# Very heavy dark Skyrmions

- 454 Downloads
- 3 Citations

## Abstract

A dark sector with a solitonic component provides a means to circumvent the problem of generically low annihilation cross sections of very heavy dark matter particles. At the same time, enhanced annihilation cross sections are necessary for indirect detection of very heavy dark matter components beyond 100 TeV. Non-thermally produced dark matter in this mass range could therefore contribute to the cosmic \(\gamma \)-ray and neutrino flux above 100 TeV, and massive Skyrmions provide an interesting framework for the discussion of these scenarios. Therefore a Higgs portal and a neutrino portal for very heavy Skyrmion dark matter are discussed. The Higgs portal model demonstrates a dark mediator bottleneck, where limitations on particle annihilation cross sections will prevent a signal from the potentially large soliton annihilation cross sections. This problem can be avoided in models where the dark mediator decays. This is illustrated by the neutrino portal for Skyrmion dark matter.

## 1 Introduction

The fact that direct search experiments so far could not confirm a dark matter signal in the theoretically well motivated WIMP mass range between about 10 GeV and a few TeV creates increasing pressure to look for light dark matter particles or for very heavy dark matter as alternative explanations of the dark matter puzzle. Light dark matter models can be motivated through axions, dilatons, or moduli fields in string theory, and they will be tested by upcoming experiments.

On the other hand, superheavy dark matter with masses above \(1\,\mathrm {EeV}=10^9\,\mathrm {GeV}\) had been discussed extensively as a consequence of initial lack of observation of a Greisen–Zatsepin–Kuzmin (GZK) cutoff [1, 2] in the ultra-high-energy cosmic ray spectrum [3, 4, 5, 6]. The early pioneering paper on ultra-high-energy cosmic rays from superheavy dark matter was Hill’s paper on monopolonium decay [7]. However, the discovery of a GZK cutoff in the meantime [8, 9, 10, 11], the successful matching of the spectrum above \(3\,\mathrm {EeV}\) in terms of nuclear components [12], and the increasingly stringent limits on the fluxes of ultra-high-energy neutrinos [13] and photons [14, 15], indicate that superheavy dark matter, if it exists, will not be detectable in direct or indirect search experiments as we know them. This is not entirely unexpected, since we knew from the start that the unitarity limits on the annihilation cross section of superheavy dark matter make it an ideal candidate for practically secluded dark matter in terms of particle physics experiments [6].

However, there is a mass range between the WIMP mass range and the superheavy mass range that warrants further exploration. We are particularly interested in the very heavy dark matter mass range between about 100 TeV and \(10\,\mathrm {PeV}=10^7\,\mathrm {GeV}\) because of the possibility that there might be a detectable flux of very high-energy \(\gamma \)-rays between 100 TeV and a few PeV, and because IceCube has seen neutrinos with PeV scale energies [16, 17]. A detectable contribution from dark matter annihilation in this energy range calls for solitonic enhancement of annihilation cross sections, because the indirect search limits in the TeV mass range are already encroaching on the thermal production limit [18]. This makes indirect dark matter signals from dark particle annihilation for higher masses very unlikely, as these signals can be expected to drop with dark matter mass *M* roughly in proportion to \(M^{-3}\), i.e. faster than the decrease of the cosmic \(\gamma \)-ray flux with energy. The indirect search limits in the TeV mass range therefore pose the question whether there is any hope for a potentially detectable indirect dark matter \(\gamma \)-ray signal in the energy range beyond 100 TeV, which could be motivated by theory. Solitonic states can avoid this negative verdict on indirect signals from very heavy dark matter, because their annihilation cross sections are size limited \(\sigma \propto L^2\) rather than mass limited \(\sigma \propto M^{-2}\). Non-topological dark solitons could arise as e.g. as dark Q-balls [19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27]. However, in the present paper we focus on Skyrmions as an example of topological dark solitons.

Sommerfeld enhancement provides another way to achieve high cross section values and potentially observable indirect signals for heavy dark matter if the dark matter particles participate in interactions which are long range compared to their Compton wavelength \(M^{-1}\) [28]. This applies especially to heavy dark matter which is weakly charged [29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37], or to heavy Majorana dark matter which can exchange scalar bosons of lower mass. However, we will see that the size-induced solitonic enhancement factors can reach levels of order \(10^7\) for Skyrmion couplings of order \(g_V\gtrsim 0.1\), and therefore the size effect alone will be sufficient to generate observable signals from very heavy dark Skyrmions. Therefore we develop very heavy dark Skyrmion models where the Skyrmions are not charged under long range gauge interactions, although charged very heavy Skyrmions are an interesting topic for further investigations.

