Nima ArkaniHamed,
1
Douglas P. Finkbeiner,
2
Tracy R. Slatyer,
3
and Neal Weiner
4
1
School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey 08540, USA
2
HarvardSmithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA
3
Physics Department, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA
4
Center for Cosmology and Particle Physics, Department of Physics, New York University, New York, New York 10003, USA
(Received 31 October 2008; published 27 January 2009)
We propose a comprehensive theory of dark matter that explains the recent proliferation of unexpected
observations in highenergy astrophysics. Cosmic ray spectra from ATIC and PAMELA require a WIMP
(weakly interacting massive particle). with mass M
* 1 GeV
1
. The long range allows a Sommerfeld enhancement to boost the annihilation
cross section as required, without altering the weakscale annihilation cross section during dark matter
freezeout in the early universe. If the dark matter annihilates into the new force carrier , its low mass
can make hadronic modes kinematically inaccessible, forcing decays dominantly into leptons. If the force
carrier is a nonAbelian gauge boson, the dark matter is part of a multiplet of states, and splittings between
these states are naturally generated with size m
(v)
freeze
3 10
26
cm
3
s
1
1
: (1)
For perturbative annihilations, swave dominates in the
late universe, so this provides an approximate upper limit
on the signal that can be observed in the present day. Such a
low cross section makes indirect detection, whereby the
annihilation products of dark matter are detected in cosmic
ray detectors, a daunting task.
However, recent experiments have conrmed the long
standing suspicion that there are more positrons and elec
trons at 10s100s of GeV than can be explained by super
nova shocks and interactions of cosmic ray protons with
the ISM. The experiments are
(i) PAMELA.The Payload for Antimatter Matter
Exploration and Lightnuclei Astrophysics has re
ported results [1] indicating a sharp upturn in the
positron fraction (e
+
=(e
+
+e
data
[9] at energies of 300800 GeV, with a sharp cut
off in the 600800 GeV range. Dark matter would
seem a natural candidate for this as well, with its
mass scale determining the cutoff.
(iii) WMAP.Studies of the WMAP microwave emission
from the galactic center show a hard component not
spatially correlated with any known galactic emis
sion mechanism. This WMAP haze [10,11] can
be explained as synchrotron radiation from electrons
and positrons produced from dark matter annihila
tion in the galactic center [12].
(iv) EGRET.Gammaray measurements in the galactic
center (inner 5
&
M
DM
few GeV. Thus, with the mass scale of
800 GeV selected by ATIC, and the large cross sections
needed by both ATIC and PAMELA, the mass scale for a
new force carrier is automatically selected. Interactions
involving W and Z bosons are insufcient at this mass
scale.
Once this new force carrier is included, the possibility
of a new annihilation channel  opens up, which
can easily be the dominant annihilation channel. Absent
couplings to the standard model, some of these particles
could naturally be stable for kinematical reasons; even
small interactions with the standard model can then lead
them to decay only into standard model states. If they
decay dominantly into leptons, then a hard spectrum of
positrons arises very naturally. Motivated by the setup of
XDM, Cholis, Goodenough, and Weiner [20] rst invoked
this mechanism of annihilations into light bosons to pro
vide a simple explanation for the excesses of cosmic ray
positrons seen by HEAT without excessive antiprotons or
photons. Simple kinematics can forbid a decay into heavier
hadronic states, and as we shall see, scalars lighter than
250 MeV and vectors lighter than GeV both provide a
mode by which the dark matter can dominantly annihilate
into very hard leptons, with few or no
0
s or antiprotons.
In the following sections, we shall make these points
more concretely and delineate which ranges of parameters
most easily explain the data; but the essential point is very
simple: if the dark matter is O(800 GeV) and interacts with
itself via a force carrier with mass m
GeV, annihilation
cross sections can be considerably enhanced at present
times via a Sommerfeld enhancement, far exceeding the
thermal freezeout cross section. If that boson has a small
mixing with the standard model, its mass scale can make it
kinematically incapable of decaying via a hadronic shower,
preferring muons, electrons and, in some cases, charged
pions, and avoiding constraints from
0
s and antiprotons.
If the forcecarriers are nonAbelian gauge bosons, we
shall see that other anomalies may be incorporated natu
rally in this framework, explaining the INTEGRAL
511 keV line via the mechanism of eXciting dark mat
ter, and the DAMA annual modulation signal via the
mechanism of inelastic dark matter (iDM). We shall
see that the excited states needed for both of these mecha
nisms [O(1 MeV) for XDM and O(100 keV) for iDM]
arise naturally with the relevant mass splitting generated
radiatively at the correct scale.
II. SOMMERFELD ENHANCEMENTS FROM NEW
FORCES
A new force in the dark sector can give rise to the large
annihilation cross sections required to explain recent data,
through the Sommerfeld enhancement that increases the
cross section at low velocities [37]. A simple classical
analogy can be used to illustrate the effect. Consider a
point particle impinging on a star of radius R. Neglecting
gravity, the cross section for the particle to hit and be
absorbed by the star is
0
R
2
. However, because of
gravity, a point coming from a larger impact parameter
than R will be sucked into the star. The cross section is
actually b
2
max
, where b
max
is the largest the impact
parameter can be so that the distance of closest approach of
the orbit is R. If the velocity of the particle at innity is v,
we can determine b
max
trivially using conservation of
energy and angular momentum, and we nd that
0
1 +
v
2
esc
v
2
(2)
where v
2
esc
2G
N
M=R is the escape velocity from the
surface of the star. For v <v
esc
, there is a large enhance
ment of the cross section due to gravity; even though the
correction vanishes as gravity shuts off (G
N
0), the
expansion parameter is 2G
N
M=(Rv
2
) which can become
large at small velocity.
The Sommerfeld enhancement is a quantum counterpart
to this classical phenomenon. It arises whenever a particle
has an attractive force carrier with a Compton wavelength
longer than (M
DM
)
1
, i.e. dark matter bound states are
present in the spectrum of the theory. (We generically refer
to coupling
2
=4, assuming such couplings are com
parable to those in the standard model, with 10
3
& &
10
1
.)
