the 7 tev and 8 tev run at the large hadron collider ( lhc ) have revealed and confirmed the existence of a higgs - like particle @xmath0 in the standard model ( sm ) with mass in the narrow range of 125 - 126 @xmath1 @xcite .
this discovery is also verified by the recent tevatron final results @xcite .
the observation of this new particle combines evidence in the decays @xmath2 , @xmath3 and @xmath4 .
different signal strengths , defined as the product of higgs boson production cross sections from different channels and the branching ratios for different decay modes normalized to the corresponding products in sm , have been measured with good precision by both experiments at atlas and cms @xcite .
these measurements will be further improved in the future 13 - 14 tev run at the lhc , and perhaps at a future international linear collider ( ilc ) should this machine ever be built . from these signal strengths measurement
one can extract information on the couplings of this higgs - like particle to the gauge bosons and sm fermions . from the most recent measurements ,
extraction of this higgs - like particle couplings to sm particles seem to be consistent to a great extent with those of the sm higgs boson couplings @xcite .
moreover , data collected both at atlas and cms indicate that this higgs - like particle has zero spin and is cp - even , _
i.e. _ @xmath5 is preferred @xcite .
the discovery of the higgs - like particle at the lhc indicates for the first time that fundamental scalar exists in nature .
certainly , many phenomenological models that extend the sm scalar sector with just one scalar doublet existed already in the literature . some of them are motivated by physics of the dark matter ( dm ) or neutrinos masses . among these extensions
, we have models with multiple higgs doublets , with one higgs doublet and multiple singlets or triplets etc .
all these extensions should have one light scalar with higgs - like couplings to sm particles in the range tolerated by signal strength measurements .
indeed many studies ( see for example the references in @xcite ) have been done using these data to constrain various extensions of the scalar sector of the sm .    in this paper , we concentrate on the inert higgs doublet model ( ihdm ) which is a very simple extension of the sm .
it was first proposed by deshpande and ma @xcite in order to study the pattern of electroweak symmetry breaking .
the ihdm is an attractive model due to its simplicity .
it is basically a two higgs doublet model ( thdm ) ( see @xcite for a recent overview ) with an imposed exact @xmath6 symmetry . under the @xmath6 symmetry , all the sm particles are even representing the visible sector , while the new higgs doublet field is odd representing the inert dark sector . imposing the @xmath6 symmetry
forbids the second higgs doublet developing a vacuum expectation value ( vev ) and all the inert particles in this doublet can only appear in pair in their interaction vertices .
indeed , recent studies @xcite of global fits of the lhc data suggest that the couplings between the @xmath7 and @xmath8 gauge bosons with the new 125 - 126 gev higgs - like boson are very close to their sm values
. the new 125 - 126 gev boson may play the entire role of electroweak symmetry breaking ( ewsb ) and leave no room for other higgs fields to develop any vevs .
this favors the ihdm . as a result
, ihdm exhibits very interesting phenomenology .
it predicts the existence of a neutral scalar field , denoted generically by @xmath9 here , which is the lightest odd particle ( lop ) in this model and will play the role of dm candidate .
the higgs mechanism provides a portal for communication between the inert dark sector and the visible sm sector .
thus if kinematics allowed , the sm higgs boson may decay into a pair of dm @xmath9 and will contribute to the invisible sm higgs boson width which is now constrained by the lhc data .
moreover , annihilation of @xmath9 into sm particles will provide thermal relic density and the scattering of @xmath9 onto nucleons will lead to direct detection signatures . therefore , ihdm could be considered as a simple but competitive model in the market with a weakly interacting massive particle ( wimp ) . as we will see later , ihdm could predict correct dm relic density as well as a cross section for scattering of @xmath9 onto nucleons that is consistent with existing data from direct detection .
almost three decades later , ihdm was extended further by ma @xcite to include three @xmath6 odd weak singlets of right - handed neutrinos with majorana masses . in this extended model @xcite , a radiative seesaw mechanism for light neutrino masses
was proposed and either @xmath9 or one of the right - handed neutrinos could be dm candidate .
we will not consider this extended version of ihdm in this work but would like to return to this in the future @xcite .    as mentioned earlier ,
there have been many attempts to introduce dm higgs models by extending the sm scalar sector with more singlets or doublets @xcite . in particular , the phenomenology of ihdm had been extensively discussed in the context of dm phenomenology @xcite and also for collider phenomenology @xcite .
ihdm has been also advocated to explain the naturalness problem @xcite . in the present study
, we will reconsider the ihdm model in light of the recent atlas and cms discovery of a higgs - like particle of 125 - 126 gev .
we assume that the lop must fulfill the recent relic density measurement by planck @xcite . as a good dm candidate test
, we also consider the constraints from dm direct and indirect detection .
for the constraint from dm direct detection search , we study the impact from the most recent lux upper limit @xcite which provides a robust constraint on the parameter space . as for indirect detection
, we will take into account the fermi - lat @xmath10-ray observations of the dwarf spheroidal galaxies ( dsphs ) @xcite and the galactic center ( gc ) @xcite .
in addition to @xmath10-rays , we also include constraints from cosmic ray electrons / positrons from ams-02 @xcite , pamela @xcite , and fermi - lat @xcite , and cosmic ray anti - protons from pamela @xcite .
these constraints will be also supplemented by the lhc constraints such as monojet and diphoton signal strength measurement as well as constraint on the higgs boson invisible decay width .
some of the above aspects for ihdm have been discussed in recent studies @xcite .
the compatibility of a heavy sm higgs boson with lhc results and xenon100 data @xcite were discussed in ref .
@xcite . similar issues for ihdm were discussed in ref .
@xcite with the inclusion of radiative corrections to the scalar masses of the model .
@xcite also included renormalization group effects for the quartic scalar couplings @xmath11 in order to evaluate vacuum stability , perturbativity and unitarity constraints at a higher scale . in our analysis
, we will go further by including also the following aspects :    * larger parameter space for dm mass : we will scan @xmath12 from 5 gev to 4 tev .
* lhc monojet constraint in the likelihood .
* accurate dm indirect detection likelihood .
* constraints from the first result of lux in direct detection likelihood . *
future sensitivity to monojet search at lhc with 14 tev at the planned luminosity of 100 fb@xmath13 and 300 fb@xmath13 .
* sensitivity to ams-02 anti - protons and xenon1 t .
the layout of this paper is as follows . in section 2 ,
we briefly review ihdm and its parameterization .
we then list the theoretical constraints such as perturbativity , perturbative unitarity and vacuum stability that must be satisfied by the scalar potential parameters .
the constraints from collider searches that ihdm is subjected to are discussed in section 3 .
these include : electroweak precision test constraints , @xmath7 and @xmath8 width constraints , negative search for charginos and neutralinos from lep - ii that could restrict the inert higgs bosons masses , diphoton signal strength measurement as well as monojet constraint from dm search at lhc . in section 4
, we will discuss the relic density measurement by planck as well as dm direct detection and indirect detection constraints . in section 5
, we present our methodology for likelihood analysis and explain how all the constraints are included .
we present our numerical results in section 6 .
future experimental constraints from lhc-14 , xenon1 t and ams-02 are discussed in section 7 .
we conclude in section 8 .
in this section , we briefly review the salient features of ihdm and discuss some existing theoretical constraints .
the ihdm @xcite is a rather simple extension of the sm higgs sector .
it contains the sm higgs doublet @xmath14 and an additional higgs doublet @xmath15 .
this model has a @xmath6 symmetry under which all the sm fields including @xmath14 are even while @xmath15 is odd under @xmath6 : @xmath16 .
we further assume that @xmath6 symmetry is not spontaneously broken _
i.e. _ @xmath15 field does not develop vev .
these doublets can be parameterized as : h_1 = (    c g^+ + ( v + h +
i g^0 )    )  ,   h_2 = (    c h^+ + ( s + i a )    ) where @xmath17 and @xmath18 are the charged and neutral goldstone bosons respectively , which will be absorbed by the @xmath19 and @xmath8 to acquire their masses .
the scalar potential with an exact @xmath6 symmetry forbids the mass term @xmath20 which mixes @xmath14 and @xmath15 .
thus it has one fewer term than in thdm , _
i.e. _ @xmath21 the electroweak gauge symmetry is broken when @xmath14 doublet gets its vev : @xmath22 while @xmath23 .
this pattern of symmetry breaking ensures unbroken @xmath6 symmetry and results in one more cp - even neutral scalar @xmath24 , one cp - odd neutral scalar @xmath25 , a pair of charged scalars @xmath26 and @xmath27 in addition to the sm
cp - even scalar higgs @xmath0 . note that since @xmath0 is the sm higgs boson , it is @xmath6 even , while @xmath24 , @xmath25 and @xmath28 are @xmath6 odd .
moreover , the exact @xmath6 symmetry naturally imposes the flavor conservation .
only sm higgs boson couples to sm fermions while the inert higgses @xmath24 , @xmath25 and @xmath28 do not .
the @xmath6 symmetry also ensures the stability of the lightest scalar ( @xmath24 or @xmath25 ) that can act as a dm candidate .
dm phenomenology of ihdm had been studied extensively in the literature @xcite .    the above scalar potential in eq .
