42 Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings 1(1): 42–48, 2014 42 doi: 10.14311/APP.2014.01.0042 LHC, Astrophysics and Cosmology Giulio Auriemma1,2 1Università degli Studi della Basilicata, Potenza,Italy 2INFN Sezione di Roma, Rome, Italy Corresponding author: Giulio.Auriemma@cern.ch Abstract In this paper we discuss the impact on cosmology of recent results obtained by the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) experiments in the 2011-2012 runs, respectively at √ s = 7 and 8 TeV. The capital achievement of LHC in this period has been the discovery of a spin-0 particle with mass 126 GeV/c2, very similar to the Higgs boson of the Standard Model of Particle Physics. Less exciting, but not less important, negative results of searches for Supersymmetric particles or other exotica in direct production or rare decays are discussed in connection with particles and V.H.E. astronomy searches for Dark Matter. Keywords: HEP Physics - cosmology - dark matter - dark energy. 1 Introduction On July 4th 2012 the ATLAS[1] and CMS[2] Collabo- ration has announced the discovery of a new massive boson, which subsequentely was shown to look like the Standard Model Higgs bosonn. This was possible only after the 2012 runs of LHC at √ s = 8 TeV. The two cen- tral experiment ATLAS & CMS have collected during 2011 and 2012 an integrated luminosity of ≈ 40 fb−1. Several reason support the general belief that this boson could be the long expected Higgs boson [3], in particular • It is definitively a boson with spin 6= 1 because decays in γ-γ channel (H → γγ). Quantum num- bers JP = 0+,predicted by SM are strongly fa- vored [4, 5] ; • The PDG averaged mass is [6] : MH = 125.9 ± 0.4(stat) ± 0.4(syst) GeV/c2 consistent with EW precision measurements that requires MH = 102−24−20 GeV/c 2 [7]; • Production cross section σpp→H agrees well in- side the errors to the prediction of SM, that are affected by the uncertainty of 15%. • Branching ratios to leptons, hadrons and gauge bosons are close enough to the SM predictions, with some tension in the channels H → γγ (µ ' 2) and H → bb (µ < 1) for ATLAS data. • Angular distribution is slightly in favor of spin 1, but only with more data this could be confirmed, analyzing the decay H → WW → 2`2ν. At present, from February 2013 to November 2014, LHC is engaged in the first Long Shutdown aimed at the consolidation of the accelerator for running at the full design c.m.s. energy √ s = 14 TeV. After this point, hopefully, Supersymmetry (SUSY) hunting will be open. 2 Supersymmetric Higgs From the Supersymmetry theory is expected a relation between the half-integer spin fermions to the integer spin bosons, introduced initially on a purely mathe- matical ground [8]. The real appeal of this theoreti- cal framework is that it incorporates not only the three gauge fields of the SM but also gravity [9, 10]. Figure 1: MSSM model Higgs masses, the hatched area indicates the decoupling SUSY parameters space mA > 2MZ (Adapted from Ref. [11]). 42 http://dx.doi.org/10.14311/APP.2014.01.0042 LHC, Astrophysics and Cosmology The particle spectrum of SUSY is extremely more crowded then the particle spectrum of SM. The present Universe is constituted by matter fermions and force fields mediated by bosons, no SUSY particles has been identified. It means that at a time M−1Pl ≤ tSUSY ≤ tEW the Supersymmetry has been broken, in the sense that masses of SUSY partners became m̃SUSY � mSM . For this reason the lightest neutral supersymmetric par- ticles are excellent candidates for dark matter [12]. The Higgs sector of SUSY theories is more compli- cated then in the SM. In the Minimal Supersymmetric extension of the SM, the Higgs sector is schematically:( H0u H− ) ( H+ H0d ) A0 (1) namely a CP-odd pseudo scalar field A0 and two dou- blets of scalar CP-even fields. whose neutral compo- nents have V.E.V., assumed to be 〈 H0u 〉 = vu and〈 H0d 〉 = vd