Let us study this enhancement more quantitatively. We
begin with the simplest case of interest, namely, a particle
interacting via a Yukawa potential. We assume a dark
matter particle coupling to a mediator with coupling
strength . For swave annihilation in the nonrelativistic
limit, the reduced twobody wave function obeys the radial
Schrodinger equation,
FIG. 1. The annihilation diagrams  both with (a)
and without (b) the Sommerfeld enhancements.
A THEORY OF DARK MATTER PHYSICAL REVIEW D 79, 015014 (2009)
0150143
1
m
c
//
(r) V(r)c(r) m
v
2
c(r); (3)
where the swave wave function (r) is related to c(r) as
(r) c(r)=r, v is the velocity of each particle in the
centerofmass frame (here we use units where @ c 1),
and for scalar the potential takes the usual Yukawa form,
V(r)
2
4r
e
m
r
: (4)
The interaction in the absence of the potential is pointlike.
As reviewed in the appendix, the Sommerfeld enhance
ment in the scattering cross section due to the potential is
given by
S
dc
k
dr
(0)
k
2
; (5)
where we solve the Schrodinger equation with boundary
conditions c(0) 0, c(r) sin(kr +) as r . In
the recent dark matter literature, a different but completely
equivalent expression is used, with
S }c()=c(0)}
2
; (6)
where we solve the Schrodinger equation with the outgoing
boundary condition c
/
() im
vc() [34].
Dening the dimensionless parameters
2
=4;
v
v
; (7)
and rescaling the radial coordinate with r
/
m
r, we can
rewrite Eq. (3) as
c
//
(r
/
) +
2
v
+
1
r
/
e
r
/
c(r
/
) 0: (8)
In the limit where the mass goes to zero (
0), the
effective potential is just the Coulomb potential and Eq. (8)
can be solved analytically, yielding an enhancement factor
of
S }c()=c(0)}
2
=
v
1 e
=
v
: (9)
For nonzero m
, or equivalently once
v
drops beneath
and
v
are given
there. As we will see in the following, we will be interested
in a range of m
in the range 10
2
10
1
,
yielding Sommerfeld enhancements ranging up to a factor
10
3
10
4
. At low velocities, the nite range of the
Yukawa interaction causes the Sommerfeld enhancement
to saturate, so the enhancement factor cannot greatly ex
ceed this value even at arbitrarily low velocities. The non
zero mass of the thus prevents the catastrophic
overproduction of gammas in the early universe pointed
out by [39].
Having obtained the enhancement S as a function of
v
and
Nv
2
e
v
2
=2
2
v v
esc
0 v >v
esc
:
(10)
The truncation does not signicantly affect the results, as
the enhancement factor drops rapidly with increasing ve
locity. The oneparticle rms velocity is taken to be
150 km=s in the baseline case, following simulations by
Governato et al. [40]. Figure 2 shows the total enhance
ment as a function of m
=m
10
5
10
4
10
3
10
2
m
/
m
= 150 km/s
10
100
1000
10
1
10
2
10
3
S
FIG. 2. Contours for the Sommerfeld enhancement factor S as
a function of the mass ratio m
=m
=20, or v
0:3c. Since we are taking & 0:1 generally, the
Sommerfeld enhancement has not turned on yet. More
precisely, in the earlyuniverse regime
v
>
, so we
can use Eq. (9) for the massless limit. Where
v
>1,
Eq. (9) yields S  1 +=2
v
: thus the enhancement
should be small and independent of m
. Figure 3 shows
this explicitly. We are left with the perturbative annihila
tion cross section
2
=m
2
~
S
2
3
~
S
1
^ r
~
S
2
^ r), but the numerator vanishes when
averaged over angles, so there is no longrange
interaction in the swave and hence no Sommerfeld
enhancement.
(iii) Finally, we can have a coupling to spin1 gauge
elds arising from some dark gauge symmetry
G
dark
. Since the gauge elds must have a mass
O(GeV) or less, one might worry that this simply
begs the question, as the usual explanation of such a
light gauge boson requires the existence of a scalar
with a mass of O(GeV) or less. However, because
that scalar need not couple directly to the dark
matter, it is sufciently sequestered that its small
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
10
5
10
4
10
3
10
2
m
/
m
1
.
0
1
1
.
0
1
1
.
1
0
1
.
1
0
1
.
2
0
1
.
2
0
1
.
3
0
1
.
3
0
1
.
4
0
1
.
4
0
1
.
5
0
1
.
5
0
= 90000 km/s
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
S
FIG. 3. Contours for the Sommerfeld enhancement factor S as
a function of the mass ratio m
=m
2
h

h. Should acquire a vev () m
, then we yield
a small mixing with the standard model Higgs, and the
will decay into the heaviest fermion pair available. For
m
, while for
200 MeV & m
and
+
gives a better t to
PAMELA +ATIC.
A pseudoscalar, while not yielding a Sommerfeld en
hancement, could naturally be present in this new sector.
Such a particle would typically couple to the heaviest
particle available, or through the axion analog of the
dilaton coupling above. Consequently, the decays of a
pseudoscalar would be similar to those of the scalar.
A vector boson will naturally mix with electromagne
tism via the operator F
/
&
2m
it will decay to e
+
e
, while for 2m
& m
& 2m
it
will decay equally to e
+
e
and
+
. Above 2m
, it will
decay 40%e
+
e
, 40%
+
, and 20%
+
. At these
masses, no direct decays into
0
s will occur because they
are neutral and the hadrons are the appropriate degrees of
freedom. At higher masses, where quarks and QCD are the
appropriate degrees of freedom, the will decay to quarks,
producing a wider range of hadronic states, including
0
s,
and, at suitably high masses m
* 2 GeV, antiprotons as
well [47]. In addition to XDM [19], some other important
examples of theories under which dark matter interacts
with new forces include WIMPless models [49], mirror
dark matter [50], and secluded dark matter [51].
Note that, while these interactions between the sectors
can be small, they are all large enough to keep the dark and
standard model sectors in thermal equilibrium down to
temperatures far beneath the dark matter mass, and (as
mentioned in the previous section), we can naturally get
the correct thermal relic abundance with a weakscale dark
matter mass and perturbative annihilation cross sections.