( [ potential ] ) has 8 real parameters : 5 @xmath11 , 2 @xmath29 and the vev @xmath30 .
minimization condition for the scalar potential eliminates @xmath31 in favour of the higgs mass and the vev @xmath30 is fixed to be 246 @xmath1 by the weak gauge boson masses .
we are left with 6 independent real parameters .
the masses of all the four physical scalars can be written in terms of @xmath32 and @xmath33 as the following @xmath34 where _ l , a=(_3 + _ 4 _ 5 ) .
four of the five quartic couplings can be written in terms of physical scalar masses and @xmath35 as the following expressions _ 1 & = & , _ 3 = ( m_h^^2 - _ 2 ^ 2 ) , + _ 4 & = & , _ 5 = .
[ lambds ] we are then free to take @xmath36 and @xmath35 as 6 independent parameters , or equivalently , the following set \{m_h , m_s , m_a , m_h^ , _ 2 , _
l } [ eq : input_par_2 ] which is more convenient for our purposes to describe the full scalar sector . in our tree level parameterization
, @xmath37 can be expressed as _ a = _ l - _ 5 = _
[ eq : lambda_a ] it is clear from eq .
( [ eq : lambda_a ] ) that @xmath38 for @xmath39 and @xmath40 for @xmath41 . in our systematic scan in the following numerical work
, we will consider both cases where @xmath42 or @xmath43 being the lop .
thus , the dm mass is defined as m_=m_s , m_a . in order to illustrate constraint on @xmath44 with @xmath24 or @xmath25 being the lop , we define the coupling @xmath45 as @xmath46 the coupling @xmath47 shows up directly in the relic density computation depends on whether @xmath48 or @xmath49
.      the parameters of the scalar potential of the ihdm are severely constrained by theoretical constraints .
first , to trust our perturbative calculations we have to require all quartic couplings in the scalar potential of eq .
( [ potential ] ) to obey @xmath50 .
second , in order to have a scalar potential bounded from below we must also demand the following constraints @xcite : @xmath51 third , to further constrain the scalar potential parameters of the ihdm one can impose tree - level unitarity in a variety of scattering processes among the various scalars and gauge bosons . for the unitarity constraints , it is convenience to define the following twelve parameters @xmath52 @xcite : @xmath53 the perturbative unitarity constraints are then imposed on all @xmath52 satisfying @xcite    the strongest constraints on @xmath54 when @xmath55 , which translate into @xmath56 in fact , from eq .
( [ mh - lambda1 ] ) with @xmath57 gev and @xmath58 gev we have @xmath59 which is well below the unitarity bound given by eq .
( [ eq : lam2cons ] ) .
in this section , we discuss dm constraints from the collider search experiments .
we will focus on the constraints from the electroweak precision test ( ewpt ) experiments at lep - ii , neutral and charged higgs search at lep - ii , as well as the mass and the invisible width of the higgs , diphoton signal strength and monojet search from the lhc .
* ewpt is a common approach to constrain physics beyond sm by using the global electroweak fit through the oblique @xmath24 , @xmath60 and @xmath61 parameters @xcite .
it is well known that in the sm the ewpt implies a close relation between the three masses @xmath62 , @xmath63 and @xmath64 .
similarly , in the ihdm , the ewpt implies constraints on the mass splitting among the higgs boson masses @xcite . in this study
, we will use the pdg values of @xmath24 and @xmath60 with @xmath61 fixed to be zero @xcite .
we allow @xmath24 and @xmath60 parameters to be within 95% c.l .
( confidence level ) .
the central value of @xmath24 and @xmath60 , assuming a sm higgs boson mass of @xmath57 gev , are given by @xcite : s = 0.05 0.09 ,    t = 0.08 0.07 .
the correlation between @xmath24 and @xmath60 is 91% in this fit .
analytic expressions for @xmath24 and @xmath60 in ihdm can be found in ref .
* other lep constraints come from the precise measurements of @xmath7 and @xmath8 widths . in order not to affect these decay widths
we demand that the channels @xmath65 and/or @xmath66 are kinematically not open .
this leads to the following constraints : @xmath67 , @xmath68 and @xmath69 @xcite . + additional constraints on the charged higgs boson @xmath28 , cp - even @xmath24 and cp - odd @xmath25 masses can be derived .
note that lep , tevatron and lhc bounds on @xmath28 and @xmath25 can not apply because the standard search channels assumes that those scalars decays into a pair of fermions which are absent in the ihdm due to @xmath6 symmetry . + in the ihdm , if @xmath24 is the lop the cp - odd @xmath25 could decay like @xmath70 , while the charged higgs boson @xmath28 could decay into @xmath71 and/or @xmath72 followed by @xmath70 .
therefore the final states of the two production processes @xmath73 and @xmath74 would be multi - leptons or multi - jets , depending on the decay products of @xmath19 and @xmath8 , plus missing energies . to certain extents , the signatures for the charged higgs case would be similar to the supersymmetry searches for charginos and neutralinos at @xmath75 or at hadron colliders @xcite . and @xmath76 in the ihdm case @xcite .
the cross sections for fermionic and scalar pair production are scaled by @xmath77 and @xmath78 respectively , where @xmath79 is the velocity of the final state particle in the center - of - mass frame .
hence , the scalar pair will be suppressed by an extra factor of @xmath79 as compared with the fermionic case . ] taking into account these considerations , we will safely choose in our scan for the charged higgs mass @xmath80 being always greater than @xmath81 .
for the neutral inert higgses @xmath24 and @xmath25 , neutralinos search at lep - ii via @xmath82 followed by @xmath83 @xcite could apply here since the process @xmath74 followed by the cascade @xmath84 would give similar signals .
such analysis had been carefully done in ref .
their limits on @xmath85 and @xmath86 can be summarized as @xmath87 @xmath88 . however , in the present study , we will use the exact exclusion region as given in ref .
* : + in the ihdm , the sm higgs boson @xmath0 have similar couplings to sm fermions and gauge bosons
. therefore , as long as @xmath0 decays into sm final states , all the measurements from atlas and cms experiments about sm higgs boson properties can be used . in particular
, we will require the mass of the sm higgs boson of the ihdm should lie within the measurement @xcite : @xmath89 * the openings of one of the non - standard decays of the higgs boson such as @xmath90 or @xmath91 , 70 gev in our numerical scan ] hence @xmath92 is not open .
can modify the total width of the higgs boson and can have significant impact on lhc results .
since either @xmath42 or @xmath25 is the lightest @xmath6 odd particle , it will be stable and the decay @xmath93 will be invisible .
both atlas and cms had performed searches for invisible decay of the higgs boson @xcite . using the higgs - strahlung sm cross section for @xmath94 with a 125 gev sm higgs boson , atlas @xcite has excluded an invisible branching ratio of the higgs boson larger than 65% with 95% c.l .. cms also studied the invisible decay of the higgs boson produced via the vector boson fusion ( vbf ) mechanism and obtained an upper limit for the invisible branching ratio of 69% with 95% c.l ..
when the two production mechanisms are combined the upper limit becomes 54% with 95% c.l .
this constraint on the invisible decay is rather weak compared to the one derived from various works of global fits to atlas and cms data @xcite .
these global fits studies suggest that the branching ratio of the invisible decay of the higgs boson should not exceed 19% at 95% c.l . in the case where the higgs boson has sm - like couplings to all sm particles plus additional invisible decay mode which is exactly the case as in ihdm . on the other hand , if one allows for deviation in the @xmath95 ( and @xmath96 as well on general grounds but not for ihdm ) coupling from its sm value the 95% c.l .
limit on the invisible higgs decay branching ratio moves up to 29% @xcite .
