Eur. Phys. J. C (2017) 77:397DOI 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4963-x

Regular Article - Theoretical Physics

Sterile neutrino portal to Dark Matter II: exact dark symmetry

Miguel Escudero1,a, Nuria Rius1,b, Verónica Sanz2,c

1 Departamento de Física Teórica and IFIC, Universidad de Valencia-CSIC, C/Catedrático José Beltrán, 2, 46980 Paterna, Spain2 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QH, UK

Received: 20 January 2017 / Accepted: 31 May 2017 / Published online: 14 June 2017© The Author(s) 2017. This article is an open access publication

Abstract We analyze a simple extension of the standardmodel (SM) with a dark sector composed of a scalar anda fermion, both singlets under the SM gauge group butcharged under a dark sector symmetry group. Sterile neu-trinos, which are singlets under both groups, mediate theinteractions between the dark sector and the SM particles,and generate masses for the active neutrinos via the seesawmechanism. We explore the parameter space region wherethe observed Dark Matter relic abundance is determined bythe annihilation into sterile neutrinos, both for fermion andscalar Dark Matter particles. The scalar Dark Matter caseprovides an interesting alternative to the usual Higgs por-tal scenario. We also study the constraints from direct DarkMatter searches and the prospects for indirect detection viasterile neutrino decays to leptons, which may be able to ruleout Dark Matter masses below and around 100 GeV.

1 Introduction

Dark Matter and neutrino masses provide experimental evi-dence for physics beyond the standard model (SM), and find-ing a scenario where both phenomena are linked is an excit-ing possibility. Another hint to a connection between thesetwo sectors comes from the standard mechanisms to gener-ate the Dark Matter relic abundance and neutrino masses, asboth seem to require new massive degrees of freedom, witha thermal relic and right-handed neutrinos, respectively.

An obvious possibility would be for right-handed neutri-nos to constitute the Dark Matter of the Universe [1]. Thisoption is constrained to a specific region at the keV and smallmixing with active neutrinos in the minimal see saw model,but in extended scenarios a larger parameter space is allowed,for instance in the context of a gauged B−L symmetry [2,3].

a e-mail: miguel.escudero@ific.uv.esb e-mail: nuria.rius@ific.uv.esc e-mail: v.sanz@sussex.ac.uk

Upcoming experiments may be able to exclude or establishwhether keV neutrinos are the origin of Dark Matter, seee.g. [4].

In this paper we take a different approach, focusing onthe fact that heavy neutrinos can mediate between Dark Mat-ter and the SM. We propose a simple extension of the SMwith a new scalar and fermion, singlets under the SM gaugegroup but charged under a dark sector symmetry group. Ster-ile neutrinos, which are singlets under both groups, are ableto mediate the interactions between the dark sector and theSM particles, as well as generate masses for the active neu-trinos via the seesaw mechanism. Therefore, the same cou-pling that generates neutrino masses after electroweak sym-metry breaking, determines the Dark Matter phenomenology.Indeed, Dark Matter annihilation to right-handed neutrinosand subsequent decays to SM particles characterize the com-putation of the relic abundance as well as indirect detectionprobes, respectively.

This minimal set-up has been studied in [5,6] for the caseof fermion Dark Matter, under the assumption that the sterileneutrinos are pseudo-Dirac and heavier than the dark sectorparticles. Our analysis differs from this previous work in that:(1) we explore the region of parameter space where sterileneutrinos are lighter than the dark sector, and therefore theDark Matter can annihilate into sterile neutrinos and (2) weextend the analysis to the scalar Dark Matter case, which wasnot considered before.

In a companion paper [7], we have explored an alternativescenario with the dark sector charged under U (1)B−L , andboth papers provide two distinct possibilities for a sterileneutrino portal to Dark Matter.

The paper is organized as follows. After presenting theset-up of our model in Sect. 2, we move onto the constraintsfrom Higgs decays and direct Dark Matter searches in Sect. 3.We describe the calculation of the annihilation cross sectionin Sect. 4 where we impose constraints from the relic abun-dance of Dark Matter. These results are then linked to indi-rect detection probes via sterile neutrinos decays to leptons

123

397 Page 2 of 11 Eur. Phys. J. C (2017) 77 :397

in Sect. 5. We conclude in Sect. 6 by summarizing our mainfindings.

2 Exact dark symmetry

This portal is based upon the assumption that the dark sectorcontains at least a scalar field φ and a fermion Ψ , which areboth singlets of the SM gauge group but charged under adark sector symmetry group, Gdark, so that the combinationΨ φ is a singlet of this hidden symmetry. Independently ofthe nature of the dark group, if all SM particles as well asthe sterile neutrinos are singlets of Gdark, the lighter of thetwo dark particles turns out to be stable, and therefore it mayaccount for the Dark Matter density of the Universe.

SM

HL

DarkNR

φΨ

If this were the case then nothing would prevent a termlike

Lint = −(φΨ (λs + γ5λp)N + φ†N (λs − γ5λp)Ψ ) (1)

to appear, besides the standard Higgs portal term λHφ(H†H)

(φ†φ) included in the scalar potential,

Lscalar = μ2H H†H − λH (H†H)2 − μ2

φφ†φ − λφ(φ†φ)2

− λHφ(H†H) (φ†φ), (2)

and the term responsible for the generation of neutrinomasses

LνN = −(Yαa Lα

L HNRa + h.c.), (3)

where α = e, μ, τ denotes lepton flavour and a = 1 . . . n,being n the number of sterile neutrinos.

For simplicity we do not consider the possibility that thescalar φ gets a vev, and we restrict the discussion to the min-imal matter content, although there could be more than oneset of dark fermions and scalars.

Another simplifying assumption made in this paper is thatthe dark symmetry Gdark is a global symmetry at low ener-gies. We are therefore neglecting the possible phenomenol-ogy of Gdark vector mediators, e.g., if the dark symmetrywere local there could also be kinetic mixing among thedark gauge bosons and the SM ones, leading to further SM-dark particle interactions [8,9]. The following discussion willapply as well to this scenario, provided the kinetic mix-ing is negligible. Nevertheless, the UV structure and sta-bility of Dark Matter depends on whether Gdark is a trueglobal symmetry or a gauge symmetry. Global symmetriesare sensitive to higher-dimensional operators mediated by

quantum gravity effects [10], e.g. cΨ Ψ̄ H̃†γ μDμL/MPl orcFμνFμν/MPl , and could lead to disastrous decay ofDark Matter unless cΨ, � 1 [11–13].