Kinetic equilibrium in these models is naturally main
tained down to the temperature T
CMB
m
[52].
ARKANIHAMED, FINKBEINER, SLATYER, AND WEINER PHYSICAL REVIEW D 79, 015014 (2009)
0150146
IV. A NONABELIAN G
dark
: INTEGRAL, DIRECT
DETECTION, AND DAMA
Up to this point we have focused on a situation where
there is a single forcecarrying boson , whether vector or
scalar. Already, this can have signicant phenomenological
consequences. In mixing with the standard model Higgs
boson, there is a nuclear recoil cross section mediated by
. With technically natural parameters as described in
[19], the rate is unobservable, although in a twoHiggs
doublet model the cross section is within reach of future
experiments [53].
In contrast, an 800 GeV WIMP which interacts via a
particle that couples to charge is strongly constrained.
Because the boson is light and couples to the electro
magnetic vector current, there are strong limits. The cross
section per nucleon for such a particle is [51]
0
16Z
2
SM
Dark
2
ne
A
2
m
4
Z
32
73
A
10
3
Dark
137
1
ne
938 MeV
1 GeV
m
4
1:8 10
37
cm
2
; (11)
where
Dark
is the coupling of the to the dark matter,
describes the kinetic mixing,
ne
is the reduced mass of the
DMnucleon system, and
SM
is the standard model elec
tromagnetic coupling constant. With the parameters above,
such a scattering cross section is excluded by the present
CDMS [54] and XENON [55] bounds by 6 orders of
magnitude. However, this limit can be evaded by splitting
the two Majorana components of the Dirac fermion [23] or
by splitting the scalar and pseudoscalar components of a
complex scalar [56,57]. Since the vector coupling is off
diagonal between these states, the nuclear recoil can only
occur if there is sufcient kinetic energy to do so. If the
splitting >v
2
=2 (where is the reduced mass of the
WIMPnucleus system) no scattering will occur. Such a
splitting can easily arise for a U(1) symmetry by a U(1)
breaking operator such as
1
M
c
c
ch
which generates a
small Majorana mass and splits the two components (see
[24] for a discussion).
Remarkably, for 100 keV one can reconcile the
DAMA annual modulation signature with the null results
of other experiments [2325], in the inelastic dark mat
ter scenario. We nd that the ingredients for such a
scenario occur here quite naturally. However, the splitting
here must be O(100 keV) and the origin of this scale is
unknown, a point we shall address shortly.
Exciting dark matter from a nonAbelian symmetry
One of the strongest motivations for a GeV mass
particle prior to the present ATIC and PAMELA data was
in the context of eXciting dark matter [19]. In this scenario,
dark matter excitations could occur in the center of the
galaxy via inelastic scattering 
. If m
* 2m
e
, the decay
e
+
e
can generate
the excess of 511 keV xrays seen from the galactic center
by the INTEGRAL [58,59] satellite. However, a large
(nearly geometric) cross section is needed to produce the
large numbers of positrons observed in the galactic center,
necessitating a boson with mass of the order of the mo
mentum transfer, i.e., m
& M
1

2
3
. If m
3
is split from m
2
m
1
by
an amount MeV, we have arrived at the setup for the
XDM explanation of the INTEGRAL signal.
Because the gauge symmetry is Higgsed, we should
expect a splitting between different states in the dark
matter multiplet. This could arise already at tree level, if
the dark matter has direct couplings to the Higgs elds
breaking the gauge symmetry; these could naturally be as
large as the dark gauge breaking scale GeV itself, which
would be highly undesirable, since we need these splittings
to be not much larger than the DM kinetic energies in order
to get a Sommerfeld enhancement to begin with. However,
such direct couplings to the Higgs bosons could be absent
or very small (indeed most of the Yukawa couplings in the
standard model are very small). We will assume that such a
direct coupling is absent or negligible. The gauge breaking
in the gauge boson masses then leads, at one loop, to
splittings between different dark matter states, analogous
to the familiar splitting between charged and neutral com
ponents of a Higgsino or Dirac neutrino. These splittings
arise from infrared effects and so are completely calcu
lable, with sizes generically O(m
Z
) in the standard model
or O(m
which we collectively
refer to as a
i
, and the dark matter multiplet transform
ing as a triplet under SU(2) and neutral under the U(1); it
could be either a scalar or fermion. We also assume that
some set of Higgs bosons completely break the symmetry.
Working in unitary gauge, the treelevel dark sector
Lagrangian is
L
Dark
L
Gauge Kin
+
1
2
m
2
ij
a
i
a
j
+ ; (13)
where the m
2
ij
makes all the dark spin1 elds massive, and
refers to other elds such as the physical Higgses that
could be present. At one loop, this broken gauge symmetry
will induce splittings between the three real DM states all
of O(
Dark
m
Dark
) as just discussed above. The leading
interaction between the two sectors is via kinetic mixing
between the new U(1) and the photon (which is inherited
from such a mixing with hypercharge):
L
mix
1
2
b
: (14)
We put an in front of this coupling because it is natural
for this coupling to be small; it can be induced at one loop
by integrating out some heavy states (of any mass between
the GeV and Planck scales) charged under both this new
U(1) and hypercharge. This can easily make
10
4
10
3
. Even without a U(1), a similar mixing could
be achieved with an Sparameter type operator
Trj(=M)
p
G
F
Dark
, the gauge bosons radiate other soft and collinear
gauge bosons leading to a shower; this can happen when
Dark
log
2
(M
=m
for in
stance, much larger than the swave limited thermal
cross section, which could yield signicant photon signals
from the hadronic shower [62]. The copious highenergy
positrons and electrons, produced even more abundantly
than expected for a nonthermal WIMP generating the
ATIC or PAMELA signal, can produce inverse Compton
scattering signals off of the CMB. Even a loop suppressed
annihilation into may be detectable with this
enhancement.
This presumes that the local annihilation does not have
signicant enhancement from a lowvelocity component,
however. If the local annihilation rate is also enhanced by
substructure, then our expectations of the enhancement for
dwarf galaxies would not be as large. As a concrete ex
ample, we can consider the possibility of a dark disk.