normalized to the value of Fermi con- stant v2u + v 2 d = √ 2GF , with a ratio parameterized as vu/vd = tan β. The physical fields detectable at accel- erator h and H are mixed states of the neutral compo- nents of the doublets with masses mh < mH, although it was never discarded the possibility to detect also the other states, especially the charged ones. If the mass of the pseudo-scalar mA and tan β are taken as free parameters, the masses of the other four are fixed by the equations [13]: m2H± = m 2 A + m 2 z + ∆m 2 H± m2h,H = 1 2 ( m2A + m 2 Z ) + ∓ √ m2A + m 2 Z − (2mAmZ cos 2β) 2 + ∆m2h,H (2) where ∆m2 H± and ∆m2h,H are the appropriated radiative corrections. Fig. 1 shows the predictions of Eq. (2) in which is clear that the light SUSY Higgs mass saturates in the limit of decoupling mA � mZ to mh → mZ |cos 2β| + ∆m2h. The actual value of this limit, that depends strongly from the radiative corrections, is estimated to be in the range 130-150 GeV/c2 [15, 16]. Fig. (2) from CMS [14] shows the result of the search of Higgs like particles decaying to pairs of gauge bosons, giving ev- idence that a SUSY high mass Higgs with mass lower than 700 GeV/c2 is excluded. In facts the total pro- duction cross sections for the neutral SUSY Higgs is essentially the same of that expected in SM, but the dominant decay channels are H → (W±,Z) with vec- tor bosons in final state [11]. Fig. 2 shows the results of the CMS search of Higgs with mH > 200 GeV/c 2 [14], that clearly excludes any mass mH ≤ 600 GeV/c2 at 95% CL. Figure 2: Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limit on the ratio of the product of production cross section and branching ratio to the SM expectation for the Higgs boson (from Ref. [14]). 3 Higgs Boson in Cosmology Inflation is nowadays a well accepted paradigm in cos- mology. The only problems is what is physically the “inflaton”. The original field considered as inflaton by Guth was actually the Higgs field [17], whose potential V (φ) = 1 4 λφ4 can naturally produce inflation if λ is small [18]. but this model predicts that the amplitude of density perturbation is δρ/ρ ∼ √ λ. Therefore, in order to explain the observed δρ/ρ ∼ 10−4, it should be λ ∼ 10−10, absolutely irreconcilable with an Higgs mass mH = √ 2λv, with v = (√ 2GF )−1 2 given by the strengths of the weak interactions. A solution could be a coupling of the Higgs field with the gravity [19], with a Lagrangian density LGR+SM = ( 1 2 M2Pl + ξφ 2 ) R + 1 2 |∂µφ| 2 −VSM (φ) (3) where MPl = (8πGN ) −1 is the reduced Planck mass, R the Ricci scalar, VSM (φ) = 14λ ( φ2 −v2 )2 is the potential of the SM Higgs field and ξ 6= 0 its cou- pling to the gravity. Applying a rescaling of the metric g̃µν = ( 1 + 2ξφ2/M2Pl )−1 gµν [20] the potential of the field becomes Veff (φ) = λ 4 ( φ2 −v2 )2( 1 + 2ξφ 2 M2Pl )2 (4) For the present small value of the Higgs field φ � MPl/ √ 2ξ we have Ṽ (φ) 'V(φ), while for φ & MPl/ √ 2ξ the effective potential of Eq. (4), has a 43 Giulio Auriemma plateau that allows a successful slow-roll inflation. A first constraint on the coupling ξ is obtained from the amount of expansion of the Universe reached at the end of the inflationary phase. The number of e-folding, de- fined from a(tf ) = a(ti) exp(−N) is predicted to be, using the slow-roll approximation [21], the Higgs field that varies in the expansion from an initial value φi to a final one φf ≈ MPl/ √ 2ξ. The ratio is φi/φf ≈ √ 8N/3 for ξ � 1. The amplitude of anisotropy depends on the mass of the Higgs boson, which fixes the value of the quartic coupling λ. The predicted scalar amplitude is δρ/ρ ≈ N π √ 18 √ λ/ξ. In order to justify the observed δρ/ρ ≈ 10−4 a strong coupling ξ & 104 is required. More refined calculations, including the non negligible radiative corrections to the Higgs potential due the coupling with heavy quarks [22, 23], show that mH =126 GeV/c 2 is compatible with the spectral index of