Regarding the neutrino sector, light neutrino masses aregenerated via TeV scale type I seesaw mechanism, which webriefly review in the following. We denote να the active neu-trinos and Ns the sterile ones. After electroweak symmetrybreaking, the neutrino mass matrix in the basis (να, Ns) isgiven by

Mν =(

0 mD

mTD mN

), (4)

where mD = YvH/√

2 and Yαs are the Yukawa couplings.The matrix Mν can be diagonalized by a unitary matrix

U , so that

Mν = U∗ Diag(mν, M)U †, (5)

wheremν is the diagonal matrix with the three lightest eigen-values of Mν , of order m2

D/mN , and M contains the heavierones, of order mN .

The mass eigenstates n = (νi , Nh) are related to the activeand sterile neutrinos, (να , Ns), by(

να

Ns

)L

= U∗(

νiNh

)L

. (6)

The unitary matrix U can be written as

U =(Uαi Uαh

Usi Ush

), (7)

where, at leading order in the seesaw expansion parameter,O(mD/mN ):

Uαi = [UPMNS]αi Ush = I,

Uαh = [mDm−1N ]∗αh, (8)

Usi = −[m−1N mT

D UPMNS]si .Notice that at this order the states Nh and Ns coincide, so weidentify them in the rest of this paper.

Neglecting the mixing between the CP-even scalars, theYukawa coupling of the SM-like Higgs fieldh to the neutrinoscan be written as [14]:

LY = − h

2vHn̄i [(mi + m j )Re(Ci j ) + iγ5(m j − mi )Im(Ci j )]n j ,

(9)

where the indices i, j refer to the light neutrinos νi for i, j =1, 2, 3 and to Nh for i, j = 4, 5, 6, and the matrix C can bewritten in terms of the mixing matrix U :

Ci j =3∑

α=1

UαiU∗α j . (10)

A variation of this scenario has been analyzed in [5,6], wherethe sterile neutrinos are assumed to be pseudo-Dirac and

123

Eur. Phys. J. C (2017) 77 :397 Page 3 of 11 397

Table 1 Explored parameterspace in the models

Case mΨ (GeV) mφ (GeV) mN (GeV) λs λHφ

Fermion DM 1–2× 103 1–104 1–2× 103 10−4–4π 10−4–4π

Scalar DM 1–104 1–2× 103 1–2× 103 10−4–4π 10−4–4π

heavier than the dark sector particles, φ,Ψ . Thus, they can beintegrated out and generate at tree level the effective dimen-sion five operator

O(5) = (Ψ φ)(H̃†�), (11)

which after the SM Higgs doublet acquires a vev leads tothe interaction O(5) = (Ψ φ)νLvH/

√2, involving a SM left-

handed neutrino. This limit is in fact a (light) neutrino portalto Dark Matter. Assuming that the fermion Ψ is the DarkMatter, the model can accommodate current experimentaland observational constraints if Mψ is below ∼35 GeV, or itis in a resonant region of the Higgs or Z boson, or the darkscalar and dark fermion are almost degenerate.

Our analysis is complementary, since we focus on a differ-ent region of the model parameter space: we assume that thesterile neutrinos are lighter than the Dark Matter and there-fore the annihilation channel to NN is open. Furthermore,we study both fermion and scalar Dark Matter. Although thescalar Dark Matter case falls among the class of Higgs por-tal models that have been extensively studied [15–34], it isworth to explore whether the new annihilation channel intoNN allows one to obtain the observed relic density in regionsthat are excluded in the standard Higgs portal framework.

In the following sections we describe the current con-straints on the above scenario and the results of our numericalanalysis, based on a Monte Carlo scan over the free parame-ters (mΨ ,mφ,mN , λs, λHφ) in logarithmic scale, restrictingthe values of the couplings and masses to the ranges dis-played in Table 1. We present the analytic results for arbi-trary Dark Matter—sterile neutrino couplings λs, λp, but forthe numerical implementation we have chosen λp = 0, sinceas explained in Sect. 4, in this case strong constraints canbe set from indirect Dark Matter searches. We made use ofLanHep [35] and micrOMEGAs [36] in order to obtain thecorrect relic abundance, Higgs decays and today’s annihila-tion cross section. We calculate 106 points that match thePlanck constraint on the Dark Matter abundance at 3σ [37],namely �h2 = 0.1198 ± 0.0045.

3 Constraints from Higgs decays and direct DarkMatter searches

The enlarged fermion and scalar sectors lead to new decaysof the Higgs boson, h, which can be constrained using the

ATLAS and CMS limits on the invisible Higgs decay branch-ing fraction:

BRinv = �inv

�inv + �SM< 0.23 (95% CL), (12)

being the SM Higgs width �SM ≈ 4 MeV.At tree level, there are two new Higgs decay channels:

when mφ < mh/2, the standard decay of the Higgs portalscenarios, h → φφ is kinematically allowed, contributing tothe invisible Higgs decay width by

�(h → φφ) = λ2Hφv2

H

8πmh

√√√√1 − 4m2φ

m2h

(13)

We show in Fig. 3 the upper limit on the Higgs portal cou-pling λHφ derived from the experimental limit on the invisi-ble Higgs decay width in Eq. (12), as a function of the singletscalar mass, mφ .