Recently, it has been argued that the old stars in the thick
Milky Way disk should have an associated dark matter
component, with dynamics which mirror those stars, and
a density comparable to the local density [65]. Because of
the low velocity dispersion (of order 10 km=s), our esti
mates of what is a reasonable Sommerfeld boost may be off
by an order of magnitude.
As a consequence of this and other substructure, the
Sommerfeld boost of Fig. 2 should be taken as a lower
bound, with contributions from substructure likely increas
ing the cross section signicantly further. We will not
attempt to quantify these effects here beyond noting the
possible increases of an order of magnitude or more sug
gested by Fig. 5. However, understanding them may be
essential for understanding the size and spectrum if this
enhancement of the cross section is responsible for the
signals we observe.
VI. OUTLOOK: IMPLICATIONS FOR PAMELA,
PLANCK, FERMI/GLAST, AND THE LHC
If the excesses in positrons and electrons seen by
PAMELA and ATIC are arising from dark matter, there
are important implications for a wide variety of experi
ments. It appears at this point that a simple modication of
a standard candidate such as a minimal supersymmetic
standard model (MSSM) neutralino is insufcient. The
need for dominantly leptonic annihilation modes with large
cross sections signicantly changes our intuition for what
we might see, where, and at what level. There are a few
clear consequences looking forward.
(i) The positron fraction seen by PAMELA should con
tinue to rise up to the highest energies available to
them ( 270 GeV), and the electron +positron sig
nal should deviate from a simple power law, as seen
by ATIC.
(ii) If the PAMELA/ATIC signal came from a local
source, we would not expect additional anomalous
electronic activity elsewhere in the galaxy. Dark
matter, on the other hand, should produce a signi
cant signal in the center of the galaxy as well, yield
ing signicant signals in the microwave range
through synchrotron radiation and in gamma rays
through inverseCompton scattering. The former
may already have been seen at WMAP [10,12] and
the latter at EGRET [13,14]. Additional data from
Planck and Fermi/GLAST will make these signals
robust [66].
(iii) We have argued that the most natural way to generate
such a large signal is through the presence of a new,
light state, which decays dominantly to leptons. It is
likely these states could naturally be produced at the
LHC in some cascade, leading to highly boosted
pairs of leptons as a generic signature of this scenario
[31].
(iv) Although the cross section is not Sommerfeld en
hanced during freezeout, it can keep pace with the
expansion rate over large periods of the cosmic
history, between kinetic decoupling and matter
radiation equality. This can have signicant impli
cations for a variety of earlyuniverse phenomena as
well as the cosmic gammaray background [66].
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
10
5
10
4
10
3
10
2
m
/
m
= 10 km/s
10
100
1000
10000
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
S
FIG. 5. Contours for the Sommerfeld enhancement factor S as
a function of the mass ratio m
=m
3
( ~ r) localized to the origin, which e.g. annihilates
our particle or converts to another state in some way.
Imagine that the particle is moving in the z direction so
that its wave function is
c
(0)
k
( ~ x) e
ikz
(A1)
then the rate for this process is proportional to }c
(0)
(0)}
2
.
But now suppose we also have a central potential V(r)
attracting or repelling the particle to the origin. We could
of course treat V perturbatively, but again at small veloc
ities the potential may not be a small perturbation and can
signicantly distort the wave function, which can be de
termined by solving the Schrodinger equation
1
2M
\
2
c
k
+V(r)c
k
k
2
2M
c
k
(A2)
with the boundary condition enforcing that the perturbation
can only produce outgoing spherical waves as r :
c e
ikz
+f()
e
ikr
r
as r : (A3)
Now, since the annihilation is taking place locally near r
0, the only effect of the perturbation V is to change the
value of the modulus of the wave function at the origin
relative to its unperturbed value. Then, we can write
0
S
k
; (A4)
where the Sommerfeld enhancement factor S is simply
S
k
}c
k
(0)}
2
}c
(0)
k
(0)}
2
}c
k
(0)}
2
; (A5)
where we are using the normalization of the wave function
c
k
as given by the asymptotic form of Eq. (A3).
Finding a solution of the Schrodinger equation with
these asymptotics is a completely elementary and standard
part of scattering theory in nonrelativistic QM, which we
quickly review for the sake of completeness. Any solution
of the Schrodinger equation with rotational invariance
around the z axis can be expanded as
c
k
X
l
A
l
P
l
(cos)R
kl
(r); (A6)
where R
kl
(r) are the continuum radial functions associated
with angular momentum l satisfying
ARKANIHAMED, FINKBEINER, SLATYER, AND WEINER PHYSICAL REVIEW D 79, 015014 (2009)
01501410
1
2M
1
r
2
d
dr
r
2
d
dr
R
kl
l(l +1)
r
2
+V(r)
R
kl
k
2
2M
R
kl
: (A7)
The R
kl
(r) are real, and at innity look like a spherical
plane wave which we can choose to normalize as
R
kl
(r) 
1
r
sin
kr
1
2
l +
l
(r)
; (A8)
where
l
(r) <kr as r . The phase shift
l
(r) is
determined by the requirement that R
kl
(r) is regular as r 
0. Indeed, if the potential V(r) does not blow up faster than
1=r near r 0, then we can ignore it relative to the kinetic
terms, and we have that R
kl
(r) r
l
as r 0; all but the
l 0 terms vanish at the origin. We now have to choose
the coefcients A
l
in order to ensure that the asymptotics of
Eq. (A3) are satised. Using the asymptotic expansion of
e
ikz
e
ikz

1
2ikr
X
l
(2l +1)P
l
(cos)je
ikr
(1)
l
e
ikr
 (A9)
determines the expansion to be
c
k
1
k
X
l
i
l
(2l +1)e
i
l
P
l
(cos)R
kl
(r): (A10)
It is now very simple to determine c
k
(0), since as we just
commented, R
kl
(r 0) vanishes for every term other than
l 0. Thus, we have
S
k
R
k;l0
(0)
k
2
: (A11)
We can furthermore make the standard substitution
R
k;l0
k
=r, then the Schrodinger equation for turns
into a onedimensional problem
1
2M
d
2
dr
2
k
+V(r)
k
k
2
2M
k
; (A12)
which we normalize at innity with the condition
k
(r) sin(kr +); (A13)
and since R
k;l0
goes to a constant as r 0, we have to
have that 0 as r 0, or
k
(r) r
d
k
dr
(0) as r 0: (A14)
Effectively, we can imagine launching from 0 at
r 0 with different velocities
d
k
dr
(0), and these will evolve
to some waveform as r , but the correct
/
(0) is
determined by the requirement that the waveform at inn
ity have unit amplitude.
