4.6 Article

Fermi/LAT observations of dwarf galaxies highly constrain a dark matter interpretation of excess positrons seen in AMS-02, HEAT, and PAMELA

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/03/033

关键词

dark matter experiments; cosmic ray experiments; gamma ray experiments

资金

  1. DOE [DOE-FG02-95ER40899]
  2. Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics
  3. Swedish Research Council (VR) through the Oskar Klein Centre

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It is shown that a Weakly Interacting Massive dark matter Particle (WIMP) interpretation for the positron excess observed in a variety of experiments, HEAT, PAMELA, and AMS-02, is highly constrained by the Fermi/LAT observations of dwarf galaxies. In particular, this paper examines the annihilation channels that best fit the current AMS-02 data (Boudaud et al., 2014), specifically focusing on channels and parameter space not previously explored by the Fermi/LAT collaboration. The Fermi satellite has surveyed the gamma-ray sky, and its observations of dwarf satellites are used to place strong bounds on the annihilation of WIMPs into a variety of channels. For the single channel case, we find that dark matter annihilation into {b (b) over bar, e(+)e(-), mu(+)mu(-), tau(+)tau(-), 4-e, or 4-tau} is ruled out as an explanation of the AMS positron excess (here b quarks are a proxy for all quarks, gauge and Higgs bosons). In addition, we find that the Fermi/LAT 2 sigma upper limits, assuming the best-fit AMS-02 branching ratios, exclude multichannel combinations into b (b) over bar and leptons. The tension between the results might relax if the branching ratios are allowed to deviate from their best-fit values, though a substantial change would be required. Of all the channels we considered, the only viable channel that survives the Fermi/LAT constraint and produces a good fit to the AMS-02 data is annihilation (via a mediator) to 4-mu, or mainly to 4-mu in the case of multichannel combinations.

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

4.6
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