superwimps , superweakly interacting massive particles produced in the late decays of weakly - interacting massive particles ( wimps ) , are promising non - baryonic dark matter candidates  @xcite .
well - motivated superwimp candidates are the gravitino in supersymmetric models  @xcite and the first excited graviton in universal extra dimension models  @xcite .
the supersymmetric possibility is realized naturally in supergravity with a gravitino lightest supersymmetric particle ( lsp ) and a slepton or sneutrino next - to - lightest supersymmetric particle ( nlsp ) .
( throughout this paper , `` slepton '' denotes a charged slepton . ) both the gravitino and the nlsp have weak - scale masses .
the nlsp freezes out as usual with a relic density near the observed value .
however , after time @xmath0 , it decays through @xmath1 the gravitino then inherits much of the relic density of the slepton or sneutrino  @xcite , and its relic density is naturally of the right magnitude without the introduction of new scales .
this is in contrast to other gravitino dark matter scenarios , where the gravitino is a thermal relic and the desired density is obtained by an appropriately chosen gravitino mass @xmath2  @xcite , or the gravitino is produced during reheating  @xcite , where the desired dark matter density is obtained only for a fine - tuned reheat temperature @xmath3 .
the decays of eq .
( [ decay ] ) occur well after big bang nucleosynthesis ( bbn ) .
an immediate concern , therefore , is that they might destroy the successful light element abundance predictions of bbn .
in fact , bbn is not the only worry  the planckian spectrum of the cosmic microwave background ( cmb ) , the diffuse photon background , and bounds on late time entropy production from the coincidence between bbn and cmb baryometry all impose significant constraints . as demonstrated in refs .
@xcite , however , these constraints on the electromagnetic ( em ) energy released in the decays of eq .
( [ decay ] ) exclude some of the weak scale parameter space , but leave much of it intact .
of course , at the border between the excluded and allowed regions , slight deviations from standard cosmological predictions are expected , providing possible signals in future observations .
in fact , the existing anomaly in the @xmath4li abundance prediction of standard bbn may already be interpreted as a signal of superwimp dark matter  @xcite .
such signals are particularly welcome , since superwimp dark matter is so weakly interacting that it is impossible to detect through conventional direct and indirect dark matter searches .
the previous work , however , neglected hadronic energy produced in wimp decays .
this was natural , as the wimp decays of eq .
( [ decay ] ) contribute only to electromagnetic energy , as we will discuss below .
however , the three - body decays @xmath5 produce hadronic energy when the @xmath6 or @xmath7 decays hadronically .
hadronic energy release is very severely constrained by the observed primordial light element abundances  @xcite , and so even subdominant hadronic decays could , in principle , provide stringent constraints .
these three - body decays may be kinematically suppressed when @xmath8 , but even in this case , four - body decays , such as @xmath9 , contribute to hadronic cascades and may be important . in this paper , we determine the hadronic branching fractions and compare them to bbn constraints on hadronic energy release .
although we focus on the supersymmetric case , our results may be extended straightforwardly with minor numerical modifications to the case of graviton superwimps in extra dimensions .    in evaluating the constraints
, there are two possible approaches .
as the superwimp relic abundance is automatically in the right range , a natural assumption is that superwimp gravitinos make up all of the non - baryonic dark matter , with @xmath10 this is the approach taken here .
note that @xmath11 need not be identical to @xmath12  not all relic gravitinos need be produced by nlsp decays .
our assumption therefore requires that the other sources of gravitinos be insignificant . for the supersymmetric case ,
this typically implies an upper bound on reheat temperatures of @xmath13  @xcite .
higher reheat temperatures may also be allowed  @xcite and are desirable , for example , to accommodate leptogenesis . for the universal extra dimension case ,
the requirement of insignificant kaluza - klein graviton production during reheating implies @xmath14 to @xmath15 , depending , in part , on the number of extra dimensions  @xcite .    on the other hand ,
the universe has proven to be remarkably baroque , and there is no guarantee that dark matter is composed of only one component .
one might therefore relax the constraint of eq .
( [ omega ] ) on the superwimp energy density and assume , for example , that the nlsp freezes out with its thermal relic density @xmath16 .
the superwimp gravitino density is then @xmath17 . in this approach
, the gravitino density may be low and even insignficant cosmologically . from a particle physics viewpoint , however , the viability of the gravitino lsp scenario is still worth investigation , as it has strong implications for the superpartner spectrum and collider signatures , independent of its cosmological importance .
these approaches differ significantly , not only in the viewpoint taken , but also in their implications .
suppose , for example , that the gravitino and nlsp masses are both parametrized by a mass scale @xmath18 .
the nlsp number density then scales as @xmath19 if one assumes eq .
( [ omega ] ) , but scales as @xmath18 if one assumes a thermal relic nlsp density , since @xmath20 , where @xmath21 is the thermally - averaged nlsp annihilation cross section .
low masses are excluded in the former case , while high masses are disfavored in the latter .
we consider both approaches to be worthwhile , but defer discussion of the thermal relic density approach , along with its very different consequences for the superpartner spectrum and implications for collider physics , to a separate study  @xcite .    assuming a fixed @xmath11 here , we find that gravitino superwimps provide a viable solution to the dark matter problem .
we determine the allowed masses for the nlsp and gravitino . at the same time , we find that the hadronic energy constraint is significant and does in fact provide the leading constraint in natural regions of parameter space . we conclude that the analysis below must be done in any scenario with similar late decays .
given any standard cosmology , a significant thermal relic abundance of nlsps will be generated , these nlsps will eventually decay to superwimps , and the hadronic constraints we discuss below must be analyzed before the scenario may be considered viable .    in passing ,
we note that another possibility is that the nlsp is the lightest neutralino . for a general neutralino
, the decays @xmath22 produce large hadronic energy release .
these two - body modes are absent for photino - like neutralinos , where the only two - body decay is @xmath23 .
however , even in this case , one can not avoid hadronic activity from decay through a virtual photon , @xmath24 , with a branching fraction of @xmath25 .
given the stringency of constraints on hadronic energy release , the neutralino nlsp case is highly constrained .
assuming that @xmath11 makes up a significant fraction of the dark matter , natural regions of parameter space are excluded  @xcite . in the current paper , we therefore focus on the more promising possibilities of slepton and sneutrino nlsps .    the paper is organized as follows . in sec .
[ sec : bbn ] , we summarize what is known about constraints on em and hadronic energy release in the early universe . in sec .  [
sec : swimp ] , we give a detailed description of the gravitino superwimp scenario with a slepton or sneutrino nlsp . in sec .
[ sec : had ] , we determine the hadronic energy release from slepton and sneutrino decays and find the allowed mass regions .
we summarize in sec .