Summarizing, then, the Sommerfeld enhancement is
S
k
d
k
dr
(0)
k
2
; (A15)
where
k
satises the 1D Schrodinger equation (A12) with
boundary conditions Eqs. (A13) and (A14). As a sanity
check, let us see how this works with vanishing potential.
The solution that vanishes as r 0 is
k
(r) Asin(kr),
and matching the asymptotics forces A 1. Then
/
k
(0)
k and S
k
1.
In the recent literature on the subject, a different ex
pression for the Sommerfeld enhancement is used, arising
from the use of the optical theorem. We are instructed to
solve the same 1D Schrodinger equation [Eq. (A12)], this
time with no special boundary conditions at 0, but
with boundary conditions so that e
+ikr
as r .
Then, the Sommerfeld enhancement is said to be
S
k
}
k
()}
2
}
k
(0)}
2
: (A16)
It is very easy to show that these two forms for S
k
agree
exactly. To see this, let us begin by denoting
1
(r) to be the
solution to the Schrodinger equation [Eq. (A12)] with the
boundary condition
1
(r) sin(kr +) as r 
[Eq. (A13)]. As shown above,
1
(0) 0. Let
2
(r) be
the linearly independent solution with the boundary con
dition
2
(r) cos(kr +) as r , and dene A
2
(0). Now Eq. (A12) has a conserved Wronskian
W
1
(r)
/
2
(r)
2
(r)
/
1
(r): (A17)
It is easy to verify directly from the differential equation
that W
/
(r) 0; this is true (Abels theorem) because there
are no
/
terms in the differential equation. But comparing
the values of the conserved Wronskian at zero and ,
W() k(sin
2
(kr +) +cos
2
(kr +)) k
W(0) A
/
1
(0): (A18)
So then }
/
1
(0)} k=}A}, and our new expression for the
Sommerfeld enhancement, Eq. (A15), is just S
k
1=}A}
2
.
Now, our second form S
k
}()}
2
, where (r) satises
the boundary conditions
/
(r) ik(r) as r , and
(0) 1. By the asymptotic behavior at large r, we can
identify (r) as the linear combination (r) C(
2
(r) +
i
1
(r)), where C is some complex constant. But then
(0) CA 1, and S
k
}C}
2
, so as previously we obtain
S
k
1=}A}
2
. Thus the two formulas for the Sommerfeld
enhancement are equivalent.
1. Attractive Coulomb potential
Let us see how this works in some simple examples. We
are solving the Schrodinger equation for a particle of mass
M and asymptotic velocity v, with potential
A THEORY OF DARK MATTER PHYSICAL REVIEW D 79, 015014 (2009)
01501411
V(r)
2r
; (A19)
which we solve with the boundary conditions of Eqs. (A13)
and (A14).
We simplify the analysis by working with the natural
dimensionless variables, with the unit of length normalized
to the Bohr radius, i.e. we take
r
1
M
1
x: (A20)
Then the Schrodinger equation becomes
//
1
x
2
; (A21)
where we have dened the parameter
v
v
: (A22)
Of course we can solve this exactly in terms of hyper
geometric functions to nd the result obtained by
Sommerfeld
S
k
v
1 e
(=
v
)
: (A23)
Note that as
v
, S
k
1 as expected; there is no
enhancement at large velocity. For the attractive Yukawa
at small velocities we have the enhancement
S
k

v
; (A24)
while for the repulsive case, there is instead the expected
exponential suppression from the need to tunnel through
the Coulomb barrier
S
k
e
((}})=v)
: (A25)
To get some simple insight into what is going on, let us
rederive these results approximately. For x much smaller
than 1=
2
v
, we can ignore the kinetic term. In the WKB
approximation, the waves are of the form x
1=4
e
i
x
_
, so the
amplitudes grow like x
1=4
. In order to match to a unit norm
wave near x 1=
2
v
, we have to scale the wave function at
small x by a factor
1=2
v
, so that near the origin
x
1=2
v
Mr
1=2
v
(A26)
from which we can read off the derivative at the origin
d
dr
(0)
1=2
v
M, and with k Mv we can determine
S
k
1=2
v
M
Mv
v
; (A27)
which is correct parametrically. We can also arrive at this
result from the second form for S
k
. The computation is
even more direct here. We have waveforms growing as x
1=4
towards x
1
2
v
. In the region near x 1=
v
, we must
transition to a purely outgoing wave. This is a transmis
sion/reection problem, and ingoing and outgoing waves
from the left will have comparable amplitude. When we
continue these back to the origin, we will then have an
amplitude reduced by a factor
1=2
v
. Then,
S
k
1=2
v
v
: (A28)
2. Attractive well and resonance scattering
Let us do another example, where
V V
0
(L r); V
0
2
2M
: (A29)
The solution inside is (r) Asink
in
r, where k
2
in
2
+
k
2
, while outside we write it as sin(k(r L) +. Then,
matching across the boundary at r L gives
Asink
in
L sin; k
in
Acosk
in
L k cos: (A30)
Squaring these equations and adding them we can deter
mine
A
2
1
sin
2
k
in
L +
k
2
in
k
2
cos
2
k
in
L
(A31)
and so
S
k
A
2
k
2
in
k
2
1
k
2
k
2
in
sin
2
k
in
L +cos
2
k
in
L
: (A32)
Now for k
2
=2M <V
0
, we have k
in
+k
2
=(2) + .