* assuming that the production cross section of the higgs boson is dominated by the gluon gluon fusion process , the diphoton signal strength in the ihdm normalized to the sm value can be simplified as @xmath97 where in the first line we have used the narrow width approximation and in the second line we used the fact that @xmath98 is the same in both the sm and ihdm .
thus the signal strength @xmath99 in ihdm is simply given by the ratio of the branching ratios , which is not necessarily one since the charged higgs boson in ihdm can provide extra contribution other than the sm particles to the triangle loop amplitude of @xmath100 .
+ at atlas , the overall signal strength for diphoton is about @xmath101 , which corresponds to about 2@xmath102 deviation from the sm prediction @xcite , while the other channels are consistent with sm .
however , at cms , the new analysis for diphoton mode based on multivariate analysis @xcite gives a signal strength about @xmath103 , which is consistent with sm .
many proposals based on physics beyond sm , including ihdm , have been suggested to explain the diphoton excess , but the actual disagreement between atlas and cms does not allow to draw any definite conclusions yet , given the current level of statistics . in the present analysis we will not try to explain the diphoton excess but rather study the impact of the other constraints on the ratio @xmath99 . * besides using the invisible width of the higgs decay , another strategy to look for dm at the lhc is to study high @xmath104 monojet balanced by a large missing transverse energy @xmath105 @xcite .
such kind of signature is possible in ihdm by producing the sm higgs boson @xmath0 in association with an energetic jet followed by the invisible decay of @xmath0 . in our analysis
we will consider the following parton processes : * * @xmath106 : @xmath107-channel and @xmath108-channel tree level diagrams with the higgs boson radiated from @xmath109 quark legs , * * @xmath110 : @xmath108-channel diagram through tree level gluon - quark - anti - quark vertex and one - loop @xmath96 effective vertex , * * @xmath111 : @xmath108-channel diagram through tree level three gluon vertex and one - loop @xmath96 effective vertex , * * @xmath112 : @xmath107-channel diagram through tree level gluon - quark - anti - quark vertex and one - loop @xmath96 effective vertex .
+ in all these processes , the final state consists of a pair of invisible dm particles plus a quark or gluon jet . for the experimental cuts , see the later discussion of the likelihood function for the monojet data in section [ section:5 ] .
it is well known that annihilation of @xmath9 into sm particles and other inert higgs bosons can contribute to thermal relic density as well as indirect dm signals of high energy gamma - rays , positrons , antiprotons or neutrinos , while the scattering of @xmath9 onto nuclei will lead to direct detection signals by measuring the recoil energy of the nuclei via scintillation light , heat or ionization or some combinations of these three different signals using different technologies .
* assuming a standard thermal evolution of our universe , we compute the relic density from the following channels : @xmath113 ( @xmath114 ) , @xmath115 and @xmath116 . since @xmath9 can be either @xmath24 or @xmath25 , we consider @xmath117 or @xmath118 annihilation .
+ note that in the case where @xmath119 , we take into account the annihilation into 3-body final state from @xmath120 or 4-body final state from @xmath121 ( @xmath122 ) .
all the annihilation into sm particles channels proceed through @xmath107-channel higgs boson exchange while the annihilation into inert higgs particles such as @xmath123 , @xmath124 and @xmath118 will proceed through both @xmath107-channel and @xmath108-channel higgs boson exchange as well as the contact interactions with the quartic couplings for the @xmath125 , @xmath126 and @xmath127 vertices .
the calculation is done using the public code ` micromegas ` @xcite .
the outcome of our relic density calculation should be in agreement with the recent planck measurement @xcite : @xmath128 + as is well known if the mass splitting between the lop and next - lightest odd particle ( nlop ) is @xmath129 or so , the number densities of these nlops have only slight boltzmann suppression with respect to the lop number density . therefore , the contributions to the relic density from the scattering of lop - nlop and nlop - nlop have to be taken into account in order to have a more precise relic density prediction .
these mechanisms are known as coannihilation  @xcite . as these
are implemented already in the package ` micromegas `  @xcite , we can take the @xmath130 , @xmath131 and @xmath132 coannihilation into account at ease .
* at present the most stringent limit on the spin - independent component of elastic scattering cross section @xmath133 for @xmath134 comes from lux @xcite .
they improved the minimum @xmath133 upper limit obtained by xenon100 @xcite about an overall factor of 3 .
this result then sets the limit on the spin - independent cross section , @xmath135 pb for dm mass @xmath136 gev . in this study , we include the 90% upper limit obtained in @xcite for @xmath133 versus the dm mass in our likelihood function .
however , one should bear in mind that @xmath133 may be susceptible to large theoretical uncertainties from the hadronic matrix elements
. we will take into account the uncertainties in the hadronic matrix elements , as will be discussed later in section [ section:5 ] .
* we consider the fermi - lat observations of @xmath10-rays from dsphs @xcite and gc @xcite .
the @xmath137 dsphs as adopted in @xcite will be used in this work .
four years of the fermi - lat data , recorded from 4 august 2008 to 2 august 2012 with the pass 7 photon selection , are employed in this analysis .
the energy range of photons is chosen from @xmath138 mev to @xmath139 gev , and the region - of - interest ( roi ) is adopted to be a @xmath140 box centered on each dsphs . for the gc analysis , a slightly smaller roi region of @xmath141 is chosen to avoid too many sources in the analysis . in the likelihood analysis , the normalization of the diffuse background models gal_2yearp7v6_v0.fits and iso_p7v6source.txt , and the point sources located in the rois in the second lat catalog @xcite are left free to do the minimization .
the fermi - lat data are binned into @xmath142 energy bins logarithmically spaced between @xmath143 and @xmath144 gev , and we calculate the likelihood map of fermi - lat dsphs and gc observations on the @xmath145flux plane following the method developed in @xcite .
such a method is very efficient to derive the final likelihood of any specific @xmath10-ray spectrum , and is tested to be consistent with the standard analysis procedure using fermi scientific tool @xcite . *
the cosmic ray positron fraction measured by pamela @xcite and most recently by ams-02 @xcite show clear evidence of excess compared with the secondary production as expected from the cosmic ray propagation model .
the fluxes of the total @xmath75 measured by atic @xcite , fermi - lat @xcite , hess @xcite and magic @xcite also show the deviation from the extrapolation of the low energy pamela data @xcite , which further supports the existence of extra @xmath75 sources .
there are many models proposed to account for the @xmath75 excesses , including the astrophysical sources such as pulsars and supernova remnants , and dm annihilation / decay ( see _ e.g. _ the review articles @xcite ) . +
while the dm model would suffer from strong constraints from @xmath10-ray observations @xcite , it has been shown that the pulsars with reasonable parameters can explain the positron fraction as well as the electron plus positron flux data @xcite .
therefore in this work we first fit both data set with the background plus pulsar - like models , and then add the dm contributions from ihdm to calculate their likelihoods @xcite .
the framework for doing such calculation in this astrophysical setting can be found in @xcite .
basically , a markov chain monte carlo ( mcmc ) based global fitting tool was used to determine the model parameters .
the observational data used in the fit include the ams-02 positron fraction @xcite , pamela electron spectrum @xcite , and the total @xmath75 spectra of fermi - lat @xcite and hess @xcite .
note that for the background electron spectrum we employ a three - piece broken power - law function in order to fit simultaneously the above data @xcite .
+ the solar modulation affects the fluxes of the particles at low energy . in this work
we simply adopt the force - field approximation to account for the solar modulation effect @xcite .
it was found that the modulation potential @xmath146 mv can fit both the positron fraction and electron spectra .
however , for the cosmic ray protons , a smaller modulation potential @xmath147 mv is favoured by the pamela data @xcite .
we leave this as an open question because the solar modulation may indeed depend on the mass - to - charge ratio of particles .
the best - fitting positron fraction and electron spectra compared with the observational data are shown in fig .
[ fig : bkgep ] .
the model fits the data well and the reduced @xmath148 is about @xmath149 .