the power law for scalar pertur- bations ns = 0.962 ± 0.002 and the upper limit for the tensor-to-scalar ratio r < 0.11 (95% C.L.) measured by Planck [24]. Theoretical studies have confirmed that SUSY infla- tion is possible, in many different scenarios [25] either with minimal [26] or non-minimal coupling [27]. As noted by Linde [28] we can expect that due to the rich structure of the Higgs sector in SUSY theories, the ef- fective potential of the superfield will show several min- ima, interleaved by maxima where V ′(Φ) � V (Φ), suit- able for slow-roll inflation in the minimal coupling case ξ = 0. The case of a non minimal coupling ξ > 0, is shown in Ref. [27]. In a recent paper Nakayama & Takahashi [29] examined a SUSY model in which the lightest neutral Higgs boson could be identified with the SM-like one. Figure 3: Planck best-fit value of the spectral index and mh = 126 GeV/c 2 from LHC fits very well MSSM inflaton model with small β (adapted from Ref. [29]). 4 Dark Matter Cosmological non-baryonic dark matter with ΩDMh 2 = 0.120 ± 0.003(stat) ± 0.03(syst) has been estimated by Planck [30]. Figure 4: Status of experimental direct search for WIMPs. The 68% CL region of possible positive detec- tion are shown as filled area, while solid line represents 95% CL upper limits. The type of relics that can supply this density at “freeze out” should have a thermally averaged rate of annihilation at “freeze-out” (Tf ' mDM/20) : 〈σAv〉Tf ' 2 × 10 −26 ( 0.12 ΩDMh2 ) cm3s−1 (5) for mDM > 10 GeV/c 2 [31]. It is worth noticing that the DM particles will be non-relativistic at freeze-out with β ≈ 4 × 10−2, that is dubbed “Cold Dark Mat- ter” (CDM). In addition the annihilation cross section that produces a rate comparable to the one of Eq. (5) is close to the weak scale σ ≈ G2Fm 2/16π for an hypo- thetical Weakly Interacting Massive Particle (WIMP), not existing in the SM. The density of WIMP’s in the solar neighborhood is estimated to be ρDMlocal = 0.39 ± 0.03 GeV/cm 3 and is flowing with a velocity ≈ 200 km/s. WIMP of mass 10 GeV/c2, scattering against nucleons with a cross sec- tion σSI ≈ 10−40 cm2, give 0.5 interactions/100 kg- day in a suitable detector[32]. The present controversial status of the direct searches is summarized in Fig. 4. This figure shows that the claims for positive detections [33, 34, 35] seem to cluster around a “low” mass value mWIMP ≈ 10 GeV/c2 and a “high” elastic scattering cross section σSI ≈ 0.5 × 10−40 cm2/nucleon. Particu- larly tantalizing is the claimed observation of a yearly modulation of the detected signal [36], that could be a clear signature of the association of the detected parti- cles with the galactic halo. But unfortunately Fig. 4 shows also that all but DAMA/Libra experiments do not show evidence of a similar signal, even if it should be well inside their sensitivity [37]. 44 LHC, Astrophysics and Cosmology Indirect searches for DM are based on the detection of radiation produced in the annihilation and decay of relic WIMP’s. Neutrino, gamma and antimatter as- tronomy are the basic tools of this search. From the Eq. 5 it is possible to derive an order of magnitude of the annihilation rate. It is worth to stress however that this estimate is an average of σAv over the thermal ve- locity distribution at Tf � 1 GeV, while annihilations in a galactic environment will take place at much lower temperature. Moreover the source function of the as- trophysical radiation will be Qk = 〈σAv〉Bkρ2/m2 in photons cm−3s−1 being Bk the inclusive branching ra- tio to the SM particle k, ρ and m respectively the local energy in GeV/c2 cm−3 and the mass of the WIMP in GeV/c2. The spectrum of the γ-rays (or neutrinos) produced is composed by a continuum, extending up to the kyne- matical limit Eγ . m and several monochromatic lines, each corresponding to a two body final states. The lat- ter very attractive signature was proposed since 1988 by