Clearly, if cosL is not close to zero, there is no enhance
ment. However, if cosL 0, then we have a large en
hancement
S
k

2
k
2
: (A33)
This has a very simple physical interpretation in terms of
resonance with a zeroenergy bound state. Our well has a
number of bound states, and typically the binding energies
are of order V
0
. We see that if cosLis not close to zero, we
have to have A k=k
in
be small. However, if accidentally
cosL 0, then there is a zeroenergy bound state: the
wave function can match on to c 1 for r >L smoothly,
giving a zeroenergy bound state. The enhancement is of
the form
S
V
0
E E
bound
2
k
2
: (A34)
Note this formally diverges as v 0, but is actually cut off
by the nite width of the state as familiar from Breit
Wigner.
ARKANIHAMED, FINKBEINER, SLATYER, AND WEINER PHYSICAL REVIEW D 79, 015014 (2009)
01501412
3. Attractive Yukawa potential
Now let us examine
V(r)
2r
e
m
r
: (A35)
Working again in Bohr units, we have
V(x)
1
x
e
x
; (A36)
where
M
: (A37)
Now, if
<
2
v
, the Yukawa term is always irrelevant and
we revert to our previous Coulomb analysis.
However, if
>
2
v
, our analysis changes; we will use
the second expression for the Sommerfeld enhancement
for simplicity. The potential turns off exponentially around
x 1=
x
+
2
v
(A38)
and the quantity
k
/
eff
k
2
eff
(A39)
determines the length scale the potential is varying over
relative to the wavelength; so long as it is small, the WKB
approximation is good, and we have a waveform growing
as k
1=2
eff
e
i
R
x
dx
/
k
eff
(x
/
)
. Note that for 1 <x <1=
, the
WKB approximation is manifestly good. Let us now take
the arbitrarily lowvelocity limit, where
v
0. Then in
the neighborhood of x 1=
we have k
2
eff
x
,
and
k
/
eff
k
2
eff
_
e
(1=2)
k
eff
; (A40)
so the WKB approximation breaks down when k
eff
,
where the WKB amplitude is
1=2
M
m
: (A41)
We did this analysis for
v
0, but clearly it will hold for
larger
v
, till
v
v
enhancement we get for the Coulomb problem.
The crossover with
v
is equivalent to Mv m
,
when the deBroglie wavelength of the particle is compa
rable to the range of the interaction. This is intuitiveas the
particle velocity drops and the deBroglie wavelength be
comes larger than the range of the attractive force, the
enhancement saturates. Of course if
is close to the
values that make the Yukawa potential have zeroenergy
bound states, then the enhancement is much larger; we can
get an additional enhancement
=
2
v
up to the point
where it gets cut off by nite width effects.
In this simple theory it is of course also straightforward
to solve for the Sommerfeld enhancement numerically. We
show the enhancement as a function of
and
v
in Figs. 6
and 7.
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
v
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
100
1000
10000
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
S
FIG. 6. Contour plot of S as a function of
and
v
. The lower
right triangle corresponds to the zeromass limit, whereas the
upper left triangle is the resonance region.
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
v
10
1
10
0
10
100
1000
10000
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
4
S
FIG. 7. As in Fig. 6, showing the resonance region in more
detail.
A THEORY OF DARK MATTER PHYSICAL REVIEW D 79, 015014 (2009)
01501413
4. Twoparticle annihilation
Let us nally consider our real case of interest, involving
twoparticle annihilation. To keep things simple, let us
imagine that the two particles are not identical, for instance
they could be Majorana fermions with opposite spins; we
can restrict to this case because none of the interactions we
consider depend on spin, and the annihilation channels we
imagine can all proceed from this spin conguration. Let
us imagine that there are a number of states
A
of (nearly)
equal mass, with the label A running from A 1; ; N.
The twoparticle Hilbert space is labeled by states
} ~ x; A; ~ y; B) and a general wave function is (c} ~ x; A; ~ y; B)
c
AB
( ~ x; ~ y). There is some shortrange annihilation
Hamiltonian U
3
( ~ x
1
~ x
2
) into decay products }final);
where U is an operator
(final}U}AB) M
ann
AB
: (A42)
Now, suppose there is also a longrange interaction be
tween the two particles with a potential. The general
Schrodinger equation is of the form
1
2M
(\
2
x
+\
2
y
)c
AB
(x; y) +V
ABCD
(x y)c
CD
(x; y)
Ec
AB
(x; y): (A43)
As usual we factor out the centerofmass motion by writ
ing c
AB
( ~ x; ~ y) e
i
~
P( ~ x+~ y)
AB
( ~ x ~ y), and we have
1
M
\
2
r
AB
( ~ r) +V
ABCD
( ~ r)
CD
(~ r) E
CM
AB
( ~ r);
(A44)
where E
CM
is the energy in the centerofmass frame.
We have an initial state with some denite A
, B
, and
we take as an unperturbed solution
(A
)(0)
AB
A
A
B
B
e
ikz
: (A45)
The annihilation cross section without the interaction V is
proportional to
(0)
ann
}M
ann
A
B
}
2
: (A46)
However with the new interaction, the annihilation cross
section is
ann
}
(A
)
CD
(0)M
CD
}
2
: (A47)
So we can write
ann
(0)
ann
S
A
k
; (A48)
where
S
A
k
}
A
CD
(0)M
ann
CD
}
2
}
A
CD
()M
ann
CD
}
2
(A49)
Just as above, in reducing the problem to an Swave
computation, we can replace
A
CD
(0) with (
/
(r
0))
A
CD
in the obvious way.
