IceCube search for dark matter annihilation in nearby galaxies and galaxy clusters

Aartsen, M. G.; Abbasi, Rasha; Abdou, Y.; Ackermann, M.; Adams, J. H.; Aguilar, J. A.; Ahlers, M.; Altmann, D.; Auffenberg, J.; Bai, X.; Baker, M.; Barwick, S. W.; Baum, V.; Bay, R.; Beatty, J. J.; Bechet, S.; Tjus, J. Becker; Becker, K.-H.; Benabderrahmane, M. L.; BenZvi, S.; Berghaus, P.; Berley, D.; Bernardini, E.; Bernhard, A.; Bertrand, Daniel; Besson, D.; Binder, G.; Bindig, D.; Bissok, M.; Blaufuss, E.; Blumenthal, J.; Boersma, D. J.; Bohaichuk, S.; Böhm, C.; Bose, D.; Böser, S.; Botner, O.; Brayeur, L.; Bretz, H.-P.; Brown, A. M.; Bruijn, R.; Brünner, J.; Carson, M.; Casey, J.; Casier, M.; Chirkin, D.; Christov, A.; Christy, B.; Clark, K.; Clevermann, F.; Coenders, S.; Cohen, S.; Cowen, D. F.; Silva, A. H. Cruz; Danninger, M.; Daughhetee, J.; Davis, J.; Day, M.; Clercq, C. De; Ridder, S. De; Desiati, P.; Vries, Krijn de; With, M. de; DeYoung, T.; Díaz-Vélez, J. C.; Dunkman, M.; Eagan, R.; Eberhardt, B.; Eisch, J.; Ellsworth, R. W.; Euler, S.; Evenson, P. A.; Fadiran, O.; Fazely, A. R.; Fedynitch, Anatoli; Feintzeig, J.; Feusels, T.; Filimonov, K.; Finley, C.; Fischer-Wasels, T.; Flis, S.; Franckowiak, A.; Frantzen, K.; Fuchs, T.; Gaisser, T. K.; Gallagher, J.; Gerhardt, L.; Gladstone, L.; Glüsenkamp, T.; Goldschmidt, A.; Golup, G.; González, J. G.; Goodman, J. A.; Góra, D.; Grandmont, D. T.; Grant, D.; Groß, A.; Ha, C.; Ismail, A. Haj; Hallen, P.; Hallgren, A.; Halzen, F.; Hanson, K.; Heereman, D.; Heinen, D.; Helbing, K.; Hellauer, R.; Hickford, S.; Hill, G. C.; Hoffman, K. D.; Hoffmann, R.; Homeier, A.; Hoshina, K.; Huelsnitz, W.; Hulth, P. O.; Hultqvist, K.; Hussain, Shahid; Ishihara, A.; Jacobi, E.; Jacobsen, J.; Jagielski, K.; Japaridze, G. S.; Jero, K.; Jlelati, O.; Kaminsky, B.; Kappes, A.; Karg, T.; Karle, A.; Kelley, J. L.; Kiryluk, J.; Kläs, J.; Klein, S. R.; Köhne, J. H.; Kohnen, G.; Kolanoski, H.; Köpke, L.; Kopper, C.; Kopper, S.; Koskinen, D. J.; Kowalski, M.; Krasberg, M.; Krings, K.; Kroll, G.; Kunnen, J.; Kurahashi, N.; Kuwabara, T.; Labare, M.; Landsman, H.; Larson, M. J.; Lesiak-Bzdak, M.; Leuermann, M.; Leute, J.; Lünemann, J.; Macías, Óscar; Madsen, J.; Maggi, G.; Maruyama, R.; Mase, K.; Matis, H. S.; McNally, F.; Meagher, K.; Merck, M.; Meures, T.; Miarecki, S.; Middell, E.; Milke, N.; Miller, J.; Mohrmann, L.; Montaruli, T.; Morse, R.; Nahnhauer, R.; Naumann, Uwe; Niederhausen, H.; Nowicki, S. C.; Nygren, D. R.; Obertacke, A.; Odrowski, S.; Olivas, A.; Omairat, A.; O’Murchadha, A.; Paul, Larissa; Pepper, J. A.; Heros, C. Pérez de los; Pfendner, C.; Pieloth, D.; Pinat, E.; Posselt, J.; Price, P. B.; Przybylski, G. T.; Rädel, L.; Rameez, M.; Rawlins, K.; Redl, P.; Reimann, R.; Resconi, E.; Rhode, W.; Ribordy, M.; Richman, M.; Riedel, Benedikt; Rodrigues, J. P.; Rott, C.; Ruhe, T.; Ruzybayev, B.; Ryckbosch, D.; Saba, S. M.; Salameh, T.; Sander, H. G.; Santander, M.; Sarkar, S.; Schatto, K.; Scheriau, F.; Schmidt, T.; Schmitz, M.; Schoenen, S.; Schöneberg, S.; Schönwald, A.; Schukraft, A.; Schulte, L.; Schulz, O.; Seckel, D.; Sestayo, Y.; Seunarine, S.; Shanidze, R.; Sheremata, C.; Smith, M. W. E.; Soldin, D.; Spiczak, G. M.; Spiering, Christian; Stamatikos, M.; Stanev, T.; Stasik, A.; Stezelberger, T.; Stokstad, R. G.; Stößl, A.; Strahler, E. A.; Strom, Lars Rickard; Sullivan, G. W.; Taavola, H.; Taboada, I.; Tamburro, A.; Tepe, A.; Ter–Antonyan, S.; Tešić, G.; Tilav, S.; Toale, P. A.; Toscano, S.; Unger, E.; Usner, M.; Vallecorsa, S.; Eijndhoven, N. van; Overloop, A. Van; Santen, J. V.; Vehring, M.; Vöge, M.; Vraeghe, M.; Walck, C.; Waldenmaier, T.; Wallraff, M.; Weaver, Ch.; Wellons, M.; Wendt, C.; Westerhoff, S.; Whitehorn, N.; Wiebe, K.; Wiebusch, C. H.; Williams, Daniel; Wissing, H.; Wolf, M.; Wood, T. R.; Woschnagg, K.; Xu, D. L.; Xu, X. W.; Yañez, J. P.; Yodh, G.; Yoshida, Shigeru; Zarzhitsky, P.; Ziemann, J.; Zierke, S.; Zoll, M.

doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.122001

Cited by 81 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…8 shows the upper limits on σ A v for the τ + τ − annihilation channel and NFW halo profile of this work to previous results from IceCube and other indirect dark matter detection experiments. It can [28,[38][39][40] and ANTARES [41]. Also shown are upper limits from gamma-ray searches from the dwarf galaxy Segue 1 (Seg1) by FermiLAT+MAGIC [42] and from the galactic center by H.E.S.S.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Search for neutrinos from dark matter self-annihilations in the center of the Milky Way with 3 years of IceCube/DeepCore

Aartsen¹,

Ackermann²,

Adams³

et al. 2017

Eur. Phys. J. C

Self Cite

104

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a search for a neutrino signal from dark matter self-annihilations in the Milky Way using the IceCube Neutrino Observatory (IceCube). In 1005 days of data we found no significant excess of neutrinos over the background of neutrinos produced in atmospheric air showers from cosmic ray interactions. We derive upper limits on the velocity averaged product of the dark matter self-annihilation cross section and the relative velocity of the dark matter particles σ A v . Upper limits are set for dark matter particle candidate masses ranging from 10 GeV up to 1 TeV while considering annihilation through multiple channels. This work sets the most stringent limit on a neutrino signal from dark matter with mass between 10 and 100 GeV, with a limit of 1.18 · 10 −23 cm 3 s −1 for 100 GeV dark matter particles selfannihilating via τ + τ − to neutrinos (assuming the NavarroFrenk-White dark matter halo profile).

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Search for neutrinos from dark matter self-annihilations in the center of the Milky Way with 3 years of IceCube/DeepCore

Aartsen¹,

Ackermann²,

Adams³

et al. 2017

Eur. Phys. J. C

Self Cite

104

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Also, in this context, some have considered the isotropic arrival directions of cosmic neutrinos to be a clue that they originate in the Galactic halo as a result of the decay of PeV-energy dark matter particles, a speculation that at this point is perfectly consistent with observations [33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40] . More traditionally, IceCube searches for dark matter by looking for the annihilation of weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) wherever they have accumulated to a high density: in the Sun 41 , in the Milky Way 42,43 , and in nearby galaxies 44 . For instance, WIMPs are swept up by the Sun as the solar system moves about the galactic halo.…”