the Compton Gamma Ray Obsevatory [38]. In facts the first indication of a possible DM component in the diffuse galactic γ-rays from the galactic plane was given by the EGRET spark-chamber calorimeter [39], that found a significant excess on the galactic plane for Eγ ≥ 1 GeV. The poor energy resolution of the EGRET calorimeter for hard γ-rays did not allowed any search for lines, but the intensity and distribution in the galac- tic frame of this radiation was found to be close to what expected for annihilation or decay of particles with mass in the range 50-100 GeV/c2. In the case of WIMP’s the γ inclusive annihilation rate is σγv ≈ 10−26 cm3s−1 [40]. The diffuse γ−rays emission from selected regions on the galactic plane has been measured with high en- ergy resolution (∼ 8% in the range 1-300 GeV) by the CsI scintillator tracker- calorimeter of the Fermi-LAT instrument [41, 42]. The observed γ-rays spectrum is fitted with a single power law E−αγ for Eγ ≥ 12.6 GeV, with α = 2.44±0.01. Narrow lines of width compatible with the instrumental resolution have been searched us- ing background+signal max-likelihood method. Fermi- LAT has not detected any statistically significant γ-ray line in the range from 5 to 300 GeV. An upper limit of the rates σ2γv ≤ 0.02 − 3.6 × 10−27 cm3s−1, for WIMP’s masses 5 ≤ m ≤ 200 GeV/c2, can be esti- mated from the flux upper limit at 95% C.L., applying the most optimistic galactic halo WIMP density profile from N-body simulations [43]. If a simple isothermal profile is assumed, the limit increases by 50%. This limit starts to be close to the predicted rate for SUSY DM candidates [44]. Unfortunately with this new data the claimed line at ≈130 GeV [45, 46] corresponding to σ2γv ≈ (1.1 ± 0.5) × 10−27 cm3s−1 has not gained statistical significance (≈ 3.3σ). An excess of positrons in the energy range 4 ≤ Ee ≤ 50 GeV in cosmic rays, was discovered by a balloon- borne instrument launched in 1974 from Palestine, TX, in the heroic age of astroparticle physics [47]1. It is re- markable that after about 40 years we have a high preci- sion mesurement of the positron flux covering the range 0.5 ≤ Ee ≤ 350 GeV from the 8.5 tons particle’s spec- trometer AMS-02 installed on the International Space Station [48]. The AMS-2 positron fraction vs. energy is first decreasing from 8.42% at 1 GeV to a minimum of 5.1% at 7 GeV then increasing up to ' 15% at 260 GeV. An excellent fit to this behaviour can be obtained either from pair emission by pulsar[49] or WIMPs annihilation [50]. In the latter case the mass of the WIMP should be in the range 750 GeV ≤ m ≤ 1.5 TeV and inclusive annihilation rate 10−23 ≤ σe+v ≤ 10−22 cm3s−1[52] significantly larger then the one of Eq. 5 Ref. [51]. The discriminating observation is definitively the detec- tion of an excess in the antiproton flux, because in the annihilation to lepton pair and quarks one is strongly correlated. Up to now the PAMELA data [53] do not support any deviation from cosmic rays secondary pro- duction. Alternatively, by assuming that the excess of positrons is all due to astrophysical sources, Ref. [54] finds an upper limit to the annihilation rate that varies from 10−26 cm3s−1 at m = 10 GeV/c2 to 10−23 cm3s−1 at m = 1 TeV/c2, assuming that the dominant annihi- lation channel is µ+µ−. 5 LHC Search for Dark Matter Candidates The lower mass state of the four spin 1 2 neutralinos χ01,χ 0 2,χ 0 3,χ 0 4, predicted in R-parity conserving SUSY models, is a good candidate for the role of WIMP. Other candidates do exists, as for example the superpartner of the graviton, the spin 3 2 gravitino, that would be a su- perWIMP because it couples with ordinary matter only via the gravitational interaction, making direct DM de- tection practically impossible [55]. At hadronic colliders such as LHC only WIMPs that couple with protons, such as the neutralino, can be di- rectly produced. The production of neutralino