Of course one contribution to V
ABCD
comes from the
small mass splittings between the states. If we write the
(almost equal) common mass term for the DM states as
(M+M
A
)
A
A
, the Ms show up in the potential as
V
split
ABCD
(M
A
+M
B
)
AC
BD
: (A50)
For the Sommerfeld enhancement, we also need some
longrange attractive interaction. As we have discussed,
vectors are possibly the most promising candidate. The
leading coupling to spin1 particles a
i
is
g "
A
"
B
T
i
AB
a
i
; (A51)
and ignoring the mass of the gauge boson this gives us a
1=r contribution to the effective potential
V
gauge
ABCD
(~ r)
1
r
T
i
AC
T
i
BD
; (A52)
while taking the vector masses into account gives both
Yukawa exponential factors and a more complicated tensor
structure. In total,
V
ABCD
V
split
ABCD
+V
gauge
ABCD
: (A53)
Now, it is obvious that in our basis, the T
i
AB
should be
antisymmetric
T
i
AB
T
i
BA
(A54)
since the gauge symmetry must be a subgroup of the
SO(N) global symmetry preserved by the large common
mass termM
A
A
, and the SO(N) generators are antisym
metric. Thus, the coupling to vectors in this basis is nec
essarily offdiagonal. Let us look at a simple example,
where N 2 and we have a single Abelian gauge eld.
The
AB
span a fourdimensional Hilbert space, with }11),
}12), }21), }22) as a basis. Since the gauge boson exchange
necessarily changes 1 2, V
ABCD
is block diagonal, op
erating in two separate Hilbert spaces, spanned by
(}11); }22)) and (}12); }21)). Since we are ultimately inter
ested in scattering with 11 initial states, let us look at the
rst one, where we have
V
2M
r
0
;
in the basis }11)
0
1
; }22)
1
0
:
(A55)
Clearly, if M is enormous, we will not have any interest
ing Sommerfeld enhancement in (11) scattering, since in
this case there is no longrange interaction between 11 at
all, so let us assume that M is smaller than the kinetic
energy of the collision. Now it is clear that as r , the
mass splitting dominates the potential, and obviously par
ticle 1 is the lightest state. However, at smaller distances,
the gauge exchange term dominates. This is not diagonal in
the same basis, and has attractive and repulsive ei
genstates with energies =r. Note that the asymptotic
ARKANIHAMED, FINKBEINER, SLATYER, AND WEINER PHYSICAL REVIEW D 79, 015014 (2009)
01501414
}11) state is an equal linear combination of the attractive
and repulsive channels. While the repulsive channels suffer
a Sommerfeld suppression, the attractive channel is
Sommerfeld enhanced. Note that as long as M is para
metrically smaller than the kinetic energy, its only role in
this discussion was to split the two asymptotic states, and
therefore determine what the natural initial states are. Note
also that if M is large but not innite, the mixing with 2
generates an attractive potential between 11 of the form
V
eff
(r)
2
=(Mr). It would be interesting to under
stand these limits of the multistate Sommerfeld effect in
parametric detail; we defer this to future work.
It is very easy to see that our conclusion about the
presence of a Sommerfeld effect is general for any gauge
interaction. We think of V
gauge
(AB)(CD)
as a matrix in the Hilbert
space spanned by (AB). Note that since the T
i
are anti
symmetric, they are also traceless, and as a consequence,
the matrix V
gauge
(AB)(CD)
is also traceless and so has both
positive and negative eigenvalues, reecting the obvious
fact that gauge exchange gives us both attractive and
repulsive potentials. Let us go to a basis in (AB) space
where V
gauge
is diagonal, and denote eigenvectors with
negative (attractive) eigenvalues as f
attractive
AB
and repulsive
ones as f
repulsive
AB
. We can think of the initial wave function
in AB space
A
AB
as a state in (AB) space and expand it in
terms of these eigenvectors as
(A
)
AB
C
A
att
f
attractive
AB
+C
A
rep
f
repulsive
AB
: (A56)
We can determine the coefcients by dotting the lefthand
side and righthand side into the eigenvectors, so that
(A
)
AB
f
attractive
A
B
f
attractive
AB
+f
repulsive
A
B
f
repulsive
AB
: (A57)
Then, since the repulsive components are exponentially
suppressed at the origin while the attractive components
are enhanced, we get a Sommerfeld enhancement as long
as f
A
B
0. In particular, for scattering the same species,
this is true so long as f
A
A
0. Said more colloquially,
these Majorana states are linear combinations of positive
and negative charged states; so long as they have any
component which would mutually attract, there is a
Sommerfeld enhancement from that component alone.
[1] O. Adriani et al., arXiv:0810.4995.
[2] S. W. Barwick et al. (HEAT), Astrophys. J. 482, L191
(1997).
[3] J. J. Beatty et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 241102 (2004).
[4] M. Aguilar et al. (AMS01), Phys. Lett. B 646, 145
(2007).
[5] G. L. Kane, L.T. Wang, and T. T. Wang, Phys. Lett. B 536,
263 (2002).
[6] D. Hooper, J. E. Taylor, and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. D 69,
103509 (2004).
[7] I. Cholis, D. P. Finkbeiner, L. Goodenough, and N. Weiner,
arXiv:0810.5344.
[8] E. A. Baltz, J. Edsjo, K. Freese, and P. Gondolo, Phys.
Rev. D 65, 063511 (2002).
[9] J. Chang et al., Nature (London) 456, 362 (2008).
[10] D. P. Finkbeiner, Astrophys. J. 614, 186 (2004).
[11] G. Dobler and D. P. Finkbeiner, Astrophys. J. 680, 1222
(2008).
[12] D. Hooper, D. P. Finkbeiner, and G. Dobler, Phys. Rev. D
76, 083012 (2007).
[13] A. W. Strong, R. Diehl, H. Halloin, V. Schonfelder, L.
Bouchet, P. Mandrou, F. Lebrun, and R. Terrier, Astron.
Astrophys. 444, 495 (2005).
[14] D. J. Thompson, D. L. Bertsch, and R. H. ONeal, Jr.,
Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 157, 324 (2005).
[15] F. A. Aharonian, A. M. Atoyan, and H. J. Voelk, Astron.
Astrophys. 294, L41 (1995).
[16] D. Hooper, P. Blasi, and P. D. Serpico, arXiv:0810.1527.
[17] H. Yuksel, M. D. Kistler, and T. Stanev, arXiv:0810.2784.
[18] Although, it should be noted that such an explanation
seems to fail because the spectrum would not be suf
ciently hard; see Fig. 6 of [11].
[19] D. P. Finkbeiner and N. Weiner, Phys. Rev. D 76, 083519
(2007).