+    + when calculating the likelihood after adding the dm contributions in ihdm , we further multiply a factor of @xmath150 to the fluxes of the background components ( @xmath151 for the @xmath152 background , @xmath153 background and pulsar @xmath154 respectively ) , in order to take the uncertainties of the modelling into account @xcite .
the parameters @xmath155 and @xmath156 are left free and treated as nuisance parameters in our analysis .
they are allowed to vary in the range of @xmath157 and @xmath158 to calculate the maximum likelihood of a specific dm model point . *
the precise measurement of the antiproton - to - proton ratio and antiproton flux by pamela show relatively good agreement with the cosmic ray background model expectation @xcite , which leaves limited space for the dm models @xcite .
we calculate the expected antiproton flux in the same propagation model used to explain the @xmath75 data , as shown in fig . [
fig : bkgap ] .
the solar modulation potential is adopted to be @xmath139 mv as suggested by pamela @xcite .
same as the @xmath155 and @xmath156 in @xmath75 case , an adjustment factor @xmath159 with nuisance parameters @xmath160 and @xmath161 varied in the same respective range is employed to account for the uncertainties of the background estimation .        in table
[ tab : exp_constraints ] , we summarize all the experimental constraints mentioned in this and previous section . to avoid words cluttering in later presentation , we denote the first block of relic density and collider constraints together with the theoretical constraints as * rc * ( relic density and collider ) , the second block of lux constraint as * dd * ( direct detection ) and the third block of constraints as * i d * ( indirect detection ) . additionally , we reject those points during our parameter scans which violate any one of the theoretical constraints on ihdm mentioned in section [ section:2b ] .
we note that the data in the * rc * block does not involve large theoretical uncertainties compared with the other two blocks , so we will take special care of this block by including it only at the scan level .    .
the experimental constraints that we include in our likelihood functions to constrain the ihdm model .
we denote the first block of relic density and collider constraints together with the theoretical constraints as * rc * ( relic and collider ) , lux constraint as * dd * ( direct detection ) and the last block of constraints as * i d * ( indirect detection ) . [ cols="<,<,<,<,<,<",options="header " , ]     in table  [ tab : bestpts ] , we summarize the best - fit points for the three different blocks from our scan .
the second column is only with * rc * constraints in the likelihood while the third and fourth columns are with * rc+id * and * rc+dd+id * in the likelihood , respectively .
we would like to stress that there is no preference of @xmath42 or @xmath43 due to the symmetry between @xmath24 and @xmath25 in the model .
we find that the maximum likelihood of @xmath162 and @xmath163 are roughly the same .
therefore , the fact that the best - fit points are located at @xmath42 or @xmath43 region is just due to the fact that we collected the maximum likelihood before hitting the sampling stop criteria . in other words
, we can not tell the dark matter in ihdm must be a scalar or pseudoscalar from this analysis .
however , we can see that the best - fit points of three sets of constraint are all located at the lower @xmath12 region .
the reasons for this are mainly due to the ewpt and indirect detection constraints .
first , the nearly degeneracy between @xmath80 and @xmath12 required by relic density constraints at the @xmath164 region implies @xmath24 and @xmath60 are always negligible . on the other hand , @xmath24 and @xmath60
can be enhanced in the @xmath165 region due to larger mass splitting between @xmath28 and @xmath9 .
hence , we can obtain the better likelihood in small @xmath12 region .
second , the lower @xmath12 region may amplify the indirect detection signal too , because the signal fluxes of indirect detection experiments are inversely proportional to @xmath166 .
hence , lower @xmath12 region can have stronger signals to fit current * i d * constraints than astrophysical background only . on the other hand ,
the fluxes from dm annihilation in the @xmath164 region can be suppressed and may be lower than the astrophysical background . as seen from figs .
[ fig : bkgep ] and [ fig : bkgap ] , there are still some rooms for dm in indirect detection experiments . perhaps not a discovery with large statistical significance , but a weak signal usually fits the likelihood better than using the background only hypothesis . certainly , our understandings of the astrophysical backgrounds could be too naive .
the @xmath167 profile likelihood of the * rc+id+dd * constraints projected on the ( @xmath12 , @xmath168 ) plane for the monojet result at lhc-14 .
the black crosses will be excluded by the future 100 @xmath169 data .
the orange square will still be allowed by 100 @xmath169 data but disfavoured by 300 @xmath169 data .
the red dots will be allowed by 300 @xmath169 data .
they are all in @xmath167 significance .
, width=384 ]    in this section , we will consider the sensitivities of three future experiments : ( 1 ) lhc-14 monojet with luminosities 100 fb@xmath13 and 300 fb@xmath13 , ( 2 ) xenon1 t , and ( 3 ) ams-02 one year antiproton data , given the parameter space obtained in previous section that satisfies the * rc+dd+id * constraints .      at the 14 tev run of lhc ( lhc-14 )
, we will discuss the impact of the monojet search with luminosities of 100 fb@xmath13 and 300 fb@xmath13 .
we assume a null measurement of dm with background events same as observed , _
i.e. _ @xmath170 where @xmath109 and @xmath171 are the background and observed events at 100 fb@xmath13 or 300 fb@xmath13 obtained by scaling the current cms data at luminosity of @xmath172 . using the standard sensitivity formula , @xmath173 ,
we compute the significance of monojet for lhc-14 .    in fig .
[ fig : mx_laml_lhc14 ] , we present the potential power of lhc monojet search with 100 fb@xmath13 and 300 fb@xmath13 on the ( @xmath12,@xmath168 ) plane . in linear scale
, we zoom into the region @xmath174 where the invisible higgs decay is open .
all the points shown satisfy the * rc+dd+id * constraints in @xmath167 . with 100 fb@xmath13 of data , only the orange boxes will be allowed while the few black crosses located near the boundary where @xmath175 will be disfavoured in the @xmath167 subset . however , with 300 fb@xmath13 of data , the range of @xmath168 will be extended to the region of red dots in fig .  [
fig : mx_laml_lhc14 ] where @xmath176 .      in fig .
[ fig : mx_sigv_xenon1 t ] , we show the disfavoured region by future xenon1 t sensitivities subjected to the * rc+id+dd * constraints in @xmath167 significance .
the left panel is for @xmath177 and the right panel is for ( @xmath12 , @xmath178 ) .
the red dots are favoured but gray dots / crosses are disfavoured by xenon1 t limit . although the region of @xmath164 can not be entirely ruled out by xenon1 t from our global analysis based on tree level calculation , a recent paper  @xcite pointed out that electroweak corrections can significantly alter the theoretical prediction of @xmath133 , especially for large @xmath12 region .
as shown in their computation , @xmath133 is not expected to be lower than @xmath179 pb even when one loop corrections are included  @xcite .
we thus expect next generation of ton - sized detectors for dm direct detection can probe most of the parameter space of ihdm .
the left and right panels show the sensitivity of xenon1 t on the ( @xmath12 , @xmath168 ) and ( @xmath12 , @xmath178 ) planes respectively subjected to the * rc+id+dd * constraints in @xmath167 significance . the red ( gray ) area will be allowed ( excluded ) by xenon1 t sensitivity .
, title="fig:",width=288 ]   the left and right panels show the sensitivity of xenon1 t on the ( @xmath12 , @xmath168 ) and ( @xmath12 , @xmath178 ) planes respectively subjected to the * rc+id+dd * constraints in @xmath167 significance
. the red ( gray ) area will be allowed ( excluded ) by xenon1 t sensitivity . ,
title="fig:",width=288 ]      we generate the simulated one year ams-02 data of the antiprotons following ref . @xcite . the expected antiproton flux @xmath180 is adopted to be the one described in section [ section:2 ] ( see fig . [ fig : bkgap ] ) .
the number of antiproton events in a given energy bin is approximately @xmath181 where @xmath182 is the simulated geometry factor given in @xcite , @xmath183 is the width of the energy bin and @xmath184 is the exposure time .
we generate the data from 1 to 300 gev , with 50 bins logarithmically evenly distributed according to the binning of the positron fraction measurement by ams-02 @xcite . for the `` observed '' number of events we apply a poisson fluctuation on @xmath185 , with statistical error @xmath186 .
the systematic error is simply adopted to be @xmath187 @xcite , which is added quadratically to the statistical error . the simulated antiproton flux for one year observation of ams-02
is shown in the left panel of fig .