[ sec : conclusion ] .
the relevant gravitino interactions , decay amplitudes , and three - body hadronic decay width formulae are collected in the appendix .
the overall success of standard bbn places severe constraints on energy produced by particles decaying after bbn . given the baryon density specified by cmb measurements  @xcite , the prediction of standard bbn  @xcite for deuterium agrees well with observations  @xcite .
this concordance is less perfect , but still reasonable , for @xmath26he  @xcite . on the other hand ,
current observations of @xmath4li  @xcite are consistently lower than predictions ; this is the leading anomaly in light element abundances at present .
the abundances of @xmath27he and @xmath28li also provide constraints , although these are subject to more theoretical uncertainties as discussed below .
in this section , we review the constraints from these element abundances on energy release in the early universe .
although a unified analysis is necessary for detailed conclusions , we review the constraints on em and hadronic energy release in turn . a schematic summary of the discussion in this section is given in fig .  [ fig : bbnconstraints ] .
the constraints on em energy release are well understood , and we begin with a brief summary of the results .
( for details , see ref .
@xcite . ) high energy photons and leptons produced by late - decaying particles are quickly thermalized through interactions with background ( bg ) particles .
high energy photons , for example , initiate em cascades through processes like @xmath29 and @xmath30 , and the initial energy is quickly converted to very soft photons .
the same is true for high energy electrons and muons .
high energy taus decay to mesons , but these decay and produce em cascades before interacting hadronically .
( see ref .
@xcite and the analysis below . ) injected leptons of all three families therefore contribute dominantly to em energy and negligibly to hadronic energy .
the energy distribution of the resulting photons is highly suppressed for @xmath31 , where @xmath32\end{aligned}\ ] ] is related to the energy threshold for @xmath33  @xcite . here
@xmath34 is the bg photon temperature ; in the radiation - dominated era , it is related to time by @xmath35 ^ 2 \ .\end{aligned}\ ] ] because of this rapid thermalization , constraints on em energy depend on the total amount of energy released and are essentially independent of the shape of the initial energy spectrum .    for @xmath36 ,
the bbn constraints are rather weak since @xmath37 is too small to destroy any light elements . for @xmath38 ,
the universe is hot and @xmath37 is low , and so only light elements with very low binding energies can be destroyed .
the main constraint is from the overdestruction of d , with a binding energy of only 2.2 mev . for @xmath39 ,
the universe is cooler and @xmath37 becomes high enough that @xmath26he , with binding energy 19.8 mev , is destroyed .
even a small amount of @xmath26he photo - dissociation becomes a significant production mechanism for @xmath27he and d , since the observed abundances of @xmath27he and d are much lower than that of @xmath26he .
the main constraint is from the overproduction of d.    between @xmath40 and @xmath41 there is a region where the overdestruction and overproduction of d cancel . for sufficiently high energy release in this region ,
the d abundance is that of standard bbn , but @xmath4li , with binding energy 2.5 mev , is destroyed through @xmath42 .
the observed @xmath4li abundance  @xcite is in fact low compared to the predictions of standard bbn  @xcite .
we see , then , that the @xmath4li abundance can be brought into agreement with observations without upsetting the d concordance for decay times in this window . for @xmath43 ,
the best fit values are  @xcite @xmath44 where @xmath45 is the emitted em energy density . here
@xmath46 is the initial em energy released in nlsp decay , and @xmath47 is the branching fraction of nlsp decay into em components .
@xmath48 is the nlsp number density just before nlsp decay , normalized to the bg photon number density @xmath49 .
it can be expressed in terms of the superwimp abundance : @xmath50 \left[\frac{{\omega_{\text{swimp}}}}{0.23}\right ] \ .
\label{eq : def_y}\ ] ] the parameters of eq .
( [ bestfit ] ) are naturally realized in the superwimp scenario when a weak - scale nlsp decays to a weak - scale superwimp with the observed dark matter density  @xcite .
the numerical constraints on em energy release as a function of the particle decay lifetime have been determined in ref .
@xcite , using the following criteria : @xmath51 we adopt these constraints in our consideration of em energy release bounds .
hadronic energy release , and its effects on bbn , has also been considered  @xcite .
although we are most interested in energy release at times @xmath52 , we summarize here what is known for @xmath53 for completeness .
as we will show below , for the decay times of interest , mesons decay quickly and so contribute to em energy . only protons and neutrons
are sufficiently long - lived that they might be able to interact hadronically . for times
@xmath54 , however , even high energy protons and neutrons ( with energies @xmath55 ) interact through em scattering with bg photons before interacting with bg baryons .
injected high energy baryons then quickly become slow baryons , with the initial energy dissipated to em energy . for such early times ,
this em energy is harmless , as discussed above .
constraints are therefore functions of the number density of injected baryons @xmath56 , and independent of the initial baryon energy @xmath57 .
slow baryons modify the number of neutrons and protons and therefore bbn predictions . in the very earliest era with @xmath58 , however , the weak interaction @xmath59 is efficient , and so any deviation in the @xmath60 ratio is washed out , and there are no strong bounds . for @xmath53 ,
the weak interactions decouple .
slow baryons produced in late decays cause the @xmath60 ratio to deviate from the standard bbn value .
in particular , extra neutrons create d. for @xmath61 , the resulting d is immediately burned to form @xmath26he , and so the dominant constraint is from overproduction of @xmath26he .
this constraint is weak since the @xmath26he abundance of standard bbn is already large . for @xmath62
, d can no longer burn into @xmath26he  @xcite and the dominant constraint comes from d overproduction .
this bound is significantly stronger , since the d / h ratio is @xmath63 .    at times
@xmath64 , injected baryons interact with bg baryons before thermalizing .
these interactions create secondary hadrons that can modify bbn predictions . in this era
, constraints depend in principle on both @xmath57 and @xmath65 separately . in principle
, the constraints do not simply depend on the product , because the total number of secondary hadrons created by an injected hadron is not always proportional to the injected hadronic energy .
the dominant constraint is from secondary baryons destroying @xmath26he to overproduce d.    quantitative analyses on the bbn constraints of the hadronic energy injection have been performed in refs .
as discussed above , formally , the constraints depend on the lifetime @xmath66 of the decaying particle and on @xmath57 and @xmath56 separately .
however , the most recent analysis  @xcite finds that for decay times @xmath67 , when the hadronic constraint is most important , the constraints depend on the product @xmath68 to within a factor of 2 for @xmath69  @xcite .
we will therefore assume this behavior and apply the hadronic constraint to times @xmath70 , where it is stronger than the em constraint in the superwimp scenario .
the authors of ref .
@xcite assume the following constraints on the light element abundances ( 95% cl ) : @xmath71 in our analysis of hadronic energy injection , we take the constraints of ref .
@xcite derived using these bounds and @xmath72 .
note that the constraints of eqs .
( [ dconstraints])-([hadconstraints ] ) adopted for the hadronic energy analysis are less conservative than the constraints of eqs .
( [ d])-([emconstraints ] ) used in the em analysis of ref .  @xcite .
in particular , a significantly more aggressive d bound is assumed in the hadronic analysis .
there is now impressive concordance between the baryon number determinations from d and cmb measurements , which further supports the narrow range of d / h given in eq .