Moreover, the Yukawa interaction term Y LH PRN alsoleads to novel Higgs decay channels into neutrinos. The cor-responding decay width reads [14]:

�(h → nin j ) = ω

8πmhλ1/2(m2

h,m2i ,m

2j )

×[S

(1 − (mi + m j )

2

m2h

)+ P

(1 − (mi − m j )

2

m2h

)],

(14)

where λ(a, b, c) is the standard kinematic function, w =1/n! for n identical final particles and the scalar and pseu-doscalar couplings are:

S = 1

v2H

[(mi + m j )Re(Ci j )]2,

P = 1

v2H

[(m j − mi )Im(Ci j )]2, (15)

with Ci j defined in Eq. (10).The largest branching ratio is for the decay into one light

and one heavy neutrino [38]:

�(h → νN ) = m2N

8πv2H

(1 − m2

N

m2h

)2

mh |CνN |2. (16)

The attainable values for the above branching fractions havebeen analyzed in [38], for the case of two heavy neutri-nos, parameterizing the Yukawa couplings in terms of theobserved light neutrino masses and mixing angles, and a

123

397 Page 4 of 11 Eur. Phys. J. C (2017) 77 :397

complex orthogonal matrix. After imposing the relevant con-straints from neutrinoless double beta decay, lepton flavourviolating processes and direct searches of heavy neutrinos,they find that branching ratios of h → νi Na larger than 10−2

are generally ruled out for heavy neutrino masses MN ≤ 100GeV, and typically they are much smaller, due to the tinyYukawa couplings required to fit light neutrino masses withsterile neutrinos at the electroweak scale. Therefore, the con-tribution of such decay modes to the Higgs decay width isnegligible, and they do not alter the bounds discussed above.

At one loop, the d = 5 Higgs portal operator Ψ Ψ (H†H)

is generated (unless the coupling of the Dark Matter to thedark scalar and sterile neutrinos is chiral, i.e., λs = λp inEq. (1)) with a coefficient given by [6]:

λeffHΨ = λHφ

(λ2s − λ2

p)

16π2

mN

(m2φ − m2

N )2

×(m2

φ − m2N + m2

N logm2

N

m2φ

). (17)

Thus, when mΨ < mh/2 the invisible decay h → Ψ Ψ isalso allowed with partial decay width

�(h → Ψ Ψ ) = (λeffHΨ )2

8π

(1 − 4m2

Ψ

m2h

)3/2

mh, (18)

and the current limit on the invisible Higgs decay branch-ing ratio only leads to an O(1) constrain on λHφ , depend-ing on the values of the remaining free parameters, namelyλs, λp,mN andmφ . Notice, however, that ifmφ < mh/2, thestrong constraints from the invisible Higgs decay h → φφ

shown in Fig. 3 will apply as well.Concerning the bounds from direct DM searches, they

also depend on which of the dark particles is lighter, andtherefore stable. In order to implement such bounds we shallassume that the DM relic density is as determined by CMBmeasurements, since this requirement is always fulfilled inour scenario for both scalar and fermion DM, as we will seein the next section.

If DM is the dark fermion, Ψ , it only interacts with theSM quarks at one-loop level (see Fig. 1), via the inducedHiggs portal operator Ψ Ψ (H†H) just discussed, and there-fore the bounds from direct detection are quite weak. How-ever, since the interaction to quarks is mediated through theHiggs, the scattering will always be spin independent. Werefer the reader for the actual matrix elements to [39]. InFig. 2 we show the excluded region by the invisible Higgsdecay and current LUX [40,41] results (dark blue points),as well as the expected excluded region by XENON1T [42](light blue) and LZ [43,44]+SuperCDMS [45] (purple). Sim-ilar constraints can be set with the current results from thePANDAX experiment [46].

Fig. 1 Left, right elastic crosssection diagrams for the scalarand fermion Dark Matter cases,respectively

φ φ

h

q q q

h

φ φ

q

N

Ψ Ψ

Fig. 2 Constraints on the Higgs portal coupling for fermion DM

123

Eur. Phys. J. C (2017) 77 :397 Page 5 of 11 397

Fig. 3 Constraints on the Higgs portal coupling for scalar DM

However, if DM is the dark scalar φ, it interacts with theSM quarks at tree level via the Higgs portal coupling, λHφ ,and the null results from direct searches set strong limitson this parameter. This is illustrated in Fig. 3, where weshow the allowed values of the Higgs portal coupling λHφ

as a function of the DM mass, mφ , derived from the invis-ible Higgs decay width plus LUX bounds, as well as theprospects from XENON1T and LZ+SuperCDMS. The darkblue points in the usual Higgs portal scenario would be ruledout, except for the upper limit, since the λHφ being too smallleads to a DM relic density larger than the one determined byCMB measurements. In our scenario the alternative annihi-lation channel into NN provides the correct relic density, butthe current constraints from LUX and Higgs invisible decaywidth excludes them. We notice that for mφ � 300 GeV theusual Higgs portal model still provides the correct relic abun-dance. However, we find that XENON1T can be sensitive tosuch scenario for mφ < 2 TeV.

4 Dark Matter relic abundance

4.1 Thermal history

In order to discuss the thermal production of Dark Matter inthe early Universe we will first describe the thermal historyfor both the scalar and fermion Dark Matter scenarios.

1. Fermion Dark Matter Ψ : At very early times φ, Ψ and Nare in thermal equilibrium with the standard model viathe Higgs portal coupling. The heavy dark particle com-panion will decay at T � mφ and the dark sector maystill be coupled to the standard model bath if the Yukawacouplings of the sterile neutrinos are large enough. Ifthey are small, then the Ψ and N bath will decouple and

remain in thermal equilibrium but with a different tem-perature.1 Then when the temperature of such a bath isTD ∼ mΨ /20 the Dark Matter will be produced andthe sterile neutrinos will decay at TD � mN . In orderto check whether the decoupling of the dark sector willmodify the production rate it is worth revisiting the pro-duction mechanism, see [47] for a recent discussion ofdecoupled dark sectors. Since the entropy is separatelyconserved in both the visible and the dark sectors, thestandard relic abundance solution is modified approxi-mately by a factor

√geff� /g� where g� measures the total

number of relativistic degrees of freedom in the SM bathand geff

� = g� + gD(TD/T )4 represents the effectivenumber of relativistic species. Given that the number ofdegrees of freedom in the dark sector, gD is much smallerthan g� and TD/T ∼ 1 then

√geff� /g� must be close to

one. Thus, a sizeable change in the couplings compared tothe case in which both sectors remain in thermal equilib-rium is not expected since furthermore �χh2 ∝ 1/λ4

s,p.The only caveat to this argument occurs whenmχ � mN ,because in that case the sterile neutrinos may have a largernumber density than the equilibrium one and in order togenerate the same amount of Dark Matter higher cou-plings between χ and N will be needed. This scenariohas been recently studied by [48] for the precise modelproposed in this work. They found that in such regionone will need couplings a factor between 1 and 4 higherdepending on the Yukawa of the sterile neutrinos. Sincethis change is mild, for our computations we will assumethat all species are equilibrium with the standard model.