The question for indirect signals from very heavy dark matter is a timely question to address, since IceCube is already exploring neutrinos in the PeV energy range while the Cherenkov telescope array (CTA) will start to explore cosmic \(\gamma \)-rays in the energy range beyond 100 TeV. Searches for indirect dark matter signals will likely remain the primary, if not the only option to explore the mass range beyond 100 TeV in the foreseeable future [38]; see also [39] for an excellent discussion of motivation and mass reach of next generation colliders.

*T*[43],

*g*(

*M*) for thermal dark matter creation of very heavy dark matter. Due to the perturbative approximation \(\sigma (s)=g^2\times \sigma (s)|_{g=1}\), this reasoning cannot be extended for calculating the required dark matter couplings in the non-perturbative high-mass regime, but it tells us for each model a mass bound where perturbative dark matter theory breaks down.

Contrary to the breakdown in perturbativity of dark matter models for high dark matter mass, the overclosure problem does not involve any perturbative calculation and only assumes that particle creation and annihilation is described by a scattering matrix [40]. However, both the calculation of *g*(*M*) and the overclosure problem assume thermal creation of dark matter. Therefore both the overclosure problem and the need for non-perturbative coupling can be avoided through non-thermal creation of very heavy dark matter. Non-thermal dark matter creation can be achieved in several scenarios during or immediately after inflation [44, 45]. Gravitational production due to the rapidly evolving scale factor during inflation or near its end is a promising possibility [46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51]. Other mechanisms for very heavy dark matter production include the preheating [52, 53] and the reheating phases [46, 54, 55] at the end of inflation, or resonant production due to an evolving effective mass term from couplings to the inflaton through Yukawa type couplings [56, 57] or kinetic couplings [58]. These are different proposals using different physical models for non-thermal dark matter creation in the early universe. However, there is one common denominator that is worth emphasizing: None of these proposals needs to describe the creation dynamics through a scattering matrix and corresponding reaction cross sections, and the standard thermal freeze-out estimate \(\Omega _X\propto \langle \sigma v\rangle ^{-1}\) [59] for the remnant dark matter abundance does not apply. Indeed, all the possible mechanisms for very heavy dark matter production are inherently semi-classical, either through directly integrating coupled systems of Lagrangian evolution equations or by evolving Bogolubov coefficients in a rapidly evolving classical spacetime.

^{1}\(n_{\overline{X}}(\varvec{r})\),

*M*roughly like \(M^{-3}\), since the densities scale like \(M^{-1}\) and the velocity weighted annihilation cross section for very heavy dark matter (i.e.

*M*much larger than the top quark mass) scales according to \(v_{X\overline{X}}\sigma _{X\overline{X}}\propto M^{-2}\), while more fragmentation products could be expected in proportion to

*M*at lower energies. Equation (15) below provides an explicit example for the asymptotic behavior of the velocity weighted annihilation cross section. Comparing the expected drop in cosmic ray flux from annihilation of dark particles with the fact that the combined spectral flux of cosmic rays in all particles scales like \(E^{-2.7}\) for \(E\lesssim 3\) PeV, tells us that indirect signals from very heavy particle dark matter would be buried deeply in the cosmic ray flux from astrophysical accelerators. On the other hand, the annihilation signal from solitonic dark matter of size \(L_S\) and mass \(M_S\) would scale like \(L_S^2M_S^{-1}\), and could therefore contribute at a detectable level to the cosmic ray flux above 100 TeV. For Skyrmion dark matter the enhancement of the annihilation cross section is of order \(L_S^2M_S^2\simeq 7.7\times 10^3 g_V^{-4}\), where \(g_V\) is the Skyrmion coupling. This yields an enhancement of order \(10^6\) for a weak scale Skyrmion coupling \(g_V\simeq 0.3\). This is relevant for indirect dark matter searches beyond 100 TeV. A Higgs portal Skyrmion model is therefore introduced in Sect. 2.