( [ dconstraints ] ) . at the same time , existing anomalies in standard bbn may be indications that systematic errors are underestimated or that there is new physics , which would likely distort the d abundance , since d is very weakly bound .
there are several further comments to make .
first , we have been treating the em and hadronic effects separately . of course
, these effects can add constructively or destructively  @xcite .
we have explained above that the dominant hadronic constraint for @xmath52 is from d overproduction , whereas for the em constraint it is from d overproduction for @xmath73 and from d overdestruction for @xmath38 . for phenomena contributing to both em and hadronic energy , then ,
the effects add constructively for @xmath74 , but may cancel for @xmath38 , and there may be fingers of allowed region in the latter time interval .    finally ,
although we consider only the constraints above on d / h , @xmath75 and @xmath76li / h , in ref .
@xcite , constraints from @xmath27he / d and @xmath28li / h are also analyzed for late time em and hadronic injections .
these two abundances , however , are subject to more uncertainties .
@xmath27he / d is considered because the destruction of @xmath26he could produce @xmath27he more easily than d , while the binding energy of @xmath27he is higher than that of d. however , the interpretation of @xmath27he measurements  @xcite may be subject to ambiguities arising from stellar production and destruction  @xcite .
the ratio of @xmath28li/@xmath4li has been observed in low metallicity halo stars and might also constrain late decays .
the implications for em cascades have also been explored in refs .
again , however , there are arguably significant systematic uncertainties arising from the higher depletion of @xmath28li relative to @xmath4li as a result of its smaller binding energy  @xcite . a better understanding of the connection between the primordial and observed abundances of @xmath28li and @xmath4li could provide a very powerful constraint on late decaying particles  @xcite .
in the superwimp dark matter scenario , superwimps have no effect on the early thermal history of the universe .
they are produced only through metastable nlsp decays , nlsp@xmath77 + sm particle , giving a gravitino relic density of @xmath78 @xmath79 is allowed , since @xmath80 .
the sm particles produced in the nlsp decay induce em or hadronic cascades , which will affect the primordial abundance of light elements , as discussed in sec .
[ sec : bbn ] .
the dominant decay mode for slepton nlsps is @xmath81 .
most of the energy released from the decay is transferred to em cascades .
the total energy released in slepton decay is @xmath82 the total injected em energy density is , for @xmath83 , @xmath84 \left[\frac{\delta m}{300~{\text{gev}}}\right ] \left[\frac{{\text{tev}}}{m_{\tilde{g}}}\right ] \left[\frac{{\omega_{\text{swimp}}}}{0.23}\right ] \ , \end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath85 depends on the slepton s flavor , and eq .
( [ eq : def_y ] ) has been used . for selectrons and smuons , energetic electrons and muons
quickly thermalize with the background photons .
all the visible energy is transferred to the resulting em cascade : @xmath86 , @xmath87 . in the case of staus
, the decays of taus could also produce mesons and neutrinos , in addition to electrons and muons .
the em activity depends on the lifetime and energy distribution of decay products . as estimated in ref .
@xcite , the em energy released in stau decay is in the range @xmath88 to @xmath89 .    for the sneutrino nlsp case , the sneutrino mainly decays into neutrino and gravitino .
the emitted high energy neutrino interacts with bg neutrinos and loses energy .
if the neutrinos annihilate through @xmath90 , an em cascade is initiated .
however , the annihilation takes place through weak interactions , and so its cross section may be small .
the effect of the expansion of the universe must also be taken into account  @xcite .
sneutrino decays induce far less em energy release than sleptons , but for decay times @xmath91 , there may still be some impact on bbn . for such decays times ,
however , much of the parameter space is excluded by considerations of hadronic bbn constraints , which will be discussed below . in what is left of this region ,
the gravitino mass is @xmath92 .
such light gravitinos are less motivated in supergravity and so we have not considered this scenario in great detail here .
the decay width of the slepton into lsp gravitino is @xmath93 ^ 4 \ , \label{eq : sleptondecay}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath94 . for @xmath95 ,
the slepton decay lifetime is @xmath96 ^ 4 \left[\frac{m_{\tilde{g}}}{{\text{tev}}}\right]\ .
\label{eq : decaylifetime}\end{aligned}\ ] ] this expression is valid only when the gravitino and slepton are nearly degenerate , but we present it here as a useful guide for the reader . in the analysis below , we always use eq .
( [ eq : sleptondecay ] ) for the evaluation of the slepton decay lifetime .
the slepton lifetime is given in fig .
[ fig : lifetime_zetaem]a in the @xmath97 plane , where @xmath98 note that in the definition of @xmath99 , an additional @xmath100 is subtracted from @xmath101 ; three - body decays , to be discussed below , are therefore always kinematically possible for @xmath102 .
the typical decay time is @xmath103 . for such decay times
, there are strong constraints from the primordial abundance of the light element , as discussed earlier .
contours of em energy release @xmath104 are given in fig .
[ fig : lifetime_zetaem]b for @xmath105 nlsps , assuming @xmath106 , @xmath87 , and @xmath107 .
we see that the em energy release varies from @xmath108 and is largest for large @xmath99 and small @xmath109 , when the decay lifetime is the shortest .
the bbn constraints , however , are much weaker for early decays . as discussed in ref .
@xcite , considering em energy constraints only , one finds that for a stau nlsp , @xmath110 and @xmath111 are allowed .
moreover , late time em energy release from stau decays to gravitinos may resolve the current discrepancy in the @xmath4li for @xmath112 . for selectron or smuon nlsps ,
the em constraints are slightly stronger since all the released decay energy is transferred to em cascades .
the em bbn constraints may be weakened by a number of possibilities .
first , for decays in the range @xmath113 , the em constraints may be weakened by cancelation between the effects of em and hadronic energy release , as discussed above .
second , if not all of non - baryonic dark matter is superwimps , @xmath114 , the contour lines for @xmath115 will shift toward the left , since @xmath116 , and the allowed parameter space will be enlarged .
finally , if the nlsp is not a slepton but a sneutrino , the em bbn constraints are , of course , much weaker , as the two - body decays contribute much less visible energy than in the slepton nlsp case .
as discussed in sec .  [ sec : bbn ] , the abundances of light elements constrain the amount of hadronic energy injection into the early universe .
although , for leptonic nlsps , the hadronic energy release is much smaller than the em energy release , the constraints on the hadronic energy release are much stronger .
it is therefore important to evaluate in detail the hadronic activity induced by slepton and sneutrino nlsp decays .
let us first study the slepton nlsp possibility .
the main decay mode of sleptons is @xmath117 . for selectron and smuon nlsps ,
such decays induce only em cascades .
for stau nlsps , however , the resulting tau lepton may decay into mesons , and these might interact with background hadrons and induce dangerous hadronic cascades .
the interaction time of the produced mesons is @xmath118^{-1 } & \simeq & 18~{\text{s}}\left[\frac{100~{\text{mb } } } { \langle \sigma_{\text{had}}v \rangle } \right ] \left[\frac{6\times 10^{-10}}{\eta } \right ] \left[\frac{{\text{kev}}}{t } \right]^3 \nonumber \\ & \simeq & 1.8\times 10^{-8}~{\text{s}}\left[\frac{100~{\text{mb}}}{\langle \sigma_{\text{had } } v \rangle } \right ]   \left[\frac{6\times 10^{-10}}{\eta } \right ] \left[\frac{t}{1~{\text{s } } } \right]^{3/2 } \ , \label{eq : interaction}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath119 is the thermally averaged strong interaction cross section . for the decay times of greatest interest here , @xmath103 , this interaction time is long compared to the typical meson ( @xmath120,@xmath121 ) lifetime , @xmath122 .
the produced mesons thus decay before they interact with background hadrons .    as a result , the hadronic activity from the dominant two - body decay of slepton is negligibly small .
the main contributions to hadronic activity therefore come from three - body decays , @xmath123 with @xmath6 or @xmath7 decaying hadronically , or from four - body decays @xmath124 with @xmath125 .
the corresponding feynman diagrams are shown in fig .