2. Scalar Dark Matter φ: At very early times φ, Ψ and Nare in thermal equilibrium with the standard model viathe Higgs portal coupling. The heavy dark particle com-panion will decay at T � mΨ and the dark sector willdecouple from the standard model when the Dark Matterfreezes out at T ∼ mΨ /20 and the sterile neutrinos willdecouple and decay at T � mN .

4.2 Relic abundance

In our scenario, the annihilation cross section into two sterileneutrinos depends on the nature of the DM particle (scalar,Dirac or Majorana fermion) and the type of coupling (scalar,pseudoscalar). The relevant Feynman diagrams are shown inFig. 4. For example, let us assume right-handed neutrinosare Majorana, and consider the two options of fermion andscalar Dark Matter:

1 Yet, the actual value of the Yukawa couplings are not known.The naive seesaw expectation is Y ∼ √

mνmN /vH ∼ 4 ×10−8√mN /(1 GeV) for mν ∼ 0.1 eV, but larger couplings are consis-tent with neutrino masses, for instance in the context of inverse seesawscenarios.

123

397 Page 6 of 11 Eur. Phys. J. C (2017) 77 :397

Ψ

Ψ

φ

N

N

Ψ

φ N

Nφ

φ

φ

h

SM

SM

Fig. 4 Relevant annihilation channels

Fig. 5 Allowed parameterspace of the mediator mass andcoupling in the scalar (left) andfermion Dark Matter (right)cases

1. Fermion Dark Matter Ψ : The cross section for fermionicMajorana Dark Matter and complex mediator φ reads

σvΨ Ψ →NN = (α + β rNΨ )2

4πm2Ψ

√1 − r2

NΨ

(1 + r2φ − r2

NΨ )2+ O(v2)

(19)

where α = λ2s − λ2

p and β = λ2s + λ2

p, rφ = mφ/mΨ ,and rNΨ = mN/mΨ .One can obtain the case of a Dirac DM particle by inEq. (19) perform the exchange α ↔ β. Similarly, thecase of a real scalar can be obtained by setting λp = 0 inEq. (19), which leads to α = β = λ2

s in this expression.2. Scalar Dark Matter φ: In the case of a real scalar Dark

Matter and Dirac mediator Ψ the cross section is as fol-lows:

σvφφ→NN = (α + β rNΨ )2

2πm2φ

(1 − r2Nφ)3/2

(1 + r2Ψ − r2

Nφ)2+ O(v2),

(20)

where rΨ = mΨ /mφ and rNφ = mN/mφ .To obtain the expression for a complex scalar, one canmultiply this equation by a factor 1/4. Similarly, to con-sider a Majorana mediator one would multiply the expres-sion by a factor 4 and set λp to zero, α = β.2

2 Note that our results agree with the expressions obtained in Ref. [49],where both fermions were set to be Dirac particles.

An important observation is that there are situations wherethe annihilation cross section at leading order in the relativeDark Matter velocity, v, is proportional to the right-handedneutrino mass. For example, the case of a Majorana DarkMatter with chiral couplings, |λs | = |λp| (α = 0). In thiscase when mN � mφ,mΨ the cross section is effectivelyp-wave, which reduces the sensitivity of indirect detectionprobes to these scenarios.

In the following we discuss two representative cases wherestrong constraints can be set on the parameter space of thesterile neutrino portal, namely cases where the cross sectionis s-wave even for mN = 0. We choose two benchmark sce-narios, namely Majorana DM and real scalar DM with scalarcouplings α = β = λ2

s . In Fig. 5 we show the allowedparameter space in the mass of the mediator versus cou-pling, λs . Besides the perturbativity limits, the coupling λsis constrained by the width of the mediator. In our approach,the mediator particle is treated as a narrow resonance, i.e.�/m � 1, which implies λs �

√8π . Taking into account

this limit, these plots show that the mass of the mediator mustbe below m � 1 TeV to satisfy � � 0.1m.

In the scalar Dark Matter case, annihilation into right-handed neutrinos (Eq. (20)) is complemented via the Higgsportal coupling λHφ into SM particles. Namely bb̄ for lowmass DM, and gauge bosons and Higgses for heavier DMparticles. These channels could, in principle, compete withthe annihilation into right-handed neutrinos, yet in Fig. 3 weshowed how couplings to SM are strongly constrained bydirect detection experiments (LUX) and LHC bounds on the

123

Eur. Phys. J. C (2017) 77 :397 Page 7 of 11 397

Fig. 6 Ratio between the cross section with standard model particlesin the final state and sterile neutrinos in the final state at v = 10−3 c,as relevant for indirect detection searches. Currently, on the resonancemφ � mh/2 and formφ > 150 GeV both cross sections are comparable.However, XENON1T could set the annihilation cross section to right-handed neutrinos to be dominant in the entire parameter space but forthe resonance

invisible width of the Higgs. We find that for mφ � 100 GeVthe production cannot proceed via SM particles. As a result ofthese bounds on the scalar portal, the relic abundance cannotbe satisfied in the standard scalar Dark Matter, which leads tothe conclusion that Higgs portal Dark Matter is not a viablescenario for low dark matter masses. This is not the case here,as our scalar has additional annihilation channels, via thecoupling to dark fermions. One can then find viable scenarios,shown in Fig. 5, which satisfy the relic abundance and evadedirect detection constraints in all the Dark Matter mass rangefrom 1 GeV to 2 TeV.