Section: High-energy Neutrinos and Dark Mattermentioning

confidence: 99%

High-energy neutrino astrophysics

Halzen

2016

Nature Phys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The chargeless, weakly interacting neutrinos are ideal astronomical messengers as they travel through space without scattering, absorption or deflection. But this weak interaction also makes them notoriously di cult to detect, leading to neutrino observatories requiring large-scale detectors. A few years ago, the IceCube experiment discovered neutrinos originating beyond the Sun with energies bracketed by those of the highest energy gamma rays and cosmic rays. I discuss how these high-energy neutrinos can be detected and what they can tell us about the origins of cosmic rays and about dark matter.

show abstract

“…Thermal relic dark matter sets a natural scale for the thermally averaged DM annihilation cross section around σ ann v rel 6 × 10 −26 cm 3 s −1 . This scale can be searched for in CMB [71], gamma-ray [72], and even neutrino data [73]. Both CMB and gamma-ray data have breached thermal relic sensitivity for light DM masses.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Direct Detection Phenomenology in Models Where the Products of Dark Matter Annihilation Interact with Nuclei

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigate the direct detection phenomenology of a class of dark matter (DM) models in which DM does not directly interact with nuclei, but rather the products of its annihilation do. When these annihilation products are very light compared to the DM mass, the scattering in direct detection experiments is controlled by relativistic kinematics. This results in a distinctive recoil spectrum, a non-standard and or even absent annual modulation, and the ability to probe DM masses as low as a ∼10 MeV. We use current LUX data to show that experimental sensitivity to thermal relic annihilation cross sections has already been reached in a class of models. Moreover, the compatibility of dark matter direct detection experiments can be compared directly in Emin space without making assumptions about DM astrophysics, mass, or scattering form factors. Lastly, when DM has direct couplings to nuclei, the limit from annihilation to relativistic particles in the Sun can be stronger than that of conventional non-relativistic direct detection by more than three orders of magnitude for masses in a 2-7 GeV window.Introduction -While very little is known about Dark Matter (DM), its cosmological abundance is experimentally quite well-determined: Ω CDM h 2 = 0.1199 ± 0.0027 [1]. An appealing framework for understanding the relic abundance of Dark Matter (DM) is thermal freeze-out [2]. Number-changing interactions in the early universe, XX ↔ (SM)SM keep DM in thermal equilibrium with the SM bath, until the rate of these annihilation processes drops below the rate of Hubble expansion. After this point the abundance of DM is essentially fixed at, Ω CDM h 2 0.12 6 × 10 −26 cm 3 s −1 / σ ann v rel , singling out a characteristic annihilation cross section σ ann v rel for thermally produced DM to yield the observed abundance. This scenario is attractive in that it provides a simple and elegant framework for the relic abundance that can be tested in a variety of ways, including direct detection (DD) [3]. However, current constraints from DD rule out many of the simplest models of thermal relic DM, which may indicate a modification of the above picture.In this paper we investigate a modification of thermal DM which alleviates the tension between DD constraints and the thermal relic hypothesis, while making unique predictions for DD. In particular, we take the abundance of DM, X, to be determined by the annihilation process XX ↔ Y Y , where Y is a much lighter dark sector species. The interactions of the dark sector state Y with ordinary nuclei allows for a unique test of the scenario at DD experiments. The resulting DD phenomenology of this class of models is distinctive, owing to the fact that (1) the scattering partner of the nucleus is relativistic, rendering the kinematics of scattering completely different and (2) it is the flux of the scattering partner Y that determines the rate of events at a detector rather than X. Both of these features have novel consequences not considered in the literature of "model-independent" direct detecti...

show abstract

IceCube search for dark matter annihilation in nearby galaxies and galaxy clusters

Cited by 81 publications

References 53 publications

Search for neutrinos from dark matter self-annihilations in the center of the Milky Way with 3 years of IceCube/DeepCore

Search for neutrinos from dark matter self-annihilations in the center of the Milky Way with 3 years of IceCube/DeepCore

High-energy neutrino astrophysics

Direct Detection Phenomenology in Models Where the Products of Dark Matter Annihilation Interact with Nuclei

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About