[ fig : ap_ams02 ] . using the simulated antiproton data
, we calculate the @xmath148 of each dm model point with the same method described in sections [ section:4 ] and [ section:5 ] . in the right panel of fig .
[ fig : ap_ams02 ] , the exclusion power of the ams-02 one year antiproton data is shown .
the red dots are allowed but gray crosses are disfavoured by future sensitivity . comparing with the exclusion power of xenon1 t sensitivity ( right panel of fig .
[ fig : mx_sigv_xenon1 t ] ) , we can see most of parameter space excluded by ams-02 antiproton data are also excluded by xenon1 t .
however , for the @xmath188 at the higgs resonance region ( near the top of the second vertical branch from the left ) , one can find some small fractions of red dots that can be excluded by ams-02 antiproton data but not yet ruled out by xenon1 t .
this is because the dm annihilation channels are dominant by @xmath189 or @xmath190 final state at these points .
however the @xmath191 coupling is irrelevant to direct detection and the @xmath192 coupling can contribute to direct detection only by integrating this heavy @xmath109 quark to obtain the @xmath193 coupling . hence its contributions to @xmath133 is also small as compared with light quarks .    , @xmath12 ) plane ( _ right _ ) .
the red dots ( gray crosses ) will be allowed ( excluded ) by ams-02 anti - proton one year sensitivity .
, title="fig:",width=288 ] , @xmath12 ) plane ( _ right _ ) .
the red dots ( gray crosses ) will be allowed ( excluded ) by ams-02 anti - proton one year sensitivity .
, title="fig:",width=288 ]      we finally show in fig .
[ fig : mx_laml_allfuture ] the total impact from the combined sensitivities from the above three future experiments on the ( @xmath12,@xmath168 ) plane . for the lhc-14 monojet
, we will assume 300 fb@xmath13 of data in making these two plots . left and right panels correspond to @xmath12 less than 100 gev and greater than 500 gev respectively .
with all three future experiments sensitivities , from the left panel of a zoomed - in view of low @xmath12 region , we see that the lower limit of @xmath12 is lifted slightly from @xmath194 to @xmath195 . in this low mass region
where the invisible decay @xmath196 is open , while we do not found any upper limit on @xmath12 , @xmath168 is found to lie between @xmath197 and @xmath198 . on the other hand ,
if the invisible mode is closed , the upper and lower limit of @xmath168 is varied with respect to @xmath12 ( right panel ) . comparing with current experimental data , these three future experiments sensitivities are robust but
neither the lower @xmath12 region nor the larger @xmath12 region can be entirely ruled out .     the scatter plots to present the future combined sensitivity from xenon1 t , lhc-14 monojet ( 300 fb@xmath13 ) , and ams-02 antiproton flux measurements on ( @xmath12,@xmath199 ) plane subjected to the * rc+id+dd * constraints in @xmath167 significance .
the left and right panels are for @xmath200 gev and @xmath201 gev respectively .
, title="fig:",width=288 ]   the scatter plots to present the future combined sensitivity from xenon1 t , lhc-14 monojet ( 300 fb@xmath13 ) , and ams-02 antiproton flux measurements on ( @xmath12,@xmath199 ) plane subjected to the * rc+id+dd * constraints in @xmath167 significance .
the left and right panels are for @xmath200 gev and @xmath201 gev respectively .
, title="fig:",width=288 ] +
despite ihdm was proposed more than three decades ago , it is still one of the most simplest models and yet viable for scalar dark matter .
we have performed a global fit analysis on this model .
this analysis has been performed in light of the recent atlas and cms discovery of a 125 - 126 gev higgs - like particle , taking into account the recent relic density measurement by planck , dm direct detection from lux and indirect detection from pamela , fermi - lat and ams-02 .
we have shown that the constraint from dm direct detection search , such as the latest lux upper limit of year 2013 , provides a robust constraint on the parameter space .
in particular , if the invisible decay of the sm higgs boson is open , the upper limit of the higgs invisible width from lhc together with the lux constraint could put some interesting limits on the sm higgs boson couplings to the dm in ihdm .
indeed , an invisible decay of the sm higgs boson with a branching ratio larger than 30% and a scalar dark matter mass within the range of 20 - 60 gev are excluded by current data .
we emphasize that there is no preference of @xmath42 or @xmath25 in our study .
however , we found that @xmath165 region is slightly favoured by ewpt and * i d * constraints than @xmath202 region .
in addition , in the 95% c.l . of * rc+dd+id
* constraints , @xmath12 has the lower limit around @xmath194 .
the exclusion power of the ams-02 one year antiproton data on the model parameters can be inferred from figs .
[ fig : ap_ams02 ] and [ fig : mx_laml_allfuture ] .
the results show that ams-02 does have the potential to constrain certain parameter space of ihdm , especially in the low mass region .
however , compared with the direct detection limit expected from xenon1 t , the constraint from ams-02 antiproton data is weaker as comparing the two figs .
[ fig : mx_sigv_xenon1 t ] and [ fig : ap_ams02 ] .    nevertheless , future data from lhc-14 monojet , xenon1 t direct detection and ams-02 antiproton flux can further reduce the ihdm parameter space constrained by the existing * rc+dd+id * data , as is shown inevitably in the red regions as compared with the gray regions in the two plots at the left and right panels of fig .
[ fig : mx_laml_allfuture ] for the low and high dm mass regions respectively .
we also note that the likelihoods obtained in this work were obtained using the tree level relation for @xmath199 and @xmath37 ( eq .  ( [ eq : lambda_a ] ) ) and the tree level formula for the coupling @xmath47 ( eq .  ( [ eq : lamchi ] ) ) .
higher order corrections will necessarily modify these relations and hence the relic density prediction will be affected .
the profile likelihoods for the ihdm will be modified as well .
although loop corrections have been shown to affect significantly the dm scattering cross - section on nucleons in the ihdm  @xcite and thus modify the impact of direct detection searches on the viable parameter space of the model , it is beyond the scope of the present analysis to take them into account .
one should bear in mind that such corrections will also probably affect the positions of the best - fit points .    in summary
, we note that the overall shapes of the 95% c.l .
contours presented in this work are mainly determined by the planck relic density measurement .
lhc monojet is only relevant when the invisible decay of the higgs is open , in which case we obtain the limit for the coupling @xmath203 which is not very stringent . on the other hand ,
our best - fit points are located at @xmath204 70 gev and so do not allow the opening for invisible decay of the sm higgs into dm .
the current * i d * and * dd * data are only sensitive to higgs resonance region . except for relic density constraint ,
currently no other experimental data sets are sensitive to the ihdm parameter space at @xmath202 .
however , one expects future xenon1 t can probe this region .
moreover , future instruments such as dampe , gamma-400 and cta will test this higher @xmath12 region as well @xcite .    as mentioned previously
, experimental search for the inert higgs ( neutral and charged ) behaves like susy search for charginos and neutralinos .
therefore , one of the most popular signatures for inert higgs searches would be also trilepton and/or dilepton plus missing @xmath205 @xcite . a dedicated analysis for the ihdm has been performed in @xcite where it has been demonstrated that the experimental reach for the inert higgses is only about 300 gev which is somewhat smaller than the lhc reach for the charginos and neutralinos .
the main reason is that the cross section for the scalar pair production @xmath206 is smaller than the gaugino pair production @xmath207 .
as we have seen in our analysis , inert higgses with masses @xmath208 tev are consistent with all experimental and theoretical constraints .
one concludes that the ihdm is here to stay for another decade .
the ihdm can be further extended by including inert right - handed neutrinos with majorana masses @xcite .
masses for the sm light neutrinos can be generated through radiative processes with only inert particles running inside the loop .
this extension of ihdm would exhibit intricate interplay between dark matter and neutrino physics .
detailed global analysis of this extended model is also quite interesting and will be presented in a future publication .
aa would like to thank the national science council ( nsc ) of taiwan for financial support during his stay at the institute of physics ( iop ) , academia sinica ( as ) .
st would like to thank the hospitality and support from the high energy theory group at the iop , as .
this work is supported by national natural science foundation of china under grant number 11105155 ( qy ) and by the nsc of taiwan under project number 102 - 2811-m-001 - 032 ( aa ) and grant number 101 - 2112-m-001 - 005-my3 ( tcy ) .