Skyrmions can arise as a consequence of a first order phase transition, e.g. due to chiral symmetry breaking, and Campbell et al. have shown that this can create the correct Skyrmion abundance for dark matter [60]. In these cases, the Skyrmions are indeed the dominant form of energy at least at early stages after the phase transition. However, we will see that a Higgs portal coupling implies that the \(\varvec{w}\) bosons, into which the Skyrmions annihilate, will generically also contribute a sizable particle dark matter component if the \(\varvec{w}\) bosons are stable. This reduces the observational significance of the Higgs portal model for Skyrmions. To avoid this problem, we also discuss a model where the bosons \(\varvec{w}\) decay into \(\nu \nu \) and \(\overline{\nu }\overline{\nu }\) pairs. We will address this model, which was analyzed for WIMP scale dark matter coupling to very heavy right-handed neutrinos by Dudas et al. [61], as the \(\nu ^2\)-portal for dark matter, to avoid confusion with the neutrino(-Higgs) portals proposed in [62, 63] (see also [64]). In the neutrino(-Higgs) portal models, unstable dark fermions \(\chi _i\) couple to left-handed fermion doublets \(\ell _i\) in the Standard Model through the same couplings as the right-handed neutrinos, \(\lambda _{ij}\overline{\ell }_i\cdot \tilde{H}\cdot \chi _j+\)h.c., where \(\tilde{H}=\underline{\epsilon }\cdot H^*=(H^{0*},-H^{+*})\) is the Higgs doublet in the complex conjugate fundamental representation of the electroweak gauge group SU(2), mapped back into the fundamental representation. These models and their generalizations to higher-dimensional operators attracted a lot of interest in recent years due to their possible relevance for PeV scale neutrinos; see [65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70] and the references therein (see e.g. [71, 72, 73] for discussion of the possible astrophysical sources of PeV neutrinos). Here we wish instead to couple scalar bosons \(w_i\) to the Standard Model through \(\lambda _{ijk}\overline{\nu _{i,R}{}^c}\cdot \nu _{j,R}w_k+\)h.c., utilizing the fact that the symmetries of the standard model are compatible with Majorana terms for the right-handed neutrinos. The \(\varvec{w}\) particles in this model are not the dark matter but are generated from dark Skyrmion annihilation, and they will decay very fast into \(\nu _R\nu _R\) pairs or \(\overline{\nu }_R\overline{\nu }_R\) pairs, with the right-handed neutrinos then decaying into left-handed neutrinos and Higgs particles. This model has the virtue that Skyrmion annihilation into the \(\varvec{w}\) bosons cannot build up a competing dark matter component.

The Higgs portal Skyrmion model is introduced in Sect. 2 and the \(\nu ^2\) neutrino portal is introduced in Sect. 3. Section 4 summarizes our conclusions.

## 2 A Higgs portal model for heavy Skyrmion dark matter

Skyrme had proposed [79, 80], and Witten et al. [81, 82] had demonstrated, in the large *N* limit of \(\mathrm{SU}(N)\) gauge theory, that baryonic states can be realized as topological excitations of mesonic states, and this reasoning would also apply to a dark gauge theory sector. We will show that this observation is particularly relevant for very heavy dark matter, since it provides a means to enhance the reaction cross sections for very heavy dark matter to observable levels. However, we remain agnostic with respect to the question whether heavy Skyrmion dark matter indeed arises as an effective description of very heavy bound states in a dark gauge theory sector, or as a genuine solitonic excitation of a heavy scalar field. The point is that either way, the resulting enhancement of annihilation cross sections makes this an interesting target for indirect dark matter searches with masses exceeding 100 TeV.

*H*is the electroweak Higgs doublet with vacuum expectation value \(\langle H^+H\rangle =v_h^2/2\). The coupling (6) would not contribute to any invisible Higgs decay width since all the masses of the dark sector states, including the mass \(m_w\) of the \(w_i(x)\) fields, are assumed to be much larger than the Higgs mass. It is also not constrained by direct search experiments which are not sensitive to the mass range above 10 TeV. The \(\varvec{w}\)-Higgs coupling in unitary gauge is

*U*(

*x*) were related to the electroweak gauge bosons. These models therefore also did not include the Higgs portal coupling (7).

The scale \(f_w\) is a mass scale, but contrary to the hadronic Skyrme models, it is not a decay constant. Recall that the \(\pi \) mesons of hadronic physics can only decay because their constituents couple to the lighter lepton sector through the electroweak gauge bosons. There is no corresponding low mass dark matter sector included in the \(\varvec{w}\)+Skyrmion picture of very heavy dark matter, and the \(\varvec{w}\)-particles in the model (4, 5) with the coupling (7) are stable up to annihilation into Standard Model states through the Higgs portal. Therefore the dark sector in this type of dark Skyrmion model will generically consist both of \(\varvec{w}\) particles and of their Skyrmion excitations. Skyrmion annihilation and thermal creation can generate \(\varvec{w}\)-particles which will also contribute to the dark matter if they do not annihilate sufficiently fast into Standard Model states. Nevertheless, the Skyrmions can initially be produced as the dominant dark matter component if they arise as a consequence of symmetry breaking during a first order phase transition [60], and this is the assumption used here. However, it is also intriguing to ask what happens if the \(\varvec{w}\) particles are not just a low-energy effective description of a condensate in the low-energy effective theory of a broken symmetry, but are thermally produced in the early universe before Skyrmions are generated in a phase transition. For the reasons alluded to above, we can perform a perturbative analysis of this question only if the mass \(m_w\) of the \(\varvec{w}\) particles is not too large, and we will return to this question once we have assembled the pertinent cross sections.

*U*(

*x*) in Eq. (3) (with the compactifying boundary condition \(\lim _{|\varvec{x}|\rightarrow \infty }U(x)=1\)) wraps compactified \(\mathbb {R}^3\) around the

*SU*(2) group manifold \(S^3\). The mass and the length scale of \(|W|=1\) Skyrmions are \(M_S=73 f_w/g_V\) and \(L_S=1.2/(g_V f_w)\) [87, 93].

The solitonic nature of Skyrmions implies that they are not described as particle states in the Fock space of the theory, and Skyrmion–Skyrmion interactions are not described by the usual scattering matrix formalism. Instead, their interactions have to be studied through mathematical analysis and numerical integration of the equations of motion, and study of the evolution of the topological density \(W^0\) [94, 95, 96, 97, 98]. For the annihilation of a Skyrmion *S* and an anti-Skyrmions \(\overline{S}\), this leads in particular to the interesting result of sudden onset of annihilation through emission of a few \(\varvec{w}\) quanta once the distance between the Skyrmion and the anti-Skyrmion is down to the size of a Skyrmion [94, 95]. It is a classical soliton–soliton interaction effect and determined by soliton size, whence the \(\ell \)-wave unitarity limit \(\sigma _\ell \le 4\pi (2\ell +1)/k^2\) on reaction cross sections from scattering matrices [40] does not apply. On the other hand, the underlying \(\varvec{w}\) particles (into which the Skyrmions decay upon annihilation in our adoption of the Skyrmion picture for very heavy dark matter), are the basic quantum excitations of the Hamiltonian (8). Annihilation of very heavy dark matter therefore proceeds in two stages. Size-limited annihilation of the heavy Skyrmions into \(\varvec{w}\) particles proceeds into quantum mechanical \(\varvec{w}\overline{\varvec{w}}\) annihilation into Standard Model matter through the Higgs portal coupling (6).

*Z*bosons and \(\delta _z=0\) for annihilation into \(W^+ W^-\). The velocity weighted cross sections are \(v\sigma =2\sqrt{1-(4m_w^2/s)}\sigma (s)\) and the thermally averaged annihilation cross section at temperature

*T*can be calculated using Eq. (1).

*ZZ*and \(W^+ W^-\), and the massive gauge bosons predominantly decay into hadrons, with a dominant meson component which will decay into photons, light leptons and neutrinos. The results of Ref. [100], although derived for lower annihilation energy 10 TeV, are generic for shower composition with annihilation energies well above the top quark mass. The reason is that cross sections into standard model final states simply scale with the relativistic boost factor \(\gamma \) like \(\sigma _{\mathrm{fi}}\sim 4/s=E^{-2}=\gamma ^{-2}M^{-2}\) once

*E*is well above the top quark mass \(m_{\mathrm{top}}\). This is a consequence of \(v\mathrm{d}\sigma _{\mathrm{fi}}=V\mathrm{d}N_{\mathrm{fi}}/T\) for transitions from an initial 2-particle state \(|i\rangle \) into a final \(n_f\)-particle state \(|f\rangle \) with densities of collision partners \(V^{-1}\) and reaction rate \(\mathrm{d}N_{\mathrm{fi}}/T\). Once \(E\gg m_{\mathrm{top}}\) and no more additional Standard Model channels can open up, the Lorentz factors \(V\rightarrow V/\gamma \) and \(T\rightarrow \gamma T\) determine the scaling with energy, since \(v\rightarrow 1\) in a fixed target frame and \(v\rightarrow 2\) in the center of mass frame. The follow-up single particle decays scale like \(d\Gamma _{\mathrm{fi}}=\mathrm{d}N_{\mathrm{fi}}/T\sim 1/\gamma \), and therefore dominate the shower formation after the initial annihilation channels of the dark matter particles. Therefore the branching ratios of the initial annihilation events and the subsequent decays are practically fixed once \(E\gg m_{\mathrm{top}}\).

Solitonic enhancement factors like the Skyrmion factor \(L_S^2M_S^2\simeq 7.7\times 10^3 g_V^{-4}\) are certainly needed for dark matter detection at those mass scales.

*k*. This implies the lower limit

## 3 The neutrino portal to Skyrmion dark matter

For \(10^4\langle N_w\rangle v_{S\overline{S}}v_{ww}m_w^2/(g_V^4 M_S^2)\gg 1\), the Skyrmions will be a subdominant heavy dark matter component of little observational interest, while at the same time the annihilation cross section for very heavy \(\varvec{w}\) particles will be too small to be observable.

*w*fields stable, such that again an undetectable

*w*component could dominate the dark matter sector. Stated differently, the dark vector SU(2) has to be broken completely if we wish to avoid any possible remnant dark \(\varvec{w}\) component. A natural way to implement such a scenario of unstable carrier field \(\varvec{w}\) for the Skyrmions is to use the broken flavor symmetry in the lepton sector through a Majorana type coupling to the right-handed neutrinos,

This yields according to the standard seesaw mechanism mass eigenstates which are mostly right-handed in the high-mass sector and left-handed in the low mass sector, and accounts for the fact that the right-handed neutrinos do not contradict the Planck limit on low mass neutrinos [101]; see e.g. [61, 67]. The heavy right-handed neutrinos will remain in thermal equilibrium for temperatures above a few percent of their masses [102, 103], and could contribute to dark matter if they are stable, or if the eigenvalues of the mixing matrix \(m_D\sim \sqrt{m_{\nu }M_R}\) are extremely small to ensure a long lifetime of the heavy right-handed neutrinos, \(m_D\lesssim 10^{-14}\) eV. However, for generic eigenvalues of \(m_D\) the right-handed neutrinos will decay fast into left-handed neutrinos and Higgs particles, and the left-handed neutrinos could then be seen by the neutrino detectors.

The overall diffuse neutrino flux between 250 TeV and 2.5 PeV can be estimated from the IceCube spectral neutrino flux per steradian [16] as \(j_\nu \simeq 3.3\times 10^{-13}\,\mathrm {cm}^{-2}\mathrm {s}^{-1}\). The model therefore appears to be compatible with IceCube observations and the assumption that the very high-energy neutrino flux is dominated by astrophysical sources.

## 4 Conclusions

Observation of indirect signals from stable dark matter in the very heavy mass range above 100 TeV requires strongly enhanced annihilation cross sections. Soliton dark matter or bound states can provide a solution to this problem. However, if the field (here a dark isotriplet \(\varvec{w}\)) which carries the solitons is stable, small particle annihilation cross sections \(\sigma _{w\overline{w}}\sim m_w^{-2}\) will create a dark mediator bottleneck which can prevent an observable indirect dark matter signal. This problem can be avoided if the dark mediator \(\varvec{w}\) is unstable, e.g. through the \(\nu ^2\) portal (21). The neutrino signal for Skyrmion dark matter through the \(\nu ^2\) portal could contribute at a subdominant, but potentially noticeable level to the flux of very high-energy neutrinos.

## Footnotes

- 1.
The flux is usually written with the thermally averaged velocity weighted annihilation cross section \(\langle \sigma v\rangle (T)\), see also Eq. (1), but heavy dark matter at low redshift is practically at zero temperature. Furthermore, a generic expression \(\mathrm{d}\mathcal {N}(E,2M)/\mathrm{d}E\) has been chosen for the fragmentation of an annihilation event with energy \(\sqrt{s}=2M\) instead of the customary \(2\mathrm{d}\mathcal {N}(E,M)/\mathrm{d}E\), which assumes fragmentation of two initial jets of energy

*M*. The reason is that annihilation of bound states or solitons might not necessarily produce only two jets.

## Notes

### Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada through a subatomic physics grant. I also thank Rocky Kolb for discussions. The hospitality of Rocky Kolb, Lian-Tao Wang, and the Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics during my sabbatical is gratefully acknowledged.

## References

- 1.K. Greisen, Phys. Rev. Lett.
**16**, 748 (1966)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 2.G.T. Zatsepin, V.A. Kuzmin, JETP Lett.
**4**, 78 (1966)ADSGoogle Scholar - 3.V. Berezinsky, M. Kachelrieß, A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. Lett.
**79**, 4302 (1997)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 4.V.A. Kuzmin, V.A. Rubakov, Phys. Atom. Nucl.
**61**, 1028 (1998)ADSGoogle Scholar - 5.M. Birkel, S. Sarkar, Astropart. Phys.
**9**, 297 (1998)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 6.P. Blasi, R. Dick, E.W. Kolb, Astropart. Phys.
**18**, 57 (2002)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 7.C.T. Hill, Nucl. Phys. B
**224**, 469 (1983)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 8.HiRes Collaboration (R.U. Abbasi et al.), Phys. Rev. Lett.
**100**, 101101 (2008)Google Scholar - 9.Pierre Auger Collaboration (J. Abraham et al.), Phys. Rev. Lett.
**101**, 061101 (2008)Google Scholar - 10.Telescope Array Collaboration (T. Abu-Zayyad et al.), Astrophys. J.
**768**, L1 (2013)Google Scholar - 11.Pierre Auger Collaboration (A. Aab et al.), JCAP
**1508**, 049 (2015)Google Scholar - 12.Pierre Auger Collaboration (A. Aab et al.), JCAP
**1704**, 038 (2017)Google Scholar - 13.Pierre Auger Collaboration (A. Aab et al.), Phys. Rev. D
**91**, 092008 (2015)Google Scholar - 14.Telescope Array Collaboration (G.I. Rubtsov et al. for the collaboration), PoS
**ICRC2015**, 331 (2016)Google Scholar - 15.Pierre Auger Collaboration (D. Kuempel for the collaboration), AIP Conf. Proc.
**1792**, 070012 (2017)Google Scholar - 16.IceCube Collaboration (M.G. Aartsen et al.), Astrophys. J.
**833**, 3 (2016)Google Scholar - 17.IceCube Collaboration (M.G. Aartsen et al.), Astrophys. J.
**835**, 151 (2017)Google Scholar - 18.H.E.S.S. Collaboration (H. Abdallah et al.), Phys. Rev. Lett.
**117**, 111301 (2016)Google Scholar - 19.A. Kusenko, M. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. B
**418**, 46 (1998)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 20.A. Kusenko, V. Kuzmin, M. Shaposhnikov, P.G. Tinyakov, Phys. Rev. Lett.
**80**, 3185 (1998)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 21.J. Hisano, M.M. Nojiri, N. Okada, Phys. Rev. D
**64**, 023511 (2001)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 22.A. Kusenko, P.J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.
**87**, 141301 (2001)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 23.K. Enqvist, A. Jokinen, T. Multamäki, I. Vilja, Phys. Lett. B
**526**, 9 (2002)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 24.K. Enqvist, A. Mazumdar, Phys. Rep.
**380**, 99 (2003)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 25.M. Dine, A. Kusenko, Rev. Mod. Phys.
**76**, 1 (2004)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 26.A. Kusenko, L.C. Loveridge, M. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Rev. D
**72**, 025015 (2005)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 27.J. McDonald, Phys. Rev. Lett.
**103**, 151301 (2009)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 28.J. Hisano, S. Matsumoto, M.M. Nojiri, O. Saito, Phys. Rev. D
**71**, 063528 (2005)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 29.J. Hisano, S. Matsumoto, M. Nagai, O. Saito, M. Senami, Phys. Lett. B
**646**, 34 (2007)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 30.M. Cirelli, A. Strumia, M. Tamburini, Nucl. Phys. B
**787**, 152 (2007)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 31.N. Arkani-Hamed, D.P. Finkbeiner, T.R. Slatyer, N. Weiner, Phys. Rev. D
**79**, 015014 (2009)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 32.Y. Bai, Z. Han, Phys. Rev. D
**79**, 095023 (2009)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 33.K. Kohri, J. McDonald, N. Sahu, Phys. Rev. D
**81**, 023530 (2010)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 34.V. Berezinsky, V. Dokuchaev, Yu. Eroshenko, M. Kachelrieß, M.A. Solberg, Phys. Rev. D
**81**, 103530 (2010)Google Scholar - 35.D.P. Finkbeiner, L. Goodenough, T.R. Slatyer, M. Vogelsberger, N. Weiner, JCAP
**1105**, 002 (2011)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 36.M. Bauer, T. Cohen, R.J. Hill, M.P. Solon, JHEP
**1501**, 099 (2015)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 37.J. Cline, G. Dupuis, Z. Liu, W. Xue, Phys. Rev. D
**91**, 115010 (2015)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 38.CTA Collaboration (J. Carr et al. for the collaboration), PoS
**ICRC2015**, 1203 (2016)Google Scholar - 39.N. Arkani-Hamed, T. Han, M. Mangano, L.-T. Wang, Phys. Rep.
**652**, 1 (2016)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 40.K. Griest, M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett.
**64**, 615 (1990)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 41.J. Ellis, J.L. Lopez, D.V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. B
**247**, 257 (1990)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 42.J. Bramante, J. Unwin, JHEP
**1702**, 119 (2017)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 43.P. Gondolo, G. Gelmini, Nucl. Phys. B
**360**, 145 (1991)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 44.D.J.H. Chung, E.W. Kolb, A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. Lett.
**81**, 4048 (1998)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 45.E.W. Kolb, D.J.H. Chung, A. Riotto, in
*Dark Matter in Astrophysics and Particle Physics 1998*, ed. by H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, L. Baudis (IoP Publishing, Bristol, 1999), pp. 592–614Google Scholar - 46.D.J.H. Chung, E.W. Kolb, A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. D
**59**, 023501 (1999)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 47.V. Kuzmin, I. Tkachev, JETP Lett.
**68**(271), 271 (1998)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 48.V. Kuzmin, I. Tkachev, Phys. Rev. D
**59**, 123006 (1999)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 49.V. Kuzmin, I. Tkachev, Phys. Rep.
**320**, 199 (1999)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 50.D.J.H. Chung, P. Crotty, E.W. Kolb, A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. D
**64**, 043503 (2001)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 51.D.J.H. Chung, L.L. Everett, H. Yoo, P. Zhou, Phys. Lett. B
**712**, 147 (2012)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 52.E.W. Kolb, A. Riotto, I.I. Tkachev, Phys. Lett. B
**423**, 348 (1998)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 53.G.F. Giudice, M. Peloso, A. Riotto, I. Tkachev, JHEP
**9908**, 014 (1999)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 54.D.J.H. Chung, E.W. Kolb, A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. D
**60**, 063504 (1999)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 55.K. Harigaya, T. Lin, H.K. Lou, JHEP
**1609**, 014 (2016)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 56.D.J.H. Chung, E.W. Kolb, A. Riotto, I.I. Tkachev, Phys. Rev. D
**62**, 043508 (2000)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 57.N. Barnaby, Z. Huang, L. Kofman, D. Pogosyan, Phys. Rev. D
**80**, 043501 (2009)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 58.M.A. Fedderke, E.W. Kolb, M. Wyman, Phys. Rev. D
**91**, 063505 (2015)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 59.E.W. Kolb, M.S. Turner,
*The Early Universe*(Westview Press, Boulder, 1994)Google Scholar - 60.B.A. Campbell, J. Ellis, K.A. Olive, JHEP
**1203**, 026 (2012)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 61.E. Dudas, Y. Mambrini, K.A. Olive, Phys. Rev. D
**91**, 075001 (2015)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 62.A. Anisimov, P. Di Bari, Phys. Rev. D
**80**, 073017 (2009)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 63.A. Falkowski, J. Juknevich, J. Shelton, Dark matter through the neutrino portal. arXiv:0908.1790 [hep-ph]
- 64.M. Shaposhnikov, Nucl. Phys. B
**763**, 49 (2007)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 65.B. Feldstein, A. Kusenko, S. Matsumoto, T.T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. D
**88**, 015004 (2013)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 66.S.M. Boucenna, M. Chianese, G. Mangano, G. Miele, S. Morisi, O. Pisanti, E. Vitagliano, JCAP
**1512**, 055 (2015)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 67.P.S. Bhupal Dev, D. Kazanas, R.N. Mohapatra, V.L. Teplitz, Y. Zhang, JCAP
**1608**, 034 (2016)ADSGoogle Scholar - 68.M. Re Fiorentin, V. Niro, N. Fornengo, JHEP
**1611**, 022 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 69.P. Di Bari, P.O. Ludl, S. Palomares-Ruiz, JCAP
**1611**, 044 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar - 70.M. Chianese, A. Merle, JCAP
**1704**, 017 (2017)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 71.I. Cholis, D. Hooper, JCAP
**1306**, 030 (2013)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 72.L.A. Anchordoqui, V. Barger, I. Cholis, H. Goldberg, D. Hooper, A. Kusenko, J.G. Learned, D. Marfatia, S. Pakvasa, T.C. Paul, T.J. Weiler, J. High Energy Astrophys.