Moreover, in the low Dark Matter mass region, annihila-tions to right-handed neutrinos are dominant. This is shownin Fig. 6, where we plot the ratio of annihilation cross sec-tions via the Higgs portal and to the right-handed neutrinochannel today, for relative Dark Matter velocity v = 10−3 c.This ratio is very small, of the order or below 0.1% for lowmass, and up to 100% for mφ � 300 GeV. When the darkmatter mass is low, the regions with larger ratios are corre-lated with degeneracies in the dark sector, namely regionswhere the dark fermion mediator and the scalar are closein mass. This fact has implications in the ability of detectingDark Matter today, which we discuss in detail in the next sec-tion. Notice that the ∼100% contributions to the Dark Mat-ter abundance currently allowed through SM interactions formφ � 300 GeV, could be restricted by XENON1T to ∼10%for most parameter space.3

3 The features in the low mass region of the plots are due to thefact that the contributions to the SM are mediated by the Higgsand there are several suppressions. When different channels become

Finally, in the fermion Dark Matter case, since the cou-pling to the Higgs is generated at 1-Loop, the contributionsto the annihilation cross section from the SM particles is onlynon-negligible in the resonant region mΨ � mh/2.

5 Constraints from indirect searches and CMB

In this scenario the annihilation of Dark Matter (withmDM �100 GeV) into right-handed neutrinos is dominant, with theheavy neutrinos decaying into SM particles via their mixingwith active neutrinos. Those decays can lead to significantfluxes of gamma rays and neutrinos which can be probedby experiments. In this section we consider the impact onthe model by limits from Fermi-LAT and H.E.S.S. on thegamma-ray flux from dwarf spheroidal galaxies [50] and thegalactic center [51] respectively, as well as from studies of theCMB [52] and IceCUBE analysis of neutrino fluxes [53–55].

To study the indirect detection signals in this model wefirst need to understand how the heavy neutrino decays. If theneutrino is light, mN < mW , N will mostly decay throughoff-shell Z and W . These three-body partial widths can beread from Refs. [56,57] and are listed in the appendix; herewe just quote the typical form it adopts:

�(N → 3 f ) ≈ G2F

192 π3 |UαN |2 m5N , (21)

whereUαN is the mixing matrix between the heavy and activeneutrinos. For heavier N , the two-body decays into massivevector bosons or Higgs and fermions are open. In this casethe partial width scales as [14]:

�(N → V f ) ≈ g2

64 πm2W,Z ,h

|UαN |2 m3N . (22)

See also the appendix for the detailed formulae.The relative weight of the different lepton flavours to the

total width depends on the model for neutrino mass gen-eration. The large angle θ23 in the active neutrino mixingmatrix UPMNS suggests a similar decay rate of N into μ andτ , while the one into e is largely unconstrained. In fact, themeasured mixing pattern (see for instance [58]) is close toTri-Bimaximal, which leads to an exact μ − τ symmetry[59]. In our case, if we assume that the largest active neu-trino mass is generated by only one of the sterile neutrinos,m3 ≈ ∑

α(YαNvH )2/mN and the mixing angles are givenby UαN ∼ YαNvH/mN . Then tan θ23 ∼ YμN/YτN ∼ 1 and

tan θ13 = YeN/√Y 2

μN + Y 2τN ∼ 0.15 imply that UeN �

UμN ≈ UτN [60].

Footnote 3 continuedkinematically unaccessible, mφ < mb, mτ , mc one finds a suppressionfactor of (mb/mτ )

2 ∼ 4, (mτ /mc)2 ∼ 2, (mc/ms)

2 ∼ 100 respec-tively.

123

397 Page 8 of 11 Eur. Phys. J. C (2017) 77 :397

Fig. 7 Annihilation crosssection today and lines ofexclusion of decays to leptonsfrom Fermi-LAT from dwarfgalaxies and H.E.S.S. from thegalactic center, for the cases ofscalar (left) and fermionic(right) Dark Matter

A detailed study of the indirect detection signatures of ourscenario is beyond the scope of this work, since DM doesnot decay directly to SM particles, as is usually assumed inmost analyses. Therefore we just estimate here the expectedconstraints using current analysis, taking into account that ingeneral the cascade decays lead to a softer energy spectrumof the final SM particles than in the standard two-body decay.In Fig. 7 we present the results of such an estimate exercise inthe case of decays to leptons, where limits from Refs. [50,51]have been naively re-scaled asmDM → mDM/2. We find thatdecays of the right-handed neutrinos resulting in tau-leptons,e.g. from N → τqq ′ or N → ντ+τ−, are potentially themost sensitive modes. Indeed, if these decays were dominantone could obtain a limit from indirect detection on the DarkMatter mass of O(100) GeV for both fermion and scalarDark Matter. One could also use the production of quarksfrom off-shell W and Z to set bounds on the model.

Note that indirect detection signals in this case (i.e.,mN <

mW ) have been studied in [61], showing that it could be possi-ble to explain the galactic center gamma-ray excess revealedby various studies of the Fermi-LAT data in 1–4 GeV gammarays. Indeed, assuming that DM particles annihilate into twosterile neutrinos lighter than the W boson, they find that mN

in the range 10–60 GeV can explain the observed spectrum,while the fitted annihilation cross section 〈σv〉 is (0.5–5)×10−26cm3/s, roughly compatible with the WIMP annihi-lation cross section 〈σv〉decouple ∼ (2 − 3) × 10−26cm3/s,when the Dark Matter particles decouple. More precisely,the best fit points are around mN ∼ 30 GeV and mDM ∼ 45GeV, which are within the ranges we have found compatiblewith all current experimental constraints in our model.

Finally, let us mention other sources of indirect constraintsfor this model. Measurements of the cosmic microwave back-ground (CMB) anisotropies are also sensitive to Dark Matterannihilation during the cosmic dark ages, because the injec-tion of ionizing particles will increase the residual ionizationfraction, broadening the last scattering surface and modify-ing the anisotropies. Under the assumption that the powerdeposited to the gas is directly proportional to that injected

at the same redshift, with some efficiency factor feff , con-straints can be placed on the combination feff 〈σv〉/mDM,for different SM annihilation channels in s wave. Again, theavailable calculations of feff assume that DM annihilatesdirectly to a pair of SM particles [52], and thus they are notdirectly applicable to our model, but we can roughly estimatethe expected impact of such limits in the allowed parameterspace assuming as before that the constraints will be simi-lar for cascade decays, appropriately re-scaled for mDM/2.Under these circumstances, we find these limits are weakerthan the ones from Fermi-LAT discussed above.