99 g.  aad _ et al . _ [ atlas collaboration ] , phys .
b * 716 * , 1 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1207.7214 [ hep - ex ] ] .
s.  chatrchyan _ et al . _
[ cms collaboration ] , phys .
b * 716 * , 30 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1207.7235 [ hep - ex ] ] .
t.  aaltonen _ et al . _
[ cdf and d0 collaborations ] , phys .
lett .   * 109 * , 071804 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1207.6436 [ hep - ex ] ] ; phys .
d * 88 * , 052014 ( 2013 ) [ arxiv:1303.6346 [ hep - ex ] ] .
g.  aad _ et al . _ [ atlas collaboration ] , phys .
b * 726 * , 88 ( 2013 ) [ arxiv:1307.1427 [ hep - ex ] ] ; atlas - conf-2013 - 079 , 19-july-2013 .
d.  carmi , a.  falkowski , e.  kuflik and t.  volansky , jhep * 1207 * , 136 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1202.3144 [ hep - ph ] ] ; a.  azatov , r.  contino and j.  galloway , jhep * 1204 * , 127 ( 2012 ) [ erratum - ibid .
* 1304 * , 140 ( 2013 ) ] [ arxiv:1202.3415 [ hep - ph ] ] ; m.  klute , r.  lafaye , t.  plehn , m.  rauch and d.  zerwas , phys .
lett .   * 109 * , 101801 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1205.2699 [ hep - ph ] ] ; i.  low , j.  lykken and g.  shaughnessy , phys .
d * 86 * , 093012 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1207.1093 [ hep - ph ] ] ; a.  azatov , s.  chang , n.  craig and j.  galloway , phys .  rev .
d * 86 * , 075033 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1206.1058 [ hep - ph ] ] ; j.  r.  espinosa , c.  grojean , m.  muhlleitner and m.  trott , jhep * 1205 * , 097 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1202.3697 [ hep - ph ] ] ; j.  ellis and t.  you , jhep * 1209 * , 123 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1207.1693 [ hep - ph ] ] ; p.
p.  giardino , k.  kannike , m.  raidal and a.  strumia , phys .
b * 718 * , 469 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1207.1347 [ hep - ph ] ] .
g.  aad _ et al . _ [ atlas collaboration ] , arxiv:1307.1432 [ hep - ex ] ; g.  aad _ et al . _ [ atlas collaboration ] : atlas - conf-2013 - 040 .
s.  chatrchyan _ et al . _
[ cms collaboration ] , phys .
lett .   * 110 * , 081803 ( 2013 ) [ arxiv:1212.6639 [ hep - ex ] ] ; cms - pas - hig-13 - 002 .
n.  g.  deshpande and e.  ma , phys .
d * 18 * , 2574 ( 1978 ) . for
a review of the general two higgs doublet models , see g.  c.  branco , p.  m.  ferreira , l.  lavoura , m.  n.  rebelo , m.  sher and j.  p.  silva , phys .
rept .   * 516 * , 1 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1106.0034 [ hep - ph ] ] .
k.  cheung , j.  s.  lee and p.  -y .
tseng , jhep * 1305 * , 134 ( 2013 ) [ arxiv:1302.3794 [ hep - ph ] ] .
g.  belanger , b.  dumont , u.  ellwanger , j.  f.  gunion and s.  kraml , phys .
b * 723 * , 340 ( 2013 ) [ arxiv:1302.5694 [ hep - ph ] ] . g.  belanger , b.  dumont , u.  ellwanger , j.  f.  gunion and s.  kraml , phys .  rev .
d * 88 * , 075008 ( 2013 ) [ arxiv:1306.2941 [ hep - ph ] ] .
j.  r.  espinosa , m.  muhlleitner , c.  grojean and m.  trott , jhep * 1209 * , 126 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1205.6790 [ hep - ph ] ] ; o.  lebedev , h.  m.  lee and y.  mambrini , phys .  lett .
b * 707 * , 570 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1111.4482 [ hep - ph ] ] ; c.  englert , m.  spannowsky and c.  wymant , phys .  lett .
b * 718 * , 538 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1209.0494 [ hep - ph ] ] .
e.  ma , phys .
d * 73 * , 077301 ( 2006 ) [ hep - ph/0601225 ] .
a. arhrib , y .- l .
sming tsai , q. yuan and t.  c. yuan , work in progress .
v.  silveira and a.  zee , phys .
b * 161 * , 136 ( 1985 ) .
k.  cheung , y.  -l .
s.  tsai , p.  -y .
tseng , t.  -c .
yuan and a.  zee , jcap * 1210 * , 042 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1207.4930 [ hep - ph ] ] .
j.  mcdonald , phys .
d * 50 * , 3637 ( 1994 ) ; c.  p.  burgess , m.  pospelov and t.  ter veldhuis , nucl .
b * 619 * , 709 ( 2001 ) ; m.  cirelli , n.  fornengo and a.  strumia , nucl .
b * 753 * , 178 ( 2006 ) .
m.  c.  bento , o.  bertolami , r.  rosenfeld and l.  teodoro , phys .
d * 62 * , 041302 ( 2000 ) ; v.  barger , p.  langacker , m.  mccaskey , m.  j.  ramsey - musolf and g.  shaughnessy , phys .
d * 77 * , 035005 ( 2008 ) ; m.  aoki , s.  kanemura and o.  seto , phys .
* 102 * , 051805 ( 2009 ) [ arxiv:0807.0361 [ hep - ph ] ] ; phys .
d * 80 * , 033007 ( 2009 ) [ arxiv:0904.3829 [ hep - ph ] ] .
k.  cheung and t.  c.  yuan , phys .
b * 685 * , 182 ( 2010 ) ; x.  g.  he , t.  li , x.  q.  li , j.  tandean and h.  c.  tsai , phys .
b * 688 * , 332 ( 2010 ) ; m.  farina , d.  pappadopulo and a.  strumia , phys .
b * 688 * , 329 ( 2010 ) ; m.  kadastik , k.  kannike , a.  racioppi and m.  raidal , phys .
b * 685 * , 182 ( 2010 ) arxiv:0912.3797 [ hep - ph ] ; m.  aoki , s.  kanemura and o.  seto , phys .
b * 685 * , 313 ( 2010 ) ; m.  asano and r.  kitano , phys .
d * 81 * , 054506 ( 2010 ) [ arxiv:1001.0486 [ hep - ph ] ] ; a.  bandyopadhyay , s.  chakraborty , a.  ghosal and d.  majumdar , jhep * 1011 * , 065 ( 2010 ) [ arxiv:1003.0809 [ hep - ph ] ] ; s.  andreas , c.  arina , t.  hambye , f.  -s .
ling and m.  h.  g.  tytgat , phys .
d * 82 * , 043522 ( 2010 ) [ arxiv:1003.2595 [ hep - ph ] ] .
m.  gustafsson , s.  rydbeck , l.  lopez - honorez and e.  lundstrom , phys .
d * 86 * , 075019 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1206.6316 [ hep - ph ] ] .
a.  goudelis , b.  herrmann and o.  stl , jhep * 1309 * , 106 ( 2013 ) [ arxiv:1303.3010 [ hep - ph ] ] .
l.  lopez honorez and c.  e.  yaguna , jcap * 1101 * ( 2011 ) 002 [ arxiv:1011.1411 [ hep - ph ] ] .
l.  lopez honorez , e.  nezri , j.  f.  oliver and m.  h.  g.  tytgat , jcap * 0702 * , 028 ( 2007 ) [ hep - ph/0612275 ] ; t.  hambye and m.  h.  g.  tytgat , phys .
b * 659 * , 651 ( 2008 ) [ arxiv:0707.0633 [ hep - ph ] ] ; p.  agrawal , e.  m.  dolle and c.  a.  krenke , phys .
d * 79 * , 015015 ( 2009 ) [ arxiv:0811.1798 [ hep - ph ] ] ; t.  hambye , f.  -s .
ling , l.  lopez honorez and j.  rocher , jhep * 0907 * , 090 ( 2009 ) [ erratum - ibid .