[ fig : feynmangraphs ] .
formulae for the decay amplitudes and decay width calculations are listed in the appendix .
the hadronic branching fraction is defined as follow : @xmath126 where @xmath127 are the @xmath6 and @xmath7 hadronic branching fractions . for right - handed sleptons , @xmath128 , and
there are additional suppressions because the @xmath6 couplings are smaller than the @xmath7 couplings .
thus , the hadronic branching fraction of right - handed sleptons is smaller than that of left - handed ones , especially when @xmath129 .
for small @xmath101 , the slepton lifetime increases dramatically , since it grows as @xmath130 by eq .
( [ eq : decaylifetime ] ) . for @xmath131 ,
three - body decay modes are kinematically suppressed and four - body decay through a virtual photon dominates .
the branching fraction of four - body decay is roughly expected to be @xmath132 , which sets a lower limit for the hadronic branching fraction . adjusting this estimation by taking into account details of the kinematics has negligible impact to our results .
for the sneutrino nlsp case , the constraints from bounds on em energy release are weak , especially at late times @xmath133 , as discussed in sec .
[ sec : swimp ] .
however , the hadronic energy release is of the same magnitude for sneutrino nlsps and for left - handed slepton nlsps .
the major hadronic activity comes from three - body decays , @xmath134 .
the branching fraction for the four - body decay @xmath135 is also similar to the analogous decay in the slepton case , except that diagrams ( a ) and ( b ) in fig .
[ fig : feynmangraphs ] are absent since the neutrino is neutral .
last , we note that in the special case where the bino and wino masses are nearly equal , diagram ( c ) of fig .
[ fig : feynmangraphs ] is highly suppressed , since the gauge boson @xmath136 is almost purely @xmath6 .    in fig .
[ fig : branch ] we show the hadronic branching fractions for @xmath105 and @xmath137 nlsps for a particular set of values of @xmath138 , @xmath139 , @xmath140 and @xmath141 .
varying these parameters typically does not change our results significantly .
the reason is that these parameters only affect the neutralino / chargino appearing in diagram ( c ) of fig .
[ fig : feynmangraphs ] .
the contribution from diagram ( c ) is negligible if the neutralino / chargino is not degenerate to within about 10% with the sleptons .
in addition , diagram ( c ) does not interfere with the other diagrams if all couplings are real , which eliminates the possibility of cancelation .
hadronic branching fractions for left - handed sleptons are similar to those shown for sneutrinos .
the branching fractions are smaller for the right - handed slepton case for the reasons mentioned above . in both cases , the hadronic branching fractions drop quickly for lifetime @xmath142 s , which corresponds to small @xmath99 . for the @xmath105 case
, mesons produced in @xmath66 decay may , in principle , induce showers before they decay , as discussed above .
this contribution to hadronic energy is also shown in fig .  [
fig : branch ] . as can be seen ,
it is important only at early times @xmath143 and may be safely ignored for the decay times of most interest here .
note that the hadronic branching fraction of eq .
( [ hadfraction ] ) is defined at the quark level .
hadronization effects are important  for example , as we have shown above , mesons produced in @xmath6 and @xmath7 decays do not contribute to hadronic cascades since they decay before they interact .
such effects have been included in deriving the hadronic bbn constraints that we use  @xcite .
[ fig : grid ] shows the hadronic energy injection @xmath144 as a function of decay lifetime @xmath145 for @xmath105 and @xmath137 nlsps . along each curve , @xmath146 is held fixed and @xmath147 varies .
the curves are truncated at @xmath148 because for smaller @xmath101 , three - body hadronic decays are highly suppressed , leading to negligible hadronic energy injection .
hadronic bbn constraints from ref .
@xcite are also shown , with and without @xmath28li ; the regions above the curves are disfavored .
it is clear that for larger @xmath109 , larger values of @xmath101 becomes viable .
constraints are stronger in the @xmath137 case than in the @xmath105 case because the hadronic branching fraction is larger for left - handed particles than for right - handed ones .
notice that we have fixed @xmath149 in these plots .
the lines could be simply rescaled for other values of @xmath11 since @xmath150 .
we have also adopted the hadronic bbn analysis of ref .  @xcite . if updated analyses of the bbn constraints become available , it is straightforward to impose it in these plots to find out the remaining viable parameter regions for @xmath109 and @xmath101 .
[ fig : summary ] shows the allowed and disfavored regions of the @xmath151 plane for the two nlsp cases .
the cmb @xmath140 distortion constraint , the em bbn constraint of ref .
@xcite , and the hadronic bbn constraint of ref .
@xcite are included .
for the @xmath105 case , the cmb constraint excludes a region with @xmath152 .
em bbn constraints from d / h@xmath153 disfavor regions of @xmath99 below 400 gev for @xmath154 and @xmath155 below about 200 gev for larger @xmath109 .
hadronic bbn constraints from d / h@xmath153 disfavor the part of the parameter space with large @xmath99 where the slepton decays relatively early .
note that the hadronic constraint is extremely important  it disfavors a large and natural part of parameter space that would otherwise be allowed .    even after all of these constraints , however , the unshaded area in the region @xmath156 and @xmath157 still remains viable .
the @xmath105 mass must be above 500 gev , but this is within reach of the lhc .
the `` best fit '' point where the @xmath4li discrepancy is fixed by em energy release from late slepton decays is indicated by a circle at @xmath158 .
note that it also remains viable , even given the strong hadronic bbn constraints .
we also indicate the region that is disfavored by the less solid , but stronger , constraints from @xmath159he / d and @xmath160li / h . the @xmath159he / d constraint excludes parameter space below the solid line .
the allowed region would then be pushed up to larger @xmath161 and larger @xmath162 .
such a heavy stau nlsp is beyond the reach of the next generation hadron colliders . on the other hand ,
taking the @xmath160li / h constraint literally would exclude parameter space above the dashed line .
taking both constraints literally and combining them would exclude most of the region of parameter space shown .
clearly , a more firm understanding of bbn will have important consequences for the stau nlsp superwimp scenario .
we have assumed @xmath107 ; of course , the allowed parameter space would be enlarged if @xmath114 .
we have also taken @xmath163 in our analysis ; the allowed region could shift if there are significant corrections to this relation .    the sneutrino nlsp case is also shown in fig .