Besides signatures from gamma rays, in the NN annihi-lation channel also light neutrinos are copiously produced,which could generate an observable flux from dense regionsof Dark Matter. IceCUBE has set constraints on the DarkMatter annihilation cross section to neutrinos by measuringthe flux from nearby Galaxies and Clusters [53], the GalacticHalo [54] and the Galactic Center [55]. However, currentlythese probes lie three orders of magnitude above the modelprediction, and thus cannot place a constrain on our model.Dark Matter particles in the galactic halo can also scatterelastically with a nucleus and become trapped in the gravi-tational well of astronomical objects like the Sun, eventuallythermalize and concentrate at the core of the object. Then theymay annihilate into SM particles, in particular neutrinos thatcan be detected by neutrino experiments such as IceCUBEor SuperKamiokande. In our scenario the limits from directsearches are tighter than such indirect probes, since the inter-action of Dark Matter to quarks is spin independent.

6 Conclusions and outlook

In this paper we have analyzed in detail a simple scenarioof a dark sector composed of a scalar and a fermion, bothsinglets under the SM gauge group but charged under a darksymmetry group. This sector is linked to the origin of neutrinomasses via couplings to the sterile neutrinos, which are ableto mediate between the dark sector and the SM.

123

Eur. Phys. J. C (2017) 77 :397 Page 9 of 11 397

This scenario has been studied in Refs. [5,6], consideringjust the case of fermionic Dark Matter and for sterile neutri-nos heavier than the dark sector, with the result that currentexperimental and observational constraints (electroweak pre-cision limits, Dark Matter relic abundance, direct and indi-rect detection constraints), can be accommodated only formDM � 35 GeV, or in the resonances, mDM � mh,mZ ,unless the dark scalar or dark fermion are almost degenerate.

We have extended these previous studies in two ways: weexplore the phenomenology of this type of models when thesterile neutrinos are lighter than the dark sector, so that theDark Matter annihilation channel into NN is kinematicallyallowed, and we consider both, fermionic and scalar DarkMatter in this context. We have performed for the first timean exhaustive numerical analysis of this alternative regionof the model parameter space, and after imposing all therelevant constraints from direct detection and collider probes,we find that it is possible to obtain the observed Dark Matterrelic abundance in the whole mass range explored, mDM ∈[1 GeV, 2 TeV], both for scalar and fermion Dark Matter.

We find that the scalar case is an interesting extension ofthe Higgs portal. Indeed, in the usual portal the constraintson the Higgs invisible decay and Dark Matter nucleon crosssection rule out the possibility of the scalar as the main com-ponent of Dark Matter for mφ � 100 GeV. But in our sce-nario, annihilation can occur via the neutrino portal whichis dominant, i.e. more than 90%, in most of the parameterspace. On the other hand, in the case of a fermion Dark Mat-ter, the contribution to the quark–Dark Matter scattering andHiggs invisible width decay is at one loop and the Higgsportal coupling is only mildly constrained.

Finally we explore the indirect detection characteristics ofthis model, determined by the decays of the right-handed neu-trinos into SM bosons and leptons. We consider constraintsfrom Fermi-LAT and find that those could be sensitive toDark Matter up to the electroweak scale, mDM � 100 GeVindependently of whether the Dark Matter particle is a scalarof a fermion. However, a more detailed analysis of these con-straints need to be done, as we performed a naive scaling onconstraints of Dark Matter decays to two SM particles. In ourscenario, the more complex decays of right-handed neutri-nos would lead to less energetic SM probes. Finally, we alsocomment on the possibility of this channel to be responsibleof the gamma-ray galactic excess at few GeV.

Acknowledgements We thank Olga Mena, Sergio Palomares Ruiz,Roberto Ruiz de Austri, Jordi Salvadó, A. Vincent and J. Wudka forilluminating discussions, and Concha González-García for commentson the manuscript. ME thanks Antonia Abenza for inspiring and encour-aging conversations. This work has been partially supported by theEuropean Unions Horizon 2020 research and innovation programmeunder the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant Agreements Nos. 674896and 690575, by the Spanish MINECO under Grants FPA2014-57816-Pand SEV-2014-0398, and by Generalitat Valenciana Grant PROME-TEO/2014/050. ME is supported by Spanish Grant FPU13/03111 of

MECD. NR acknowledges the support from the Munich Institute forAstro- and Particle Physics (MIAPP) of the DFG cluster of excellence“Origin and Structure of the Universe”. The work of VS is supportedby the Science Technology and Facilities Council (STFC) under GrantNumber ST/J000477/1.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the CreativeCommons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution,and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate creditto the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the CreativeCommons license, and indicate if changes were made.Funded by SCOAP3.

Appendix: Sterile neutrino decay widths

Here we summarize the sterile neutrino decay modes, rele-vant for indirect Dark Matter searches.

If the sterile neutrino is lighter than the W boson, it willdecay through off-shell h, Z ,W bosons to three fermions.Since the decay via a virtual h is further suppressed by thesmall Yukawa couplings of the SM fermions, it is a verygood approximation to consider only the processes mediatedby virtual W, Z , whose partial widths read [56]:

�(N → νqq̄) = 3 ACNN [2(a2u + b2

u) + 3(a2d + b2

d)] f (z)(A.1)

�(N → 3ν) = ACNN

[3

4f (z) + 1

4g(z, z)

](A.2)

�(N → �qq̄) = 6 ACNN f (w, 0) (A.3)

�(N → ν��̄) = ACNN [3(a2e + b2

e ) f (z)

+3 f (w) − 2aeg(z, w)] (A.4)

where CNN is defined in Eq. (10),

A ≡ G2Fm

5N

192 π3 , (A.5)

a f , b f are the left and right neutral current couplings of thefermions ( f = q, �), the variables z, w are given by

z = (mN/mZ )2, w = (mN/mW )2, (A.6)

and the functions f (z), f (w, 0) and g(z, w) can be found in[57].