* 1005 * , 066 ( 2010 ) ] [ arxiv:0903.4010 [ hep - ph ] ] ; e.  nezri , m.  h.  g.  tytgat and g.  vertongen , jcap * 0904 * , 014 ( 2009 ) [ arxiv:0901.2556 [ hep - ph ] ] ; s.  andreas , m.  h.  g.  tytgat and q.  swillens , jcap * 0904 * , 004 ( 2009 ) [ arxiv:0901.1750 [ hep - ph ] ] ; c.  arina , f.  -s .
ling and m.  h.  g.  tytgat , jcap * 0910 * , 018 ( 2009 ) [ arxiv:0907.0430 [ hep - ph ] ] ; l.  lopez honorez and c.  e.  yaguna , jhep * 1009 * , 046 ( 2010 ) [ arxiv:1003.3125 [ hep - ph ] ] ; a.  melfo , m.  nemevsek , f.  nesti , g.  senjanovic and y.  zhang , phys .
d * 84 * , 034009 ( 2011 ) [ arxiv:1105.4611 [ hep - ph ] ] ; m.  krawczyk , d.  sokolowska , p.  swaczyna and b.  swiezewska , jhep * 1309 * , 055 ( 2013 ) [ arxiv:1305.6266 [ hep - ph ] ] ; m.  gustafsson , s.  rydbeck , l.  lopez - honorez and e.  lundstrom , phys .
d * 86 * , 075019 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1206.6316 [ hep - ph ] ] ; e.  m.  dolle and s.  su , phys .
d * 80 * , 055012 ( 2009 ) [ arxiv:0906.1609 [ hep - ph ] ] ; s.  kanemura , y.  okada , h.  taniguchi and k.  tsumura , phys .
b * 704 * , 303 ( 2011 ) [ arxiv:1108.3297 [ hep - ph ] ] .
a.  arhrib , r.  benbrik and n.  gaur , phys .
d * 85 * , 095021 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1201.2644 [ hep - ph ] ] .
b.  swiezewska and m.  krawczyk , phys .
d * 88 * , 035019 ( 2013 ) [ arxiv:1212.4100 [ hep - ph ] ] ; arxiv:1305.7356 [ hep - ph ] .
q.  -h .
cao , e.  ma and g.  rajasekaran , phys .
d * 76 * , 095011 ( 2007 ) [ arxiv:0708.2939 [ hep - ph ] ] .
e.  dolle , x.  miao , s.  su and b.  thomas , phys .
d * 81 * , 035003 ( 2010 ) [ arxiv:0909.3094 [ hep - ph ] ] ; x.  miao , s.  su and b.  thomas , phys .
d * 82 * , 035009 ( 2010 ) [ arxiv:1005.0090 [ hep - ph ] ] .
e.  lundstrom , m.  gustafsson and j.  edsjo , phys .
d * 79 * , 035013 ( 2009 ) [ arxiv:0810.3924 [ hep - ph ] ] .
r.  barbieri , l.  j.  hall and v.  s.  rychkov , phys .
d * 74 * , 015007 ( 2006 ) [ hep - ph/0603188 ] .
p.  a.  r.  ade _ et al .
_ [ planck collaboration ] , arxiv:1303.5076 [ astro-ph.co ] . d.  s.  akerib _ et al . _
[ lux collaboration ] , arxiv:1310.8214 [ astro-ph.co ] .
m.  ackermann _ et al .
_ [ fermi - lat collaboration ] , phys .  rev .
* 107 * , 241302 ( 2011 ) [ arxiv:1108.3546 [ astro-ph.he ] ] .
x.  huang , q.  yuan , p.  -f .
yin , x.  -j .
bi and x.  chen , jcap * 1211 * , 048 ( 2012 ) [ erratum - ibid .   * 1305 * , e02 ( 2013 ) ] [ arxiv:1208.0267 [ astro-ph.he ] ]
. m.  aguilar _ et al .
_ [ ams collaboration ] , phys .
lett .   * 110 * , 141102 ( 2013 ) .
o.  adriani _ et al . _
[ pamela collaboration ] , nature * 458 * , 607 ( 2009 ) [ arxiv:0810.4995 [ astro - ph ] ] .
m.  ackermann _ et al .
_ [ fermi lat collaboration ] , phys .
lett .   * 108 * , 011103 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1109.0521 [ astro-ph.he ] ] .
m.  ackermann _ et al .
_ [ fermi lat collaboration ] , phys .  rev .
d * 82 * , 092004 ( 2010 ) [ arxiv:1008.3999 [ astro-ph.he ] ] .
o.  adriani _ et al . _
[ pamela collaboration ] , phys .
lett .   * 105 * , 121101 ( 2010 ) [ arxiv:1007.0821 [ astro-ph.he ] ] .
e.  aprile _ et al .
_ [ xenon100 collaboration ] , phys .  rev .
lett .   * 109 * , 181301 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1207.5988 [ astro-ph.co ] ] .
m.  gustafsson , e.  lundstrom , l.  bergstrom and j.  edsjo , phys .
lett .   * 99 * , 041301 ( 2007 ) [ astro - ph/0703512 [ astro - ph ] ] . m.  e.  peskin and t.  takeuchi , phys .
d * 46 * ( 1992 ) 381 .
m.  baak , m.  goebel , j.  haller , a.  hoecker , d.  kennedy , r.  kogler , k.  moenig and m.  schott _ et al .
_ , eur .
j.  c * 72 * , 2205 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1209.2716 [ hep - ph ] ] .
k.  nakamura _ et al .
_ [ particle data group collaboration ] , j.  phys .
g g * 37 * , 075021 ( 2010 ) .
a.  pierce and j.  thaler , jhep * 0708 * , 026 ( 2007 ) [ hep - ph/0703056 [ hep - ph ] ]
. m.  acciarri _ et al . _
[ l3 collaboration ] , phys .
b * 472 * , 420 ( 2000 ) [ hep - ex/9910007 ] ; r.  barate _
[ aleph collaboration ] , phys .
b * 499 * , 67 ( 2001 ) [ hep - ex/0011047 ] ; j.  abdallah _ et al .
_ [ delphi collaboration ] , eur .
j.  c * 31 * , 421 ( 2003 ) [ hep - ex/0311019 ] ; g.  abbiendi _ et al .
_ [ opal collaboration ] , eur .
j.  c * 35 * , 1 ( 2004 ) [ hep - ex/0401026 ] .
atlas collaboration , atlas - conf-2013 - 011 .
cms collaboration , cms - pas - hig-13 - 018 .
cms collaboration , cms - pas - hig-13 - 013 .
atlas collaboration , atlas - conf-2013 - 012 .
c.  palmer [ cms collaboration ] , arxiv:1305.3654 [ hep - ex ] ; s.  chatrchyan _ et al .
_ [ cms collaboration ] , cms - pas - hig-13 - 001 .
cms collaboration , cms - pas - exo-12 - 048 .
atlas collaboration , atlas - conf-2012 - 147 .
g.  belanger , f.  boudjema , a.  pukhov and a.  semenov , comput .
commun .
* 180 * , 747 ( 2009 ) [ arxiv:0803.2360 [ hep - ph ] ] ; g.  belanger , f.  boudjema , a.  pukhov and a.  semenov , nuovo cim .
c * 033n2 * , 111 ( 2010 ) [ arxiv:1005.4133 [ hep - ph ] ] .
d.  larson , j.  dunkley , g.  hinshaw , e.  komatsu , m.  r.  nolta , c.  l.  bennett , b.  gold and m.  halpern _ et al .
_ , astrophys .
j.  suppl .
* 192 * , 16 ( 2011 ) [ arxiv:1001.4635 [ astro-ph.co ] ] . k.  griest and d.  seckel , phys .
d * 43 * , 3191 ( 1991 ) .
p.  binetruy , g.  girardi and p.  salati , nucl .
b * 237 * , 285 ( 1984 ) .
a.  geringer - sameth and s.  m.  koushiappas , phys .
lett .   * 107 * , 241303 ( 2011 ) [ arxiv:1108.2914 [ astro-ph.co ] ] .
y.  -l .
s.  tsai , q.  yuan and x.  huang , jcap * 1303 * , 018 ( 2013 ) [ arxiv:1212.3990 [ astro-ph.he ] ] .
fermi - lat collaboration , astrophys .
j.  suppl .
