M. Valdés, C. Evoli, and A. Ferrara, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 404, 1569 (2010).
  23. C. Evoli, S. Pandolfi, and A. Ferrara, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 433, 1736 (2013).
  24. T. R. Slatyer, Phys. Rev. D 87, 123513 (2013).
  25. The Planck Collaboration, arXiv:astro-ph/0604069.
  26. A. Lewis and S. Bridle, Phys. Rev. D 66, 103511 (2002).
  27. P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck Collaboration), arXiv:1303.5076.
  28. C. L. Bennett et al., Astrophys. J. 208, 20 (2013).
  29. S. Das et al., arXiv:1301.1037.
  30. K. K. Schaffer et al., Astrophys. J. 743, 90 (2011).
  31. P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck Collaboration), arXiv:1303.5075.
  32. K. S. Dawson et al., Astron. J. 145, 10 (2013).
  33. A. G. Riess, L. Macri, S. Casertano, H. Lampeitl, H. C. Ferguson, A. V. Filippenko, S. W. Jha, W. Li, and R. Chornock, Astrophys. J. 730, 119 (2011).
  34. N. Suzuki et al., Astrophys. J. 746, 85 (2012).
  35. M. Aguilar et al. (AMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 141102 (2013).
  36. O. Adriani et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 081102 (2013).
  37. M. Ackermann et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 011103 (2012).
  38. D. Hooper, P. Blasi, and P. Dario Serpico, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 01 (2009) 025.
  39. H. Yüksel, M. D. Kistler, and T. Stanev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 051101 (2009).
  40. S. Profumo, Central Eur. J. Phys. 10, 1 (2012).
  41. D. Malyshev, I. Cholis, and J. Gelfand, Phys. Rev. D 80, 063005 (2009).
  42. D. Grasso et al., Astropart. Phys. 32, 140 (2009).
  43. H.-B. Jin, Y.-L. Wu, and Y.-F. Zhou, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 11 (2013) 026.
  44. I. Cholis and D. Hooper, Phys. Rev. D 88, 023013 (2013).
  45. L. Bergstrom, T. Bringmann, I. Cholis, D. Hooper, and C. Weniger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 171101 (2013).
  46. J. Kopp, Phys. Rev. D 88, 076013 (2013).
  47. O. Adriani et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 121101 (2010).
  48. A. A. Abdo et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 181101 (2009).
  49. M. Ackermann et al., Phys. Rev. D 82, 092004 (2010).
  50. M. Pospelov and A. Ritz, Phys. Lett. B 671, 391 (2009).
  51. N. Arkani-Hamed, D. P. Finkbeiner, T. R. Slatyer, and N. Weiner, Phys. Rev. D 79, 015014 (2009).
  52. R. Bernabei et al., arXiv:1301.6243.
  53. R. Agnese et al. (CDMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 251301 (2013).
  54. C. E. Aalseth et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 141301 (2011).
  55. G. Angloher et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1 (2012).
  56. K. N. Abazajian et al., arXiv:1309.5381.
  57. K. N. Abazajian et al., arXiv:1309.5383.
  58. D. Hooper, I. Cholis, T. Linden, J. Siegal-Gaskins, and T. Slatyer, Phys. Rev. D 88, 083009 (2013).
  59. D. Hooper and T. Linden, Phys. Rev. D 84, 123005 (2011).
  60. D. Hooper and L. Goodenough, Phys. Lett. B 697, 412 (2011).
  61. D. Hooper, C. Kelso, and F. S. Queiroz, Astropart. Phys. 46, 55 (2013).
  62. C. Gordon and O. Macias, Phys. Rev. D 88, 083521 (2013).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 89, 103508– Published 7 May, 2014
  • Received 15 October 2013

© 2014 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation