Physics Letters B 741 (2015) 284–289

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Physics Letters B
www.elsevier.com/locate/physletb

AMS02 positron excess from decaying fermion DM with local dark

gauge symmetry
P. Ko, Yong Tang ∗
School of Physics, KIAS, Seoul 130-722, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Positron excess observed by PAMELA, Fermi and AMS02 may be due to dark matter (DM) pair annihilation
Received 1 November 2014 or decay dominantly into muons. In this paper, we consider a scenario with thermal fermionic DM (χ )
Received in revised form 3 January 2015 with mass ∼ O (1–2) TeV decaying into a dark Higgs (φ ) and an active neutrino (νa ) instead of the SM
Accepted 4 January 2015
Higgs boson and νa . We first present a renormalizable model for this scenario with local dark U (1) X
Available online 8 January 2015
Editor: J. Hisano
gauge symmetry, in which the DM χ can be thermalized by Higgs portal and the gauge kinetic mixing.
Assuming the dark Higgs (φ ) mass is in the range 2mμ < mφ < 2mπ 0 , the positron excess can be fit if
a proper background model is used, without conflict with constraints from antiproton and gamma-ray
fluxes or direct detection experiments. Also, having such a light dark Higgs, the self-interaction of DM
can be enhanced to some extent, and three puzzles in the CDM paradigm can be somewhat relaxed.
© 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Funded by SCOAP3 .

1. Introduction The simplest guess would be to assume χ is the SM singlet

fermion and φ is the SM Higgs doublet and ν is from the left-
Positron excess in the energy range E > 10 GeV has been ob- handed lepton doublet [51]. In this case, the operator λeff χ̄ hν
served by PAMELA, Fermi and AMS02 [1–5]. Assuming its DM- would also induce χ → Z ν and χ → W ± e ∓ that would give po-
origin,1 this excess can be explained by annihilating DM with tentially dangerous antiproton or γ -ray flux.
thermally-averaged cross section σ v  ∼ 10−23 cm3 /s, or decaying In this paper, we focus on the light φ case (2me± < mφ < 2mπ 0 ),
DM with lifetime τ = Γ −1 ∼ 1026 s. It is also well known that for which has been also motivated to give large self-interaction for
annihilating DM a large boost factor ∼103 [11–28] is needed to fit DM–DM elastic scattering (see Ref. [52] for example). The key ob-
the positron spectra. However, such a large boost factor is strongly servation in this paper is that this light scalar φ can be identified
constrained by the CMB data [29–33] and Fermi/LAT gamma-ray as a dark Higgs field which is generically present in the DM mod-
measurements [34–40]. On the other hand, O (TeV) DM decaying els with local dark gauge symmetries. In the following, we shall
into leptons [41–50] can give a consistent explanation without construct such dark matter models that are renormalizable and
conflict with such stringent constraints, especially for DM decay whose dynamics is completely fixed by local dark gauge symmetry.
into the μ+ μ− channel. Then the remaining question would be to In those models, one can induce the above dim-4 operator where
construct particle physics models for such a scenario. the dimensionless effective coupling λeff is suppressed by heavy
It is well known that the following operator can fit the positron mass scales in the intermediate states. In our model, φ will be
excess well with Γ ∼ 10−51 GeV [51]: a new light scalar field (dark Higgs) that would eventually decay
into light lepton pairs through Higgs portal interaction, and ν is
δ L = λeff χ̄ φ ν , the SM neutrino field. There is also Z  ν final state due to the mix-
ing between ν and χ in a definite ratio, and we account for it for
if λeff ∼ 10−26 , where χ is the decaying fermion DM, φ is some completeness.
scalar field and ν is the SM active neutrino. This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we propose a
renormalizable model for decaying fermionic DM ψ based on local
U (1) X gauge symmetry, and show the effective operators gener-
* Corresponding author.
ated after dark gauge symmetry breaking. In Section 3, we discuss
E-mail address: [email protected] (Y. Tang).
1
Note that astrophysical processes for this excess are also discussed in the main decay modes of the DM ψ , and several variations of the
Refs. [6–10]. model are discussed in Section 4. In Section 5, we compare the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2015.01.001
0370-2693/© 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Funded by
SCOAP3 .
 P. Ko, Y. Tang / Physics Letters B 741 (2015) 284–289 285

where v H  246 GeV and v φ ∼ O (100) MeV for our interest.

v φ ∼ O (100) MeV is motivated for having light mediators in the
dark sector such that they can only decay into e ± /μ± and provide
a large DM self-scattering cross section [53]. The model Lagrangian
(2.1) is basically the same as the one discussed in Ref. [53] by the
present authors, except that the hidden sector fermions carry def-
inite U (1) X charges and one of them ψ is very heavy ∼1014 GeV
Fig. 1. Feynman diagram that generates the effector operator χ̄ ΦΦ H̃ L. in this work.
In the unitarity gauge, we can replace the scalar fields with
theoretical calculations for e ± spectra with the experimental data  
1 0 v φ + φ(x)
from PAMELA, FERMI and AMS02. Finally, we make a conclusion in H→√ and φX → √ , (2.5)
Section 6. 2 v H + h(x) 2
where h and φ are two real scalar fields which mix with
2. Model
each other because of the Higgs-portal interaction, λφ H H † H Φ † Φ .
Through this mixing, dark Higgs φ can decay into SM particles. An-
We consider local dark gauge symmetry U (1) X with dark Higgs
other mixing is concerned with three neutral gauge bosons, photon
Φ and two different Dirac fermions in the dark sector, χ and ψ .
A μ , Z μ and X μ . Such a mixture enable an extra mass eigen-
Let us assign U (1) X charges to the dark fields as follows:  (mostly X ) to decay SM fermion pairs. Note that the
state Z μ μ
dark Higgs boson decays dominantly into heavier particles, thus
( Q χ , Q ψ , Q Φ ) = (2, 1, 1).
being naturally flavor dependent, unlike the dark photon Z  . DM
Then we can write down all the possible renormalizable interac- χ ’s scattering off nucleus then is possible by exchanging a φ or Z  ,
tions including singlet right-handed neutrinos N for the neutrino whose cross section depends on λφ H ,  , v φ , mφ , m Z  . It is easy to
masses and mixings: choose these parameters and evade the stringent constrains from
  DM direct detection, see Ref. [47] for example.
1 1 Typically, for m Z  ∼ O (100) MeV, the kinetic mixing parame-
L = LSM + N̄ I i ∂/ N I − m N I N̄ cI N I + y α I L̄ H N I + h.c.
2 2 ter  should be around [10−10 , 10−7 ], where the upper and the
1 1 μν lower bounds come from low energy beam dump experiments
− X μν X μν − sin  X μν F Y + ( D μ Φ)† D μ Φ [54] and from BBN and supernovae constraints [55], respectively.
4 2
On the other hand, the Higgs portal coupling λφ H can be much
− V (φ, H ) + χ̄ (i D
/ − mχ )χ + ψ̄(i D
/ − mψ )ψ
larger than  . λφ H in the range 10−7  λφ H  10−3 would be small
− ( f χ̄ Φψ + g I ψ̄Φ N I + h.c.), (2.1) enough to give Br(h → φφ)  2%, but sufficiently large to thermal-
ize the dark sector around TeV in the early Universe.
where L α = (να lα ) is the left-handed SM SU (2) lepton dou-
T
After spontaneous gauge symmetry breaking, we have several
blet with α = e , μ, τ . H is the SM Higgs doublet, X μν ≡ X μν =
dimensional effective operators as follows:
∂μ X ν − ∂ν X μ is the field strength tensor of U (1) X dark gauge field
μν
X μ , F Y is for SM hypercharge U (1)Y , and  is the kinetic mixing v 2φ v H
parameter. Covariant derivative is defined as dim-3: χ̄ν , (2.6)
mψ m N
D μ C = (∂μ − ig X Q C X μ )C (C = χ , ψ, Φ), v 2φ 2v φ v H
dim-4: χ̄ hν , χ̄ φ ν , (2.7)
and the scalar potential is given by mψ m N mψ m N
 2    vH 2v φ
v 2H v2 v 2φ dim-5: χ̄ φφ ν , χ̄ φ hν , (2.8)
V = λH H † H − + λφ H H † H − H Φ †Φ − mψ m N mψ m N
2 2 2
 2 1
v 2φ dim-6: χ̄ φφ hν , (2.9)
†
+ λφ Φ Φ − . (2.2) mψ m N
2
yf g
To explain the neutrino oscillation, at least two RH neutrinos N’s omitting the common factor √ .
4 2
are introduced in order to generate two non-zero neutrino masses. Discussion of χ̄ hν operator has been presented in Ref. [51] in
However, for our study of positron excess, we can focus only on great detail. As we shall see in the next section, it is the opera-
the case with one N without loss of generality. Therefore, we shall tor χ̄ φ ν rather than χ̄ hν that gives the dominant contribution to
omit the lower indices for N I , L α , m N , y α I and g I from now on. the positron flux in our model, if we assume mφ  m H . Then our
We are interested in the case where mχ ∼ TeV and v φ ∼ model does not suffer much from the constraints from antiproton
O(100) MeV while m N and mψ are much heavier. Integrate both and gamma-ray fluxes on the dark matter decays.
ψ and N, we get an interesting dim-6 operator:
3. Decay modes
yf g
χ̄ ΦΦ H̃ L . (2.3)
mψ m N The dim-3 operator, Eq. (2.6), is a mass term and would induce
Diagrammatically, it can be represented as the Feynman diagram a tiny mixing between χ and ν with the mixing angle,
in Fig. 1.
yf g v 2φ v H
The local gauge symmetry of this model is broken by the fol- β √ . (3.1)
lowing vacuum configurations: 4 2 mψ m N mχ
 
1 0 vφ Then the gauge interactions for χ and ν will generate the decay
H  = √ , Φ = √ , (2.4) channels,
2 vH 2
286 P. Ko, Y. Tang / Physics Letters B 741 (2015) 284–289

Fig. 3. Feynman diagram that generates the effector operator χ̄ Φ H̃ L.

Fig. 2. Dominant decaying process.

χ → Z  ν , Z ν , l± W ∓ , (3.2)
with their branching ratios being proportional to ∼ v 2H : vφ : vφ .
2 2

Two dim-4 operators, Eq. (2.7), lead to χ decays,

Fig. 4. Feynman diagram that generates the effector operator χ̄ Φ n+1 H̃ L.
χ → hν , φ ν , (3.3)
yf
with their branching ratios being proportional to ∼ v φ : Since2
4v 2H . χ̄ Φ H̃ L . (4.2)
mN
mh mφ would generically imply v H v φ , we would expect
Γχ →φ ν Γχ →hν . It is also straightforward to get the following Then the effective λeff is
relation for the branching ratios, yf vH
  λeff ∼ ∼ 10−26 . (4.3)
 2 2 mN
Br(χ → φ ν ) : Br χ → Z ν = 2 : 1. (3.4)
In this model we have a different branch ratio,
The factor 22 results from 2 in the numerator of the second oper-
 
ator in Eq. (2.7), which stems from two Φ ’s in the dim-6 operator Br(χ → φ ν ) : Br χ → Z  ν = 1 : 1. (4.4)
in Eq. (2.3). On-shell φ/ Z  then decay into light SM fermion pair,
as shown in Fig. 2. If the dark symmetry were global rather than local, then we
In this model, we can estimate would not have the dark gauge boson Z  , and correspondingly
Br(χ → φ ν )  1. However, in this case, in the early Universe χ
y f g vφ v H
λeff ∼ √ ∼ 10−26 , (3.5) would not be thermalized at TeV in the minimal setup and we
4 2 mψ m N may also need to add new fields to deal with the Goldstone mode,
which can be easily achieved if we choose model parameters as which is beyond our discussion in this paper.
From the previous discussion, it is easy to see that we can gen-
v φ ∼ O (100) MeV, m N ∼ mψ ∼ 1014 GeV, y f g ∼ 1. (3.6) eralize the above mechanism with n low-scale ψ ’s by assigning the
U (1) X charges as
Finally, a dim-5 operators, Eq. (2.8), would induce three-body
decay channels, χ → φφ ν and χ → φ hν . These decays are, how- ( Q χ , Q ψn , . . . , Q ψ1 , Φ) = (n + 1, n, . . . , 1, 1). (4.5)
ever, less dominant than two-body decays considered earlier if
mχ  3 TeV, because of Then the following effective operator will be generated,

2 yg fn · · · f 1
Γ3-body 1 mχ χ̄ Φ n+1 H̃ L . (4.6)
∝ . (3.7) (n + 1)!m N mψn · · · mψ1
Γ2-body (4π )2 v 2H
Feynman diagram is shown in Fig. 4. In this case branching ratio
The 1/(4π )2 suppression factor comes from the phase space inte- for our interest would be
gration. Four-body decay χ → φφ hν is then even suppressed for
 
mχ  3 TeV. Also, even for mχ > 3 TeV, the positron spectrum Br(χ → φ ν ) : Br χ → Z  ν = n 2 : 1. (4.7)
resulting from those multiple final states are softer that the two-
body decay case and we shall not consider their contributions in
this paper. 5. Positron fraction and flux

4. Variant models In this section we calculate the e ± flux (Φe± ) on earth. It is

the sum of two contributions from DM decay2 and astrophysical
bkg
One can consider some variations of the model discussed in background, Φ± = ΦeDM
± + Φe ± , and will compare with the exper-
the previous section by modifying the U (1) X charge assignments imental observation. We use PPPC4DMID [56] to compute ΦeDM ± ,
to the dark fields, thereby changing the relative branching ratios of and adopt the Einasto density profile for DM halo profile [57]:
the DM decays into φ + ν and H + ν .   α 
Let us first consider the following assignments: 2 r
ρDM = ρs exp − −1 , (5.1)
α rs
( Q χ , Q Φ ) = (1, 1). (4.1)
Then we can have Yukawa interaction term f χ̄ Φ N, and we do 2
In principle both χχ pair annihilation and χ decay can give rise to e ± . How-
not need ψ to induce χ to decay. However, in this case, we need ever, in our interested parameter ranges, we have checked that χ decay is the
tiny Yukawa couplings. Integrating out the heavy RH neutrino N in dominant one even taking the enhancement factor into account for χ pair anni-
Fig. 3, the following dim-5 operators would be generated: hilation. Therefore we shall only focus on the signature from χ decays.
 P. Ko, Y. Tang / Physics Letters B 741 (2015) 284–289 287

where α = 0.17, r s = 28.44 kpc and ρs = 0.033 GeV/cm3 . And the

e ± background
bkg
Φe± is taken from Ref. [27], where the background
bkg
electron and positron fluxes Φe± were calculated by assuming the
injection spectra of all kinds of nuclei with one break, and the
injection spectrum of primary electron with two breaks, respec-
tively.3
As shown in previous section, in our model the dominant decay
modes are χ → φ ν and χ → Z  ν , so that the total decay width
can be approximated by
 
Γ  Γ (χ → φ ν ) + Γ χ → Z  ν . (5.2)

We choose m Z  and mφ to lie in the range, 2mμ < m Z  /φ < 2mπ 0 ,

such that the available final states in the Z  /φ decays are ν ν̄ , e ±
and μ± only.
While light dark Higgs boson φ mainly decays into μ− μ+ ,
light dark photon Z  has a quite different decay pattern. In the
 f̄ γ μ f and
limit of small kinetic mixing  , the couplings for Z μ R R
 f̄ γ μ f are given by
Zμ L L
Fig. 5. Positron fraction in three different sets of parameters. M DM and total decay
 width Γ are chosen to visually match the positron fraction data. Data are extracted
g 1 (s W − 1)Y sin  , (5.3) from Ref. [58].

g 1 (s W − 1)Y − g 2 c W T 3 sin  , (5.4)
Since our discussions are focused in the mass range, 2mμ <
respectively. Here s W (c W ) ≡ sin θ W (cos θ W ), θ W is the weak mix- m Z  /φ < 2mπ 0 , there is no hadronic decay modes for Z  /φ . Then it
ing angle, Y is the U (1)Y hypercharge and T 3 is the 3rd compo- would not generate additional antiproton flux. The potential con-
nent of the SU (2) L weak isospin generators. Then the branching straints come from the γ -ray flux which are generated by the e ±
ratios of Z  → ν ν̄ , e − e + and μ− μ+ are and μ± . It is expected that constraint would be more stringent
for smaller Br(χ → φ ν ), since e ± gives larger γ -ray flux than μ±
   
Br(ν ν̄ ) : Br e − e + : Br μ− μ+ does. The constraint from the γ -ray, especially from the galaxy
center region in case of DM pair annihilation, is also largely de-
3 pendent on the assumed DM density profile. For example, the
= g2 c W : 1 : 1  0.7 : 1 : 1. (5.5)
4 + [1 − 2g 1 (s W −1)
]2 gamma-ray constraint from the galaxy center will exclude the pre-
ferred region if NFW profile is assumed [27]. However, the bound
We include these final states when we calculate the positron flux. could be much weaker if a flatter Einasto-like profile is used. And
Defining the branching ratio as Br ≡ Γ (χ → φ ν )/Γ , we illus- the γ -ray constraint is even weaker for decaying dark matter sce-
trate the positron fractions and the fluxes for following three cases nario (see Ref. [62] for comparison for example). Therefore, in
in Fig. 5, our scenario with decaying DM for AMS02 positron excess, the
μ± -channel should be safely allowed.
1: M DM = 2.0 TeV, Γ = 0.16 × 10−26 s−1 , Br = 0.5, (5.6)
−26 −1 6. Conclusion
2: M DM = 3.0 TeV, Γ = 0.20 × 10 s , Br = 0.8, (5.7)

3: M DM = 3.5 TeV, Γ = 0.24 × 10−26 s−1 , Br = 1.0. (5.8) In this paper, we have proposed a decaying fermionic thermal
dark matter model with local U (1) X dark gauge symmetry that
Cases 1 and 2 correspond to the effective operators with lo- can explain the positron excess together with a proper background
cal gauge symmetry, χ Φ H̃ L and χ ΦΦ H̃ L, respectively, whereas model through its decay into a light dark Higgs and an active neu-
case 3 corresponds to the χ Φ H̃ L with global symmetry or χ Φ n H̃ L trino, rather than into the SM Higgs boson and active neutrino.
when n is very large (see Eq. (4.7)). After integrating the heavy states, ψ and N, an effective opera-
As shown in Fig. 5 for positron fraction, when the branching tor
ratio of χ → φ ν increases, we need to increase the DM mass M DM
and decay width Γ too. This feature can be easily understood as χ̄ ΦΦ H̃ L
follows. Since Z  → e + e − gives harder e ± spectra than φ → μ+ μ−
does, decreasing the contribution of Z  → e + e − would need to be is generated. Once gauge symmetry is broken spontaneously, we
compensated by larger M DM and Γ . have χ̄ φ ν which induces the DM χ to decay into φ + ν . And χ ’s
For completeness, we also show the positron flux Φe+ and the long lifetime ∼1026 s can be easily achieved when heavy particles
electron + positron total flux Φe− +e+ in Fig. 6 with the same sets have mass around 1014 GeV. More general mechanism to gener-
of parameters chosen above. Note that there is no considerable ate operators χ̄ Φ n H̃ L with integer n was also presented. We then
difference in three cases we considered, except in the high en- illustrated with several cases in which the positron fraction and
ergy regime  500 GeV. Since μ+ μ− is the dominant channel flux spectra can match the experimental data well. Assuming dark
(μ+ μ− : e + e −  3.7 : 1), we would expect that all cases can give Higgs and dark photon are below the dipion threshold 2mπ + , we
reasonable fits to both Φe+ and Φe− +e+ . could evade the stringent bounds from antiproton and gamma-
ray flux measured by Fermi/LAT and other collaborations. This has
more advantage compared with the model where fermionic DM
3
We thank the anonymous referee to point out this to us. decays into the SM Higgs boson and active neutrinos.
288 P. Ko, Y. Tang / Physics Letters B 741 (2015) 284–289

Fig. 6. Positron flux (left) and electron + positron flux (right) [59–61] for three different sets of parameters described in the text, Eqs. (5.6)–(5.8).

Acknowledgements [24] I. Masina, F. Sannino, Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 123003, arXiv:1304.2800 [hep-ph].
[25] L. Bergstrom, T. Bringmann, I. Cholis, D. Hooper, C. Weniger, arXiv:1306.3983
[astro-ph.HE].
We are grateful to Seungwon Baek for useful discussions. This
[26] A. Ibarra, A.S. Lamperstorfer, J. Silk, arXiv:1309.2570 [hep-ph].
work is supported in part by National Research Foundation of Ko- [27] S.J. Lin, Q. Yuan, X.J. Bi, arXiv:1409.6248 [astro-ph.HE].
rea (NRF) Research Grant 2012R1A2A1A01006053, and by the NRF [28] H.B. Jin, Y.L. Wu, Y.F. Zhou, arXiv:1410.0171 [hep-ph].
grant funded by the Korea government (MSIP) (No. 2009-0083526) [29] N. Padmanabhan, D.P. Finkbeiner, Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 023508, arXiv:
through Korea Neutrino Research Center at Seoul National Univer- astro-ph/0503486.
[30] S. Galli, F. Iocco, G. Bertone, A. Melchiorri, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 023505,
sity (P.K.).
arXiv:0905.0003 [astro-ph.CO].
[31] T.R. Slatyer, N. Padmanabhan, D.P. Finkbeiner, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 043526,
References arXiv:0906.1197 [astro-ph.CO].
[32] J. Zavala, M. Vogelsberger, S.D.M. White, Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 083502,
[1] O. Adriani, et al., PAMELA Collaboration, Nature 458 (2009) 607, arXiv:0810. arXiv:0910.5221 [astro-ph.CO].
4995 [astro-ph]. [33] M.S. Madhavacheril, N. Sehgal, T.R. Slatyer, arXiv:1310.3815 [astro-ph.CO].
[2] A.A. Abdo, et al., Fermi LAT Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 (2009) 181101, [34] M. Cirelli, P. Panci, P.D. Serpico, Nucl. Phys. B 840 (2010) 284, arXiv:0912.0663
arXiv:0905.0025 [astro-ph.HE]. [astro-ph.CO].
[3] M. Aguilar, et al., AMS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) 141102. [35] C.-R. Chen, S.K. Mandal, F. Takahashi, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 1001 (2010)
[4] L. Accardo, et al., AMS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 121101. 023, arXiv:0910.2639 [hep-ph].
[5] M. Aguilar, et al., AMS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 121102. [36] T. Bringmann, F. Calore, M. Di Mauro, F. Donato, arXiv:1303.3284 [astro-ph.CO].
[6] D. Gaggero, L. Maccione, G. Di Bernardo, C. Evoli, D. Grasso, Phys. Rev. Lett. [37] M. Ackermann, et al., LAT Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 022002,
111 (2) (2013) 021102, arXiv:1304.6718 [astro-ph.HE]. arXiv:1205.2739 [astro-ph.HE].
[7] K. Blum, B. Katz, E. Waxman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 211101, arXiv:1305. [38] M. Ackermann, et al., LAT Collaboration, Astrophys. J. 761 (2012) 91, arXiv:
1324 [astro-ph.HE]. 1205.6474 [astro-ph.CO].
[8] M. Di Mauro, F. Donato, N. Fornengo, R. Lineros, A. Vittino, J. Cosmol. Astropart. [39] M. Cirelli, E. Moulin, P. Panci, P.D. Serpico, A. Viana, Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012)
Phys. 1404 (2014) 006, arXiv:1402.0321 [astro-ph.HE]. 083506, arXiv:1205.5283 [astro-ph.CO].
[9] C. Venter, A. Kopp, P.L. Gonthier, A.K. Harding, I. Büsching, arXiv:1410.6462 [40] G.A. Gomez-Vargas, M.A. Sanchez-Conde, J.-H. Huh, M. Peiro, F. Prada, A.
[astro-ph.HE]. Morselli, A. Klypin, D.G. Cerdeno, et al., arXiv:1308.3515 [astro-ph.HE].
[10] M. Boudaud, S. Aupetit, S. Caroff, A. Putze, G. Belanger, Y. Genolini, C. Goy, V. [41] L. Feng, R.-Z. Yang, H.-N. He, T.-K. Dong, Y.-Z. Fan, J. Chang, arXiv:1303.0530
Poireau, et al., arXiv:1410.3799 [astro-ph.HE]. [astro-ph.HE].
[11] M. Cirelli, M. Kadastik, M. Raidal, A. Strumia, Nucl. Phys. B 813 (2009) 1, [42] M. Ibe, S. Iwamoto, S. Matsumoto, T. Moroi, N. Yokozaki, J. High Energy Phys.
arXiv:0809.2409 [hep-ph]; 1308 (2013) 029, arXiv:1304.1483 [hep-ph].
M. Cirelli, M. Kadastik, M. Raidal, A. Strumia, Nucl. Phys. B 873 (2013) 530 [43] Y. Kajiyama, H. Okada, T. Toma, arXiv:1304.2680 [hep-ph].
(Addendum). [44] L. Feng, Z. Kang, arXiv:1304.7492 [hep-ph].
[12] S. Baek, P. Ko, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 0910 (2009) 011, arXiv:0811.1646 [45] K.R. Dienes, J. Kumar, B. Thomas, arXiv:1306.2959 [hep-ph].
[hep-ph]. [46] C.-Q. Geng, D. Huang, L.-H. Tsai, arXiv:1312.0366 [hep-ph].
[13] X.-J. Bi, X.-G. He, Q. Yuan, Phys. Lett. B 678 (2009) 168, arXiv:0903.0122 [hep- [47] S. Baek, P. Ko, W.I. Park, Y. Tang, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 1406 (2014) 046,
ph]. arXiv:1402.2115 [hep-ph].
[14] C.-R. Chen, M.M. Nojiri, S.C. Park, J. Shu, M. Takeuchi, J. High Energy Phys. 0909 [48] K. Belotsky, M. Khlopov, C. Kouvaris, M. Laletin, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2014
(2009) 078, arXiv:0903.1971 [hep-ph]. (2014) 214258, arXiv:1403.1212 [astro-ph.CO].
[15] L. Pearce, A. Kusenko, Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 123531, arXiv:1303.7294 [hep-ph]. [49] M. Ibe, S. Matsumoto, S. Shirai, T.T. Yanagida, arXiv:1409.6920 [hep-ph].
[16] A. De Simone, A. Riotto, W. Xue, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 1305 (2013) 003, [50] Q.H. Cao, C.R. Chen, T. Gong, arXiv:1409.7317 [hep-ph].
arXiv:1304.1336 [hep-ph]. [51] K. Hamaguchi, S. Shirai, T.T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B 673 (2009) 247, arXiv:
[17] Q. Yuan, X.-J. Bi, G.-M. Chen, Y.-Q. Guo, S.-J. Lin, X. Zhang, arXiv:1304.1482 0812.2374 [hep-ph].
[astro-ph.HE]. [52] S. Tulin, H.B. Yu, K.M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 87 (11) (2013) 115007, arXiv:
[18] I. Cholis, D. Hooper, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 023013, arXiv:1304.1840 [astro- 1302.3898 [hep-ph].
ph.HE]. [53] P. Ko, Y. Tang, Phys. Lett. B 739 (2014) 62, arXiv:1404.0236 [hep-ph].
[19] H.-B. Jin, Y.-L. Wu, Y.-F. Zhou, arXiv:1304.1997 [hep-ph]. [54] J.D. Bjorken, R. Essig, P. Schuster, N. Toro, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 075018,
[20] Q. Yuan, X.-J. Bi, arXiv:1304.2687 [astro-ph.HE]. arXiv:0906.0580 [hep-ph].
[21] P.-F. Yin, Z.-H. Yu, Q. Yuan, X.-J. Bi, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 023001, arXiv: [55] J.B. Dent, F. Ferrer, L.M. Krauss, arXiv:1201.2683 [astro-ph.CO].
1304.4128 [astro-ph.HE]. [56] M. Cirelli, G. Corcella, A. Hektor, G. Hutsi, M. Kadastik, P. Panci, M. Raidal,
[22] Z.-P. Liu, Y.-L. Wu, Y.-F. Zhou, arXiv:1305.5438 [hep-ph]. F. Sala, et al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 1103 (2011) 051, arXiv:1012.4515
[23] P.S.B. Dev, D.K. Ghosh, N. Okada, I. Saha, arXiv:1307.6204 [hep-ph]. [hep-ph];
 P. Ko, Y. Tang / Physics Letters B 741 (2015) 284–289 289

M. Cirelli, G. Corcella, A. Hektor, G. Hutsi, M. Kadastik, P. Panci, M. [59] M. Ackermann, et al., Fermi LAT Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) 092004,
Raidal, F. Sala, et al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 1210 (2012) E01 (Erra- arXiv:1008.3999 [astro-ph.HE].
tum). [60] O. Adriani, et al., PAMELA Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (8) (2013) 081102,
[57] A.W. Graham, D. Merritt, B. Moore, J. Diemand, B. Terzic, Astron. J. 132 (2006) arXiv:1308.0133 [astro-ph.HE].
2685, arXiv:astro-ph/0509417. [61] M. Aguilar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (22) (2014) 221102.
[58] D. Maurin, F. Melot, R. Taillet, Astron. Astrophys. 569 (2014) A32, arXiv: [62] P. Meade, M. Papucci, A. Strumia, T. Volansky, Nucl. Phys. B 831 (2010) 178,
1302.5525 [astro-ph.HE]. arXiv:0905.0480 [hep-ph].