* 199 * , 31 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1108.1435 [ astro-ph.he ] ] .
j.  chang , j.  h.  adams , h.  s.  ahn , g.  l.  bashindzhagyan , m.  christl , o.  ganel , t.  g.  guzik and j.  isbert _ et al .
_ , nature * 456 * , 362 ( 2008 ) .
f.  aharonian _ et al . _
[ h.e.s.s .
collaboration ] , phys .
* 101 * , 261104 ( 2008 ) [ arxiv:0811.3894 [ astro - ph ] ] ; f.
aharonian _ et al .
_ [ h.e.s.s .
collaboration ] , astron .
astrophys .   * 508 * , 561 ( 2009 ) [ arxiv:0905.0105 [ astro-ph.he ] ] .
d.  borla tridon _
[ magic collaboration ] , arxiv:1110.4008 [ astro-ph.he ] .
o.  adriani _ et al . _
[ pamela collaboration ] , phys .
lett .   * 106 * , 201101 ( 2011 ) [ arxiv:1103.2880 [ astro-ph.he ] ] .
x.  -g .
he , mod .
a * 24 * , 2139 ( 2009 ) [ arxiv:0908.2908 [ hep - ph ] ] ; y.  -z .
fan , b.  zhang and j.  chang , int .
j.  mod .
d * 19 * , 2011 ( 2010 ) [ arxiv:1008.4646 [ astro-ph.he ] ] ; p.
d.  serpico , astropart .
phys .   * 39 - 40 * , 2 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1108.4827 [ astro-ph.he ] ] ; m.  cirelli , pramana * 79 * , 1021 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1202.1454 [ hep - ph ] ] .
g.  bertone , m.  cirelli , a.  strumia and m.  taoso , jcap * 0903 * , 009 ( 2009 ) [ arxiv:0811.3744 [ astro - ph ] ] ; l.  bergstrom , g.  bertone , t.  bringmann , j.  edsjo and m.  taoso , phys .
d * 79 * , 081303 ( 2009 ) [ arxiv:0812.3895 [ astro - ph ] ] ; m.  cirelli , p.  panci and p.  d.  serpico , nucl .
b * 840 * , 284 ( 2010 ) [ arxiv:0912.0663 [ astro-ph.co ] ] ; m.  papucci and a.  strumia , jcap * 1003 * , 014 ( 2010 ) [ arxiv:0912.0742 [ hep - ph ] ] .
d.  grasso _ et al .
_ [ fermi - lat collaboration ] , astropart .
phys .   * 32 * , 140 ( 2009 ) [ arxiv:0905.0636 [ astro-ph.he ] ] ; t.  linden and s.  profumo , astrophys .
j.   * 772 * , 18 ( 2013 ) [ arxiv:1304.1791 [ astro-ph.he ] ] ; p.  -f .
yin , z.  -h .
yu , q.  yuan and x.  -j .
bi , phys .
d * 88 * , 023001 ( 2013 ) [ arxiv:1304.4128 [ astro-ph.he ] ] .
l.  bergstrom , t.  bringmann , i.  cholis , d.  hooper and c.  weniger , phys .
lett .   * 111 * , 171101 ( 2013 ) [ arxiv:1306.3983 [ astro-ph.he ] ] .
q.  yuan , x.  -j .
bi , g.  -m .
chen , y.  -q .
guo , s.  -j .
lin and x.  zhang , arxiv:1304.1482 [ astro-ph.he ] ; q.  yuan and x.  -j .
bi , phys .  lett .
b * 727 * , 1 ( 2013 ) [ arxiv:1304.2687 [ astro-ph.he ] ] .
l.  j.  gleeson and w.  i.  axford , astrophys .
j.   * 154 * , 1011 ( 1968 ) .
o.  adriani _ et al . _
[ pamela collaboration ] , science * 332 * , 69 ( 2011 ) [ arxiv:1103.4055 [ astro-ph.he ] ] .
a.  de simone , a.  riotto and w.  xue , jcap * 1305 * , 003 ( 2013 ) [ arxiv:1304.1336 [ hep - ph ] ] ; h.  -b .
jin , y.  -l .
wu and y.  -f .
zhou , jcap * 1311 * , 026 ( 2013 ) [ arxiv:1304.1997 [ hep - ph ] ] .
o.  adriani , g.  c.  barbarino , g.  a.  bazilevskaya , r.  bellotti , m.  boezio , e.  a.  bogomolov , l.  bonechi and m.  bongi _ et al .
_ , phys .
lett .   * 102 * , 051101 ( 2009 ) [ arxiv:0810.4994 [ astro - ph ] ] .
f.  donato , d.  maurin , p.  brun , t.  delahaye and p.  salati , phys .
lett .   *
102 * , 071301 ( 2009 ) [ arxiv:0810.5292 [ astro - ph ] ] ; i.  cholis , jcap * 1109 * , 007 ( 2011 ) [ arxiv:1007.1160 [ astro-ph.he ] ] .
m.  aguilar _ et al .
_ [ ams collaboration ] , phys .
rept .   * 366 * , 331 ( 2002 ) [ erratum - ibid .   *
380 * , 97 ( 2003 ) ] .
y.  asaoka , y.  shikaze , k.  abe , k.  anraku , m.  fujikawa , h.  fuke , m.  imori and s.  haino _ et al .
_ , phys .
lett .   * 88 * , 051101 ( 2002 ) [ astro - ph/0109007 ] .
et al . _ , proc .
cosmic ray conf . 3 , 13 ( 2005 ) .
r.  r.  de austri , r.  trotta and l.  roszkowski , jhep * 0605 * , 002 ( 2006 ) [ hep - ph/0602028 ] .
l.  roszkowski , e.  m.  sessolo and y.  -l .
s.  tsai , phys .
d * 86 * , 095005 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1202.1503 [ hep - ph ] ] .
j.  alwall , m.  herquet , f.  maltoni , o.  mattelaer and t.  stelzer , jhep * 1106 * , 128 ( 2011 ) [ arxiv:1106.0522 [ hep - ph ] ] .
d.  hooper and l.  goodenough , phys .
b * 697 * , 412 ( 2011 ) [ arxiv:1010.2752 [ hep - ph ] ] ; a.  boyarsky , d.  malyshev and o.  ruchayskiy , phys .
b * 705 * , 165 ( 2011 ) [ arxiv:1012.5839 [ hep - ph ] ] ; d.  hooper and t.  linden , phys .
d * 84 * , 123005 ( 2011 ) [ arxiv:1110.0006 [ astro-ph.he ] ] ; k.  n.  abazajian and m.  kaplinghat , phys .
d * 86 * , 083511 ( 2012 ) [ arxiv:1207.6047 [ astro-ph.he ] ] ; c.  gordon and o.  macas , arxiv:1306.5725 [ astro-ph.he ] .
j.  stahov , h.  clement and g.  j.  wagner , phys .
b * 726 * , 685 ( 2013 ) [ arxiv:1211.1148 [ nucl - th ] ] .
f.  feroz , m.  p.  hobson and m.  bridges , mon .  not .
soc .   * 398 * , 1601 ( 2009 ) [ arxiv:0809.3437 [ astro - ph ] ] .
w.  a.  rolke , a.  m.  lopez and j.  conrad , nucl .
instrum .
a * 551 * , 493 ( 2005 ) [ physics/0403059 ] .
s.  kanemura , s.  matsumoto , t.  nabeshima and n.  okada , phys .
d * 82 * , 055026 ( 2010 ) [ arxiv:1005.5651 [ hep - ph ] ] .
a.  djouadi , a.  falkowski , y.  mambrini and j.  quevillon , eur .
j.  c * 73 * , 2455 ( 2013 ) [ arxiv:1205.3169 [ hep - ph ] ] .
m.  klasen , c.  e.  yaguna and j.  d.  ruiz - alvarez , phys .
d * 87 * ( 2013 ) 075025 [ arxiv:1302.1657 [ hep - ph ] ] .
m.  pato , d.  hooper and m.  simet , jcap * 1006 * , 022 ( 2010 ) [ arxiv:1002.3341 [ astro-ph.he ] ] .
a. malinlin , http://www.atic.umd.edu/pub/ams/pub07/malinin.lomonosovconf07.pdf