For larger values of mN , two-body decays to SM particlesare open, and the corresponding widths read [14]:

�(N → W±�∓α ) = g2

64π|UαN |2 m

3N

m2W

(1 − m2

W

m2N

)2 (1 + 2m2

W

m2N

)

(A.7)

�(N → Z να) = g2

64πc2W

|CαN |2 m3N

m2Z

(1 − m2

Z

m2N

)2 (1 + 2m2

Z

m2N

)

(A.8)

123

397 Page 10 of 11 Eur. Phys. J. C (2017) 77 :397

�(N → h να) = g2

64π|CαN |2 m

3N

m2W

(1 − m2

h

m2N

)2

(A.9)

In the above expressions, we have assumed that N is aMajorana fermion. If it is Dirac, then the decay channelN → W−�+ is forbidden and the decay widths into Z/h, ν

are �D(N → Z/h ν�) = �M (N → Z/h ν�)/2.

References

1. S. Dodelson, L.M. Widrow, Sterile-neutrinos as dark matter. Phys.Rev. Lett. 72, 17–20 (1994). arXiv:hep-ph/9303287

2. T. Basak, T. Mondal, Constraining minimal U (1)B−L modelfrom dark matter observations. Phys. Rev. D 89, 063527 (2014).arXiv:1308.0023

3. K. Kaneta, Z. Kang, H.-S. Lee, Right-handed neutrino dark matterunder the B–L gauge interaction. arXiv:1606.09317

4. R. Adhikari et al., A white paper on keV sterile neutrino dark matter.Submitted to: White paper (2016). arXiv:1602.04816

5. V. Gonzalez Macias, J. Wudka, Effective theories for Dark Matterinteractions and the neutrino portal paradigm. JHEP 07, 161 (2015).arXiv:1506.03825

6. V. Gonzalez-Macias, J.I. Illana, J. Wudka, A realistic model forDark Matter interactions in the neutrino portal paradigm. JHEP05, 171 (2016). arXiv:1601.05051

7. M. Escudero, N. Rius, V. Sanz, Sterile neutrino portal to DarkMatter I: the U (1)B−L case. arXiv:1606.01258

8. J. Heeck, H. Zhang, Exotic charges, multicomponent dark matterand light sterile neutrinos. JHEP 05, 164 (2013). arXiv:1211.0538

9. A. de Gouvea, D. Hernández, New chiral fermions, a new gaugeinteraction, Dirac neutrinos, and dark matter. JHEP 10, 046 (2015).arXiv:1507.00916

10. R. Kallosh, A.D. Linde, D.A. Linde, L. Susskind, Gravityand global symmetries. Phys. Rev. D 52, 912–935 (1995).arXiv:hep-th/9502069

11. O. Cata, A. Ibarra, Dark matter stability without new symmetries.Phys. Rev. D 90, 063509 (2014). arXiv:1404.0432

12. Y. Mambrini, S. Profumo, F.S. Queiroz, Dark matter and globalsymmetries. Phys. Lett. B 760, 807–815 (2016). arXiv:1508.06635

13. O. Cata, A. Ibarra, S. Ingenhntt, Dark matter decays from non-minimal coupling to gravity. Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 021302 (2016).arXiv:1603.03696

14. A. Pilaftsis, Radiatively induced neutrino masses and large Higgsneutrino couplings in the standard model with Majorana fields. Z.Phys. C 55, 275–282 (1992). arXiv:hep-ph/9901206

15. B. Patt, F. Wilczek, Higgs-field portal into hidden sectors.arXiv:hep-ph/0605188

16. Y.G. Kim, K.Y. Lee, The minimal model of fermionic dark matter.Phys. Rev. D 75, 115012 (2007). arXiv:hep-ph/0611069

17. J. March-Russell, S.M. West, D. Cumberbatch, D. Hooper, Heavydark matter through the Higgs portal. JHEP 07, 058 (2008).arXiv:0801.3440

18. Y.G. Kim, K.Y. Lee, S. Shin, Singlet fermionic dark matter. JHEP05, 100 (2008). arXiv:0803.2932

19. M. Ahlers, J. Jaeckel, J. Redondo, A. Ringwald, Probing hiddensector photons through the Higgs window. Phys. Rev. D 78, 075005(2008). arXiv:0807.4143

20. J.L. Feng, H. Tu, H.-B. Yu, Thermal relics in hidden sectors. JCAP0810, 043 (2008). arXiv:0808.2318

21. S. Andreas, T. Hambye, M.H.G. Tytgat, WIMP dark matter, Higgsexchange and DAMA. JCAP 0810, 034 (2008). arXiv:0808.0255

22. V. Barger, P. Langacker, M. McCaskey, M. Ramsey-Musolf, G.Shaughnessy, Complex singlet extension of the standard model.Phys. Rev. D 79, 015018 (2009). arXiv:0811.0393

23. M. Kadastik, K. Kannike, A. Racioppi, M. Raidal, EWSB fromthe soft portal into Dark Matter and prediction for direct detection.Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 201301 (2010). arXiv:0912.2729

24. S. Kanemura, S. Matsumoto, T. Nabeshima, N. Okada, Can WIMPdark matter overcome the nightmare scenario? Phys. Rev. D 82,055026 (2010). arXiv:1005.5651

25. F. Piazza, M. Pospelov, Sub-eV scalar dark matter through thesuper-renormalizable Higgs portal. Phys. Rev. D 82, 043533(2010). arXiv:1003.2313

26. C. Arina, F.-X. Josse-Michaux, N. Sahu, A tight connectionbetween direct and indirect detection of dark matter through Higgsportal couplings to a hidden sector. Phys. Rev. D 82, 015005 (2010).arXiv:1004.3953

27. I. Low, P. Schwaller, G. Shaughnessy, C.E.M. Wagner, The darkside of the Higgs boson. Phys. Rev. D 85, 015009 (2012).arXiv:1110.4405

28. A. Djouadi, O. Lebedev, Y. Mambrini, J. Quevillon, Implicationsof LHC searches for Higgs-portal dark matter. Phys. Lett. B 709,65–69 (2012). arXiv:1112.3299