[ fig : summary ] .
hadronic bbn constraints from the d / h and @xmath75 abundances only disfavor @xmath164 100 gev . even including the stronger but more speculative @xmath160li / h constraint
, there is still a large region of @xmath165 that is allowed .
the origin of this result is that at @xmath166 , the sneutrino nlsp is completely free of hadronic bbn constraints .
we have again assumed @xmath167 . to get this relic density from a sneutrino thermal relic density
, one would typically require sneutrino masses above 500 gev .
however , even assuming a thermal relic abundance , if the superwimp component is only part of the present dark matter , smaller sneutrino masses are allowed .    for right - handed selectron and smuon nlsps , the results will be similar to the right - handed stau nlsp case .
the em constraints are slightly stronger , since all the released energy induces em cascades . for left - handed slepton nlsps
, the region of @xmath168 that is disfavored by hadronic injection is similar to the region disfavored for the sneutrino nlsp .
in addition , however , there are em bbn constraints that are similar to those for right - handed slepton nlsps .
in this paper , we explored the possibility of superwimps as candidates for dark matter .
examples of superwimps are the gravitino in supersymmetric models and the lightest kaluza - klein graviton in universal extra dimension models .
superwimps obtain their relic density through late decays : wimp @xmath169 superwimp @xmath170 sm particles .
the decay usually occurs between @xmath171 s and @xmath172 s , which has important cosmological implications .
such late decays release em and hadronic energy into the universe , which may affect bbn predictions for the primordial abundance of the light elements . the constraints on em injection have been studied in detail in ref .
@xcite . in this paper , we have analyzed the hadronic bbn constraints .
we have taken the lightest gravitino as a concrete example of a superwimp and have focused on slepton and sneutrino nlsps as the most promising wimp candidates .
we have determined the hadronic energy release by calculating three - body decay widths in detail . for the cases of @xmath105 and @xmath137 nlsps
, the hadronic decay branching fraction is below the level of @xmath173 when @xmath174 and @xmath175 , respectively , or when the decay lifetime is @xmath176 .
we identified the allowed and disfavored regions of the @xmath151 plane , imposing cmb constraints , em bbn constraints , and hadronic bbn constraints . for the sneutrino nlsp case , @xmath177 is allowed for a large range of @xmath109 . for the stau nlsp ,
the hadronic constraints are weaker : @xmath178 . however , additional constraints from cmb and em energy injection apply .
combining all the constraints for the right - handed stau nlsp , the allowed window is @xmath179 , @xmath180 , corresponding to @xmath181 .
we have assumed @xmath107 in our analysis .
the constraints would be relaxed if superwimps are only part of the present dark matter .
in addition , there are still ambiguities in the bbn constraints if the decay time lies in the region where em and hadronic effects are comparable .
in particular , as we discussed , their effects on d might cancel , and the allowed parameter space could be enlarged .
progress in firming up bbn constraints in this region , and for other elements , such as @xmath27he and @xmath28li may have crucial implications for the superwimp dark matter scenario .
although the superwimp itself would escape all direct and indirect dark matter searches , the slepton / sneutrino nlsp will have rich implications for collider phenomenology .
such metastable sleptons will not decay inside the detector , resulting in signals of highly ionizing tracks for sleptons and missing energy signals for sneutrinos .
discussion of the collider phenomenology , combined with thermal relic density calculations for the nlsp in supergravity models will be presented in ref .
@xcite .
although we have focused on the susy scenario in this paper , superwimps could in general be any gravitationally interacting particle that obtains its relic density through the late decay of a wimp .
the discussion and results for late decay of a leptonic wimp in other models will be qualitatively similar to the discussion and results presented here .
this scenario also suggests that a particle that appears to play the role of dark matter at late times , even after bbn , could very well be different from the particle that constitutes dark matter now .
the very late decay of `` would be '' dark matter particles may have important cosmological implications , for example , affecting small scale structure .
this feature may provide qualitatively new possibilities for explaining puzzling cosmological observations  @xcite .
we have assumed @xmath182-parity conservation in our discussion . in the case of @xmath182-parity violation ( rpv ) , the gravitino could still constitute dark matter as long as its decay lifetime is comparable to or longer than the age of universe  @xcite .
gravitino dark matter in an rpv scenario could be distinguished from the superwimp scenario by both cosmological observations and collider experiments .
for example , the decay of even a tiny amount of gravitino dark matter into sm particles in an rpv scenario could be seen in the diffuse photon flux .
in addition , if the rpv is not extremely small , the collider signatures could be different from those in the superwimp scenario .
further work is needed to study how to distinguish these two scenarios .
we are grateful to m.  fujii , k.  kohri , t.  moroi , and a.  rajaraman for helpful conversations .
the work of jlf was supported in part by national science foundation career grant phy0239817 , and in part by the alfred p.  sloan foundation .
the gravitino - gaugino - gauge boson interaction is @xmath183 \gamma^{\mu}\lambda f_{\nu\rho } \ , \end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath184 is the reduced planck mass , and @xmath185 denotes the gravitino field at spacetime point @xmath186 .
the gravitino - slepton - lepton interaction is @xmath187 where subscript @xmath188 denotes the lepton chirality .
in addition , there are gravitino - slepton - lepton - gauge boson interactions : @xmath189 here @xmath190 is the gauge coupling coefficient , which is given explicitly below .        here
we present the matrix amplitudes for the three - body decays @xmath194 , where @xmath195 is the sm partner of @xmath196 or its weak isospin partner , and @xmath197 or @xmath7 .
the feynman diagrams are shown in fig .
[ fig : feynmangraphs ] .
we define the following ten operators : @xmath198 where @xmath199 is the polarization of gauge boson @xmath136 .
notice that for an on - shell gravitino in the final state , @xmath200 by using the gravitino equation of motion .    in terms of these operators , the matrix elements for three - body slepton decay [ diagrams ( a)(d ) in fig .
[ fig : feynmangraphs ] ] are @xmath201 \label{eq : melez3}\\ { \cal { m}}_v^d & = & i \frac{\sqrt{2}eg_v^{l_h}}{m_*}{\cal o}_8 \ ,   \label{eq : melez4}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath202 denotes a neutralino or chargino , the couplings @xmath190 , @xmath203 , and @xmath204 are given below for each decay process , and @xmath205 notice that @xmath206 .
given this relation , the four - momentum scalar products that appear below in the expressions for squared matrix elements can be expressed in terms of @xmath207 , @xmath208 and @xmath209 .
the sum of the matrix elements can be written as @xmath222 where the @xmath223 can be read off from eqs .
( [ eq : melez1])([eq : melez4 ] ) above .
the squared matrix element is @xmath224 in our calculations , we chose the convention that the diagonalizing matrices @xmath136 and @xmath219 are real .
all couplings appearing in eq .
( [ eq : melez1])@xmath225([eq : melez4 ] ) are therefore real .
thus , all the @xmath223 are real except for @xmath226 , which has both real and imaginary components .
the only non - zero contributions to the last term in eq .