[20] I. Cholis, L. Goodenough, and N. Weiner, arXiv:
0802.2922.
[21] I. Cholis, G. Dobler, D. P. Finkbeiner, L. Goodenough, and
N. Weiner, arXiv:0811.3641.
[22] R. Bernabei et al. (DAMA), Eur. Phys. J. C 56, 333
(2008).
[23] D. R. Smith and N. Weiner, Phys. Rev. D 64, 043502
(2001).
[24] D. TuckerSmith and N. Weiner, Phys. Rev. D 72, 063509
(2005).
[25] S. Chang, G. D. Kribs, D. TuckerSmith, and N. Weiner,
arXiv:0807.2250.
[26] I. Cholis, L. Goodenough, D. Hooper, M. Simet, and N.
Weiner, arXiv:0809.1683.
[27] M. Cirelli, M. Kadastik, M. Raidal, and A. Strumia,
arXiv:0809.2409.
[28] E. A. Baltz et al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 07 (2008)
013.
[29] D. N. Spergel and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84,
3760 (2000).
[30] R. Dave, D. N. Spergel, P. J. Steinhardt, and B. D. Wandelt,
Astrophys. J. 547, 574 (2001).
[31] N. ArkaniHamed and N. Weiner, arXiv:0810.0714.
[32] A. Sommerfeld, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 403, 257 (1931).
[33] The importance of this effect in the context of multiTeV
scale dark matter interacting via Wand Z bosons was rst
discussed by [34], and more recently emphasized with
regards to PAMELA in the context of minimal dark
matter, with similar masses by [35,36].
[34] J. Hisano, S. Matsumoto, M. M. Nojiri, and O. Saito, Phys.
A THEORY OF DARK MATTER PHYSICAL REVIEW D 79, 015014 (2009)
01501415
Rev. D 71, 063528 (2005).
[35] M. Cirelli, A. Strumia, and M. Tamburini, Nucl. Phys.
B787, 152 (2007).
[36] M. Cirelli and A. Strumia, arXiv:0808.3867.
[37] Another possibility for sufciently light bosons would be
radiative capture [38].
[38] M. Pospelov and A. Ritz, arXiv:0810.1502.
[39] M. Kamionkowski and S. Profumo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101,
261301 (2008).
[40] F. Governato, B. Willman, L. Mayer, A. Brooks, G.
Stinson, O. Valenzuela, J. Wadsley, and T. Quinn, Mon.
Not. R. Astron. Soc. 374, 1479 (2007).
[41] N. Padmanabhan and D. P. Finkbeiner, Phys. Rev. D 72,
023508 (2005).
[42] P. J. E. Peebles, S. Seager, and W. Hu, Astrophys. J. 539,
L1 (2000).
[43] M. Mapelli, A. Ferrara, and E. Pierpaoli, Mon. Not. R.
Astron. Soc. 369, 1719 (2006).
[44] G. Steigman, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 57, 463 (2007).
[45] G. Hinshaw et al. (WMAP Collaboration), arXiv:
0803.0732.
[46] B. Holdom, Phys. Lett. 166B, 196 (1986).
[47] Recently, [48] explored the possibility that PAMELA
could distinguish the spin of the dark matter, which could
be relevant here in annihilations to vector bosons.
[48] V. Barger, W. Y. Keung, D. Marfatia, and G. Shaughnessy,
arXiv:0809.0162.
[49] J. L. Feng and J. Kumar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 231301
(2008).
[50] R. Foot and R. R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. D 52, 6595 (1995).
[51] M. Pospelov, A. Ritz, and M. B. Voloshin, Phys. Lett. B
662, 53 (2008).
[52] D. P. Finkbeiner, N. Padmanabhan, and N. Weiner, Phys.
Rev. D 78, 063530 (2008).
[53] D. P. Finkbeiner, T. R. Slatyer, and N. Weiner, Phys. Rev.
D 78, 116006 (2008).
[54] Z. Ahmed et al. (CDMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.
102, 011301 (2009).
[55] J. Angle et al. (XENON Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.
100, 021303 (2008).
[56] T. Han and R. Hemping, Phys. Lett. B 415, 161 (1997).
[57] L. J. Hall, T. Moroi, and H. Murayama, Phys. Lett. B 424,
305 (1998).
[58] G. Weidenspointner et al., Astron. Astrophys. 450, 1013
(2006).
[59] G. Weidenspointner et al., arXiv:astroph/0702621v1.
[60] Note that in the early universe, all these states will be
populated at freezeout and will participate in maintaining
thermal equilibrium. However, unlike coannihilation in
the MSSM, which typically occurs between a bino and
a slepton, there is not expected to be a large effect, on the
connection between the present annihilation rate and that
at freezeout. This is because the selfannihilation and
coannihilation cross sections are similar or even equal
here, while in the MSSM the coannihilation cross section
is much larger.
[61] L. E. Strigari, S. M. Koushiappas, J. S. Bullock, and M.
Kaplinghat, Phys. Rev. D 75, 083526 (2007).
[62] Although larger annihilation rates into W
+
W
or other
standard model states are possible, the cross section must
be lower than the limits of [27,63] arising from antipro
tons. Moreover, strong limits from nal state radiation
[64] can also arise, although these depend more sensitively
on the nature of the halo prole.
[63] F. Donato, D. Maurin, P. Brun, T. Delahaye, and P. Salati,
arXiv:0810.5292.
[64] J. F. Beacom, N. F. Bell, and G. Bertone, Phys. Rev. Lett.
94, 171301 (2005).
[65] J. I. Read, G. Lake, O. Agertz, and V. P. Debattista,
arXiv:0803.2714.
[66] Institute for Advanced Study, New York University,
Harvard University collaborations (work in progress).
[67] G. D. Mack, T. D. Jacques, J. F. Beacom, N. F. Bell, and H.
Yuksel, Phys. Rev. D 78, 063542 (2008).
[68] F. Aharonian (HESS Collaboration), arXiv:0809.3894.
ARKANIHAMED, FINKBEINER, SLATYER, AND WEINER PHYSICAL REVIEW D 79, 015014 (2009)
01501416