29. C. Englert, T. Plehn, D. Zerwas, P.M. Zerwas, Exploring the Higgsportal. Phys. Lett. B 703, 298–305 (2011). arXiv:1106.3097

30. J.F. Kamenik, C. Smith, Could a light Higgs boson illuminate thedark sector? Phys. Rev. D 85, 093017 (2012). arXiv:1201.4814

31. M. Gonderinger, H. Lim, M.J. Ramsey-Musolf, Complex scalarsinglet dark matter: vacuum stability and phenomenology. Phys.Rev. D 86, 043511 (2012). arXiv:1202.1316

32. O. Lebedev, On stability of the electroweak vacuum and the Higgsportal. Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 2058 (2012). arXiv:1203.0156

33. N. Craig, H.K. Lou, M. McCullough, A. Thalapillil, The Higgsportal above threshold. JHEP 02, 127 (2016). arXiv:1412.0258

34. F.S. Queiroz, K. Sinha, The poker face of the Majoron dark mat-ter model: LUX to keV line. Phys. Lett. B 735, 69–74 (2014).arXiv:1404.1400

35. A. Semenov, LanHEP: a package for the automatic generation ofFeynman rules in field theory. Version 3.0. Comput. Phys. Com-mun. 180, 431–454 (2009). arXiv:0805.0555

36. G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov, A. Semenov,micrOMEGAs3: a program for calculating dark matterobservables. Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 960–985 (2014).arXiv:1305.0237

37. Planck collaboration, P.A.R. Ade et al., Planck 2015 results. XIII.Cosmological parameters. arXiv:1502.01589

38. A.M. Gago, P. Hernandez, J. Jones-Perez, M. Losada, A. MorenoBriceño, Probing the Type I Seesaw mechanism with displaced ver-tices at the LHC. Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 470 (2015). arXiv:1505.05880

39. J. Kumar, D. Marfatia, Matrix element analyses of dark mat-ter scattering and annihilation. Phys. Rev. D 88, 014035 (2013).arXiv:1305.1611

40. LUX collaboration, D.S. Akerib et al., The large undergroundxenon (LUX) experiment. Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 704, 111–126 (2013). arXiv:1211.3788

41. A. Manalaysay et al., Identification of Dark Matter 2016. https://idm2016.shef.ac.uk/indico/event/0/contribution/50/material/slides/0.pdf

42. XENON collaboration, E. Aprile et al., Physics reach of theXENON1T dark matter experiment. JCAP 1604, 027 (2016).arXiv:1512.07501

43. LZ collaboration, D.S. Akerib et al., LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) concep-tual design report. arXiv:1509.02910

44. LZ collaboration, D.N. McKinsey, The LZ dark matter experiment.J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 718, 042039 (2016)

123

Eur. Phys. J. C (2017) 77 :397 Page 11 of 11 397

45. SuperCDMS collaboration, R. Agnese et al., Improved WIMP-search reach of the CDMS II germanium data. Phys. Rev. D 92,072003 (2015). arXiv:1504.05871

46. PandaX-II collaboration, A. Tan et al., Dark matter results fromfirst 98.7-day data of PandaX-II experiment. Phys. Rev. Lett. 117,121303 (2016). arXiv:1607.07400

47. A. Berlin, D. Hooper, G. Krnjaic, Thermal dark matter froma highly decoupled sector. Phys. Rev. D 94, 095019 (2016).arXiv:1609.02555

48. Y.-L. Tang, S.-H. Zhu, Dark matter relic abundance and light sterileneutrinos. arXiv:1609.07841

49. A. Berlin, D. Hooper, S.D. McDermott, Simplified dark mattermodels for the Galactic Center gamma-ray excess. Phys. Rev. D89, 115022 (2014). arXiv:1404.0022

50. Fermi-LAT collaboration, M. Ackermann et al., Searching for darkmatter annihilation from Milky Way dwarf spheroidal galaxies withsix years of Fermi large area telescope data. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115,231301 (2015). arXiv:1503.02641

51. HESS collaboration, H. Abdallah et al., Search for dark matterannihilations towards the inner Galactic halo from 10 years ofobservations with H.E.S.S. Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 111301 (2016).arXiv:1607.08142

52. T.R. Slatyer, Indirect dark matter signatures in the cosmic dark ages.I. Generalizing the bound on s-wave dark matter annihilation fromPlanck results. Phys. Rev. D 93, 023527 (2016). arXiv:1506.03811

53. IceCube collaboration, M.G. Aartsen et al., IceCube search for darkmatter annihilation in nearby galaxies and galaxy clusters. Phys.Rev. D 88, 122001 (2013). arXiv:1307.3473

54. IceCube collaboration, M.G. Aartsen et al., Multipole analysis ofIceCube data to search for dark matter accumulated in the Galactichalo. Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 20 (2015). arXiv:1406.6868

55. IceCube collaboration, M.G. Aartsen et al., Search for dark matterannihilation in the Galactic Center with IceCube-79. Eur. Phys. J.C 75, 492 (2015). arXiv:1505.07259

56. M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia, A. Santamaria, J.W.F. Valle, Isosinglet neu-tral heavy lepton production in Z decays and neutrino mass. Nucl.Phys. B 342, 108–126 (1990)

57. M. Dittmar, A. Santamaria, M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia, J.W.F. Valle,Production mechanisms and signatures of isosinglet neutral heavyleptons in Z0 decays. Nucl. Phys. B 332, 1–19 (1990)

58. M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, Updated fit tothree neutrino mixing: status of leptonic CP violation. JHEP 11,052 (2014). arXiv:1409.5439

59. G. Altarelli, F. Feruglio, L. Merlo, Tri-bimaximal neutrino mix-ing and discrete flavour symmetries. Fortsch. Phys. 61, 507–534(2013). arXiv:1205.5133

60. S.F. King, Large mixing angle MSW and atmospheric neutrinosfrom single right-handed neutrino dominance and U(1) family sym-metry. Nucl. Phys. B 576, 85–105 (2000). arXiv:hep-ph/9912492

61. Y.-L. Tang, S.-H. Zhu, Dark matter annihilation into right-handed neutrinos and the Galactic Center gamma-ray excess.arXiv:1512.02899

123