( [ eq : square ] ) come from @xmath227 ( @xmath228 ) and @xmath229 ( @xmath230 ) .
expressions for @xmath231 , @xmath232 , @xmath233 ( @xmath228 ) and @xmath234 ( @xmath230 ) are : @xmath235   \left[\mg^2 - \pgpsl + \pgpz\right ] \nonumber\\ & & \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\ !
\times \left[\mg^2m_v^2 + \msl^2m_v^2 - 2m_v^2\pgpsl   - \left(\pgpz\right)^2 + 2\pgpz\pslpz - \left(\pslpz\right)^2\right ]   \\ \calo_{2,2}&= & -\frac{4}{3\mg^2m_v^2 } \left[\mg^2 - \pgpsl + \pgpz\right ] \left[\msl^2m_v^2 - \left(\pslpz\right)^2\right ] \nonumber \\   & & \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\ !
\times \left[-\left(\pgpsl\right)^2   + 2\pgpsl\pgpz - \left(\pgpz\right)^2 +   \mg^2\left(\msl^2 + m_v^2 - 2\pslpz \right ) \right ]   \\ \calo_{3,3 } & = & { { 0 } }   \\ \calo_{4,4 } & = & \frac{4}{3\mg^2m_v^2 } \left[\mg^2m_v^2 - \left(\pgpz\right)^2\right ] \nonumber \\ & & \times \left[\mg^2m_v^2 - m_v^2\pgpsl + 2\left(\pgpz\right)^2   + \pgpz \left(3m_v^2 - 2\pslpz\right)\right ] \\
\calo_{5,5 } & = & -\frac{4}{3\mg^2 } \left[\mg^2\msl^2 - \left(\pgpsl\right)^2\right ] \nonumber \\ & & \times \left[\mg^2m_v^2 - m_v^2\pgpsl - 4\left(\pgpz\right)^2 + \pgpz        \left(-3m_z^2 + 4\pslpz\right)\right ] \\
\calo_{6,6 } & = & -\frac{4}{3\mg^2 } \left[\mg^2m_z^2 - \left(\pgpz\right)^2\right ] \nonumber \\ & & \times \left[\mg^2m_v^2 - m_v^2\pgpsl -   4\left(\pgpz\right)^2 + \pgpz \left(-3m_v^2 + 4\pslpz\right)\right ] \\
\calo_{7,7 } & = & \frac{4}{3\mg^2m_v^2 } \left [ \mg^2m_v^2 - \left(\pgpz\right)^2\right ] \nonumber \\ & & \left\ { \mg^4m_v^2 + 2\mg^2\left(\pgpz\right)^2   + 4\pgpz^3 - \pgpsl \left [ \mg^2m_v^2   + 4\left(\pgpz\right)^2\right ] \right . \nonumber\\ & & \left . - \mg^2\pgpz \left(m_v^2 - 2\pslpz\right)\right\ } \\
\calo_{8,8 } & = & -\frac{4}{3\mg^2m_v^2 } \left[\mg^2 - \pgpsl + \pgpz\right ] \left[2\mg^2m_v^2 + \left(\pgpz\right)^2\right ] \\
\calo_{9,9 } & = & \frac{4}{3\mg^2m_v^2 } \left [ 2\mg^2m_v^2 + \left(\pgpz\right)^2\right ] \nonumber \\ & & \times \left[\mg^2m_v^2 - m_v^2\pgpsl -   2\left(\pgpz\right)^2 - \pgpz        \left(m_v^2 - 2\pslpz\right)\right ] \\
\calo_{10,10}&=&\frac{4}{3\mg^2m_v^2 }   \left[2\mg^2m_v^2 + \left(\pgpz\right)^2\right ] \nonumber \\   & & \left\ { \mg^4m_v^2 - 2\mg^2\left(\pgpz\right)^2   - 4\left(\pgpz\right)^3 \right .
\nonumber\\ & & \left .
+ \pgpsl\left[-\mg^2m_v^2   + 4\left(\pgpz\right)^2\right ]   + \mg^2\pgpz\left(3m_v^2 -   2\pslpz\right)\right\ } \\ \calo_{1,2}^{\text re}&=&\frac{8}{3\mg^2m_v^2 }   \left[\mg^2 - \pgpsl + \pgpz \right ] \nonumber \\ & & \times \left [ - \left(\pgpsl\right)^2 + \pgpsl \pgpz   + \mg^2\left(\msl^2 - \pslpz\right)\right ] \nonumber \\   & & \times \left [ -\msl^2m_v^2 + m_z^2\pgpsl - \pgpz \pslpz + \left(\pslpz\right)^2\right ] \\
\calo_{1,3}^{\text re } & = & \calo_{1,4}^{\text re } = { { 0 } }   \\ \calo_{1,5}^{\text re } & = & \frac{8}{3\mg^2 } \left[\mg^2\msl^2 - \left(\pgpsl\right)^2\right ] \left [ -\left(\pgpz\right)^2 +   \mg^2\left(m_v^2 - \pslpz\right ) \right . \nonumber\\ & & \left .
+   \pgpz\left(-\msl^2 + \pslpz\right )   + \pgpsl \left(-m_v^2 + \pgpz + \pslpz\right)\right ] \\
{ \cal{o}}_{1,6}^{\text re } & = & { \cal{o}}_{1,7}^{\text re}={\cal{o}}_{1,8}^{\text re}={\cal{o}}_{1,9}^{\text re}={\cal{o}}_{1,10}^{\text re}=0   \\ { \cal{o}}_{2,3}^{\text re}&=&{\cal{o}}_{2,4}^{\text re}={{0 } }   \\ { \cal{o}}_{2,5}^{\text re}&=&\frac{4}{3\mg^2 }   \left\ { \left(\pgpsl\right)^2\left[\mg^2m_v^2   + 2\left(\msl^2- m_v^2\right)\pgpz\right ] \right .
\nonumber \\ & & + 2\left(\pgpsl\right)^3\left(m_v^2 - \pslpz\right )   - 2\pgpsl \left [ \left(\pgpz\right)^2   \left(\msl^2 - \pslpz\right ) \right .
\nonumber \\ & & \left .
+ \mg^2\left(\msl^2 -\pslpz\right )   \left(m_v^2 - \pslpz\right ) +   \mg^2\pgpz\pslpz\right ]   \nonumber \\ & & + \mg^2\left[\msl^2\left(\pgpz\right)^2   - 2\pgpz \left(\msl^2 - \pslpz\right)^2 \right .
\nonumber \\ & & \left .