**1–2**, 1 (2014)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 73.M. Ahlers, Y. Bai, V. Barger, R. Lu, Phys. Rev. D
**93**, 013009 (2016)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 74.G. Dvali, A. Gußmann, Nucl. Phys. B
**913**, 1001 (2016)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 75.G. Dvali, A. Gußmann, Phys. Lett. B
**768**, 274 (2017)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 76.H. Murayama, J. Shu, Phys. Lett. B
**686**, 162 (2010)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 77.M. Gillioz, A. von Manteuffel, P. Schwaller, D. Wyler, JHEP
**1103**, 048 (2011)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 78.R. Kitano, M. Kurachi, JHEP
**1607**, 037 (2016)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 79.T.H.R. Skyrme, Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) A
**260**, 127 (1961)Google Scholar - 80.T.H.R. Skyrme, Nucl. Phys.
**31**, 556 (1962)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 81.E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B
**223**, 433 (1983)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 82.G.S. Adkins, C.R. Nappi, E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B
**228**, 552 (1983)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 83.M. Bando, T. Kugo, S. Uehara, K. Yamawaki, T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. Lett.
**54**, 1215 (1985)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 84.M. Bando, T. Kugo, K. Yamawaki, Nucl. Phys. B
**259**, 493 (1985)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 85.M. Bando, T. Kugo, K. Yamawaki, Prog. Theor. Phys.
**73**, 1541 (1985)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 86.M. Bando, T. Kugo, K. Yamawaki, Phys. Rep.
**164**, 217 (1988)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 87.R.K. Bhaduri,
*Models of the Nucleon: From Quarks to Soliton*(Addison-Wesley, Redwood City, 1988)Google Scholar - 88.V. Silveira, A. Zee, Phys. Lett. B
**161**, 136 (1985)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 89.J. McDonald, Phys. Rev. D
**50**, 3637 (1994)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 90.C. Burgess, M. Pospelov, T. ter Veldhuis, Nucl. Phys. B
**619**, 709 (2001)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 91.H. Davoudiasl, R. Kitano, T. Li, H. Murayama, Phys. Lett. B
**609**, 117 (2005)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 92.B. Patt, F. Wilczek, Higgs field portal into hidden sectors. arXiv:hep-ph/0605188
- 93.J.F. Donoghue, E. Golowich, B.R. Holstein,
*Dynamics of the Standard Model*(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar - 94.H.M. Sommermann, R. Seki, S. Larson, S.E. Koonin, Phys. Rev. D
**45**, 4303 (1992)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 95.B. Sao, N.R. Walet, R.D. Amado, Phys. Lett. B
**303**, 1 (1993)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 96.T. Gisiger, M.B. Paranjape, Phys. Rep.
**306**, 110 (1998)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 97.D. Foster, S. Krusch, Nucl. Phys. B
**897**, 697 (2015)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 98.D. Foster, N.S. Manton, Nucl. Phys. B
**899**, 513 (2015)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 99.E. Klempt, C. Batty, J.-M. Richard, Phys. Rep.
**413**, 197 (2005)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 100.M. Cirelli, G. Corcella, A. Hektor, G. Hütsi, M. Kadastik, P. Panci, M. Raidal, F. Sala, A. Strumia, JCAP
**1103**, 051 (2011). Erratum: JCAP**1210**, E01 (2012)Google Scholar - 101.Planck Collaboration (P.A.R. Ade et al.), Astron. Astrophys.
**594**, A13 (2016)Google Scholar - 102.B.W. Lee, S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.
**39**, 165 (1977)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 103.K.A. Olive, M.S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D
**25**, 213 (1982)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 104.C. Patrignani et al. (Particle Data Group), Chin. Phys. C
**40**, 100001 (2016)**(Sec. 14)**Google Scholar - 105.J.F. Navarro, C.S. Frenk, S.D.M. White, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.
**275**, 720 (1995)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 106.J.F. Navarro, C.S. Frenk, S.D.M. White, Astrophys. J.
**490**, 493 (1997)Google Scholar - 107.Y. Sofue, Publ. Astron. Soc. Jpn.
**67**, 75 (2015)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

## Copyright information

**Open Access**This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons 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 credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Funded by SCOAP^{3}