Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 278

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Sommerfeld enhancements for thermal relic dark matter

Open access
Feng, Jonathan L., Kaplinghat, Manoj, Yu, Hai-Bo·2010·Physical Review D
DOI 10.1103/physrevd.82.083525
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The annihilation cross section of thermal relic dark matter determines both its relic density and indirect detection signals. We determine how large indirect signals may be in scenarios with Sommerfeld-enhanced annihilation, subject to the constraint that the dark matter has the correct relic density. This work refines our previous analysis through detailed treatments of resonant Sommerfeld enhancement and the effect of Sommerfeld enhancement on freeze out. Sommerfeld enhancements raise many interesting issues in the freeze out calculation, and we find that the cutoff of resonant enhancement, the equilibration of force carriers, the temperature of kinetic decoupling, and the efficiency of self-interactions for preserving thermal velocity distributions all play a role. These effects may have striking consequences; for example, for resonantly-enhanced Sommerfeld annihilation, dark matter freezes out but may then chemically recouple, implying highly suppressed indirect signals, in contrast to naive expectations. In the minimal scenario with standard astrophysical assumptions, and tuning all parameters to maximize the signal, we find that, for force-carrier mass ${m}_{\ensuremath{\phi}}=250\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{MeV}$ and dark matter masses ${m}_{X}=0.1$, 0.3, and 1 TeV, the maximal Sommerfeld enhancement factors are ${S}_{\mathrm{eff}}=7$, 30, and 90, respectively. Such boosts are too small to explain both the PAMELA and Fermi excesses. Nonminimal models may require smaller boosts, but the bounds on ${S}_{\mathrm{eff}}$ could also be more stringent, and dedicated freeze out analyses are required. For concreteness, we focus on $4\ensuremath{\mu}$ final states, but we also discuss $4e$ and other modes, deviations from standard astrophysical assumptions and nonminimal particle physics models, and we outline the steps required to determine if such considerations may lead to a self-consistent explanation of the PAMELA or Fermi excesses.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physrevd.82.083525

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 278

Metadata

Authors
Feng, J. L., Kaplinghat, M., & Yu, H.-B.
Venue
Physical Review D
Publisher
American Physical Society (APS)
Published
2010-10-26
Volume
82
Issue
8
ISSN
  • 0556-2821 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-7998
  • 1550-2368
DOI
10.1103/physrevd.82.083525
OpenAlex
W2098995349
Cited by
278
References
67
FWCI
11.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.