+ \mg^2\left(-\msl^2m_v^2   + \left(\pslpz\right)^2\right)\right]\right\ }   \\ { \cal{o}}_{2,6}^{\text re}&=&{\cal{o}}_{2,7}^{\text re}={\cal{o}}_{2,8}^{\text re}={\cal{o}}_{2,9}^{\text re}={\cal{o}}_{2,10}^{\text re}={{0 } }   \\ { \cal{o}}_{3,4}^{\text re}&=&{\cal{o}}_{3,5}^{\text re}={\cal{o}}_{3,6}^{\text re}={\cal{o}}_{3,7}^{\text re}={\cal{o}}_{3,8}^{\text re}={\cal{o}}_{3,9}^{\text re}={\cal{o}}_{3,10}^{\text re}={{0 } }   \\ { \cal{o}}_{4,5}^{\text re}&=&{{0 } }   \\ { \cal{o}}_{4,6}^{\text re}&= & \frac{8}{\mg } \left[\mg^2m_v^2 - \left(\pgpz\right)^2\right ] \left[m_v^2 +       \pgpz - \pslpz\right ]
\\ \calo_{4,7}^{\text re}&= & \frac{8}{\mg } \left[\mg^2 - \pgpsl + \pgpz\right ] \left[\mg^2m_v^2 - \left(\pgpz\right)^2\right ]   \\ \calo_{4,8}^{\text re}&= & \frac{8}{3\mg m_v^2 }   \left[-m_v^2\left(\mg^2 - 2\pgpsl\right)\pgpz + \pgpz^ 3 \right . \nonumber\\ & & \left
. + \mg^2m_v^2\left(m_v^2 - \pslpz\right ) -         \left(\pgpz\right)^2\left(m_v^2 + \pslpz\right)\right ]
\\ \calo_{4,9}^{\text re}&= & \frac{8}{3\mg^2 m_v^2 }    \left[\mg^4m_v^4 + \mg^2m_v^4\pgpz +         \mg^2m_v^2\left(\pgpz\right)^2 -   2\left(\pgpz\right)^4 \right .
\nonumber \\ & & \left .
-   m_v^2\pgpsl\left(\mg^2m_v^2 +   \left(\pgpz\right)^2\right )
- \left(\pgpz\right)^3 \left(m_v^2 - 2\pslpz\right)\right ] \\
\calo_{4,10}^{\text re}&= & \frac{8}{3\mg } \left\{\mg^4m_v^2 - \mg^2\left(\pgpz\right)^2 -         3\pgpz^3 +   \pgpsl\left[-\mg^2m_v^2 +        3\left(\pgpz\right)^2\right ] \right .
\nonumber\\ & & \left .
+ \mg^2\pgpz\left(3m_v^2 -   2\pslpz\right)\right\ } \\ { \cal{o}}_{5,6}^{\text re}&=&{\cal{o}}_{5,7}^{\text
re}={\cal{o}}_{5,8}^{\text re}={\cal{o}}_{5,9}^{\text re}={\cal{o}}_{5,10}^{\text re}={{0 } }   \\ \calo_{6,7}^{\text re}&= & \frac{8}{3\mg^2 } \left[\mg^2m_v^2 - \left(\pgpz\right)^2\right ] \nonumber \\ & & \times   \left[\left(3\mg^2 - 2\pgpsl\right)\pgpz + 2\left(\pgpz\right)^2 +   \mg^2\left(m_v^2 - \pslpz\right)\right ]   \\ \calo_{6,8}^{\text re}&=&-\frac{8}{3\mg^2 }
\left[\mg^4m_v^2 - \mg^2\left(\pgpz\right)^2   + \left(\pgpz\right)^3 \right .
\nonumber\\ & & \left .
- \pgpsl \left(\mg^2m_v^2 + \left(\pgpz\right)^2\right )   - \mg^2\pgpz \left(m_v^2 - 2\pslpz\right)\right ]   \\
\calo_{6,9}^{\text re}&=&\frac{8}{3\mg } \left[m_v^2\left(3\mg^2 - 2\pgpsl\right ) \pgpz - 3\left(\pgpz\right)^3   \right .
\nonumber\\ & & \left .
- \left(\pgpz\right)^2 \left(m_v^2 - 3\pslpz\right )   + \mg^2m_v^2\left(m_v^2 - \pslpz\right)\right ] \\ \calo_{6,10}^{\text re}&=&\frac{8}{3\mg^2 } \left[\mg^4m_v^2\pgpz -   \left(\mg^2 - 2\pgpsl\right ) \left(\pgpz\right)^3 -        2\left(\pgpz\right)^4   \right .
\nonumber \\   & & \left .
+ \mg^4m_v^2\left(m_v^2 - \pslpz\right ) + \mg^2\left(\pgpz\right)^2 \left(m_v^2 - \pslpz\right)\right ]   \\ \calo_{7,8}^{\text re}&=&\frac{8}{3\mg^2m_v^2 }   \left[\mg^4m_v^2\pgpz -   \left(\mg^2 - 2\pgpsl\right)\left(\pgpz\right)^3 -        2\left(\pgpz\right)^4    \right .
\nonumber \\ & & \left .
+ \mg^4m_v^2\left(m_v^2 - \pslpz\right )   + \mg^2\left(\pgpz\right)^2 \left(m_v^2 - \pslpz\right)\right ]   \\ \calo_{7,9}^{\text re}&=&\frac{8}{3\mg } \left[\mg^4m_v^2 - \mg^2\left(\pgpz\right)^2 +   \left(\pgpz\right)^3 \right .
\nonumber\\ & & \left .
- \pgpsl \left(\mg^2m_v^2 + \left(\pgpz\right)^2\right )       -   \mg^2\pgpz \left(m_v^2 - 2\pslpz\right)\right ]   \\
\calo_{7,10}^{\text re}&= & \frac{8}{3\mg^2m_z^2 } \left\{\mg^6m_v^4 + \mg^4m_v^4\pgpz +   \mg^4m_v^2\left(\pgpz\right)^2   \right .
\nonumber \\ & & -   2\mg^2\left(\pgpz\right)^4       -   4\left(\pgpz\right)^5 \nonumber \\ & & \left .
-   \pgpsl\left[\mg^4m_v^4 +   \mg^2m_v^2\left(\pgpz\right)^2 -    4\left(\pgpz\right)^4\right ] \right .
\nonumber\\ & & \left .
+ \mg^2\left(\pgpz\right)^3 \left(3m_v^2 - 2\pslpz\right)\right\ }   \\
\calo_{8,9}^{\text re}&=&\frac{8}{3\mg m_v^2 } \left [ 2\mg^2m_v^2 + \left(\pgpz\right)^2\right ]   \left[m_v^2 + \pgpz -\pslpz\right ]   \\
\calo_{8,10}^{\text re}&=&\frac{8}{3\mg^2 m_v^2 } \left[2\mg^2m_v^2 + \left(\pgpz\right)^2\right ] \nonumber \\ & & \times \left[-\left(\mg^2 - 2\pgpsl\right)\pgpz   - 2\left(\pgpz\right)^2 + \mg^2\left(m_v^2 - \pslpz\right)\right ]   \\ \calo_{9,10}^{\text re}&=&\frac{8}{3\mg } \left[\mg^2 - \pgpsl+ \pgpz\right ] \left[2\mg^2m_v^2 + \left(\pgpz\right)^2\right ] \\
\calo_{1,8}^{\text im}&= & -\frac{8}{3\mg^2m_v^2}(\mg^2-\pgpsl+\pgpz ) \left\{\left[\msl^2m_v^2-(\pslpz)^2+(\pgpz)(\pslpz)\right]\mg^2 \right .
\nonumber \\ & & \left .
-m_v^2(\pgpsl)^2 + ( \pgpsl)(\pgpz)(\pslpz-\pgpz)\right\ } \\
\calo_{2,8}^{\text im}&= & -\frac{8}{3\mg^2m_v^2}(\mg^2-\pgpsl+\pgpz ) \left[(\msl^2m_v^2-(\pslpz)^2)\mg^2-m_v^2(\pgpsl)^2\right . \nonumber \\ & & \left.-(\pgpz)^2\pslpz + ( \pgpsl)(\pgpz)(m_v^2+\pslpz)\right ] \\
\calo_{3,8}^{\text im}&=&\calo_{4,8}^{\text im}=0\\ \calo_{5,8}^{\text im}&= & \frac{8}{3\mg^2}\left\ { ( \pgpsl-\mg^2)\pslpz \mg^2 -\pgpsl(\pgpz)^2\right . \nonumber
\\ & & \left .
+ \pgpz\left[\pgpsl \mg^2 + ( \pslpz-2 \msl^2)\mg^2+(\pgpsl)^2\right]\right\ } \\
\calo_{6,8}^{\text im}&=&\calo_{7,8}^{\text i m } = \calo_{8,9}^{\text im}=\calo_{8,10}^{\text im}=0 \ .\end{aligned}\ ] ]    99 j.  l.  feng , a.  rajaraman and f.  takayama , phys .
lett .   * 91 * , 011302 ( 2003 ) [ hep - ph/0302215 ] .
j.  l.  feng , a.  rajaraman and f.  takayama , phys .
d * 68 * , 063504 ( 2003 ) [ hep - ph/0306024 ] .
j.  r.  ellis , d.  v.  nanopoulos and s.  sarkar , nucl .
b * 259 * , 175 ( 1985 ) .
m.  bolz , w.  buchmuller and m.  plumacher , phys .
b * 443 * , 209 ( 1998 ) [ hep - ph/9809381 ] .
m.  bolz , a.  brandenburg and w.  buchmuller , nucl .
b * 606 * , 518 ( 2001 ) [ hep - ph/0012052 ] .
j.  r.  ellis , k.  a.  olive , y.  santoso and v.  spanos , hep - ph/0312262 .
j.  l.  feng , a.  rajaraman and f.  takayama , phys .
d * 68 * , 085018 ( 2003 ) [ hep - ph/0307375 ] .
superwimp dark matter shares some characteristics with axino dark matter .
see l.  covi , j.  e.  kim and l.  roszkowski , phys .
* 82 * , 4180 ( 1999 ) [ hep - ph/9905212 ] ; l.  covi , h.  b.  kim , j.  e.  kim and l.  roszkowski , jhep * 0105 * , 033 ( 2001 ) [ hep - ph/0101009 ] .
h.  pagels and j.  r.  primack , phys .
lett .   * 48 * , 223 ( 1982 ) .
t.  moroi , h.  murayama and m.  yamaguchi , phys .
b * 303 * , 289 ( 1993 ) .
m.  h.  reno and d.  seckel , phys .
d * 37 * , 3441 ( 1988 ) .
k.  kohri , phys .
d * 64 * , 043515 ( 2001 ) [ astro - ph/0103411 ] .
s.  dimopoulos , r.  esmailzadeh , l.  j.  hall and g.  d.  starkman , astrophys .  j.   * 330 * , 545 ( 1988 ) .
s.  dimopoulos , r.  esmailzadeh , l.  j.  hall and g.  d.  starkman , nucl .
b * 311 * , 699 ( 1989 ) .
m.  kawasaki , k.  kohri and t.  moroi , astro - ph/0402490 .
w.  buchmuller , k.  hamaguchi and m.  ratz , phys .
b * 574 * , 156 ( 2003 ) [ hep - ph/0307181 ] .
e.  w.  kolb , a.  notari and a.  riotto , phys .
d * 68 * , 123505 ( 2003 ) [ hep - ph/0307241 ] .
j.  l.  feng , s.  su and f.  takayama , in preparation .
d.  n.  spergel
_ et al . _ ,
astrophys .
j.  suppl .
* 148 * , 175 ( 2003 ) [ astro - ph/0302209 ] .
s.  burles , k.  m.  nollett and m.  s.  turner , astrophys .
j.   * 552 * , l1 ( 2001 ) [ astro - ph/0010171 ] .
d.  kirkman , d.  tytler , n.  suzuki , j.  m.  omeara and d.  lubin , astrophys .
j.  suppl .
* 149 * , 1 ( 2003 ) [ astro - ph/0302006 ] .
k.  a.  olive , e.  skillman and g.  steigman , astrophys .
j. * 483 * , 788 ( 1997 ) [ astro - ph/9611166 ] .
y.  i.  izotov and t.  x.  thuan , astrophys .
j. * 500 * , 188 ( 1998 ) .
s.  g.  ryan , t.  c.  beers , k.  a.  olive , b.  d.  fields and j.  e.  norris , astrophys .  j.  lett .
* 530 * , l57 ( 2000 ) [ astro - ph/9905211 ] .
r.  h.  cyburt , j.  r.  ellis , b.  d.  fields and k.  a.  olive , phys .
d * 67 * , 103521 ( 2003 ) [ astro - ph/0211258 ] .
m.  kawasaki and t.  moroi , astrophys .  j.   * 452 * , 506 ( 1995 ) [ astro - ph/9412055 ] .
k.  kohri , private communication .
e.  vangioni - flam , k.  a.  olive , b.  d.  fields and m.  casse , astrophys .  j.   * 585 * , 611 ( 2003 ) [ astro - ph/0207583 ] .
l.  brown and d.  n.  schramm , astrophys .
j.   * 329 * , l103 ( 1988 ) .
k.  jedamzik , phys .
lett .   * 84 * , 3248 ( 2000 ) [ astro - ph/9909445 ] .
p.  e.  nissen , d.  l.  lambert , f.  primas and v.  v.  smith , astro - ph/9906306 .
k.  jedamzik , astro - ph/0402344 .
m.  kawasaki and t.  moroi , phys .
b * 346 * , 27 ( 1995 ) [ hep - ph/9408321 ] .
j.  a.  frieman and g.  f.  giudice , phys .
b * 224 * , 125 ( 1989 ) .
x.  chen and m.  kamionkowski , astro - ph/0310473 .
k.  sigurdson and m.  kamionkowski , astro - ph/0311486 .
f.  takayama and m.  yamaguchi , phys .
b * 485 * , 388 ( 2000 ) [ hep - ph/0005214 ] .
g.  moreau and m.  chemtob , phys .
d * 65 * , 024033 ( 2002 ) [ hep - ph/0107286 ] .
h.  e.  haber and g.  l.  kane , phys .
rept .   *
117 * , 75 ( 1985 ) .