candi- date can be tested, quasi-model independently, using the process: pp → ( χ01χ̄ 0 1 ) + X (6) where X can be one (or more) hadronic jet, hard lep- tons or photons, while the neutralino pair (if R-parity is conserved) do not interact with the detector, but up- pears in the kinematics of the event as missing trans- 1Note that the young member of this SLAC team will be the Nobel laureate of 2006 for COBE. 45 Giulio Auriemma verse energy EmissT [56]. The dominant SM physical background for the reaction (6) is pp → W±/Z0 → ``, where the leptons are neutrinos or are not detected, that can be subtracted and/or reduced by optimized kinematical cuts. Figure 5: Upper limits on σSI (left) and σ2γv (right) inferred from monojet+EmissT ATLAS data [57]. Considering the simpler case that X is a single hadronic jet the cross section for neutralino pairs production, that contributes to process (6), will be σQQ→χχ̄ ≈ αsg2χg2Qp jet T /M 4 ∗ where αs = 0.64 is the QCD constant, gχ,gQ the SUSY couplings being Q = q, q̄ or g and finally M∗ � pT is suppressing mass scale. The detection of a number of events significantly larger the the calculated SM background would be strong in- dication of a WIMP candidate, whose mass could be inferred from the missing energy distribution. In addi- tion a comparison with direct DM search experiments, discussed in the previous section, would be possible be- cause the scattering cross section, from the same cou- pling, is predicted to be σSI ≈ g2χg2qµ2/M4∗ being µ the reduced mass of the WIMP-nucleon system [58]. Moreover the same suppression factor M−4∗ enters, to- gether with phase space factor depending only from the masses, in the annihilation rate of the neutralino (see for example Eq. (10) and (11) of Ref. [59]) that allows comparison with the DM relic density and the indirect searches. Fig. (5) shows the potentiality of this type of searches at LHC [57, 60]. Figure 6: LHCb signal for B0s → µ+µ− [62] (left) and presently CMSSM allowed region (green) on the plane (m0,m1/2) [55] (right). Important constraints on the supersymmetries, be- yond the effective field theories discussed before, that can also set limits to the WIMP candidates properties, are given by the search for rare decays of heavy neutral mesons like the B0d and B 0 s decays, copiously produced at LHC [61], performed by the LHCb experiment as well as the CMS experiment. LHCb is the LHC experiment devoted to Flavor Physics. Both LHCb and CMS have measured the BR(Bs → µµ) which is an important test bench for New Physics, because it strongly suppressed in the min- imal SMit is enhanced by SUSY. Limit at 95% CL is BR(Bs → µµ)SUSY < BR(Bs → µµ)SM . [62] The limit on the BR(Bs → µµ), combined with additional constraints coming from Flavor Physics, can be inter- preted in terms of limits on the mass of SUSY particles. In particular, the most stringent limit on the mass of neutralino, corresponding to the point m0 = 1 TeV/c 2, m1/2 = 200 GeV/c 2, is mχ01 ≥ 80 GeV/c 2. 6 Summary The Higgs boson has been discovered at LHC. The runs at 14 TeV, that will start in about 1 year, will provide the final check on its basic properties. On a longer scale an upgrade of the LHC accelera- tor is foreseen which will bring the LHC luminosity up to 2 × 1034 cm−2s−1 (HL-LHC). In one year of run at HL-LHC it will be possible to collect about 100 fb−1 of integrated luminosity, which indeed are needed to definitively test the 1 TeV scale SUSY, providing a bet- ter chance to see rare processes and improving statisti- cally marginal measurements. Contrary to what many people thinks, accelerators cannot discover DM particles, as well as astronomy can- not discover SUSY. The two activities are strictly com- plementary, bridged only by physical models which can predict results at accelerator and in the sky [63]. More results are expected in the near future from Astroparticle Physics (γ -rays, neutrinos & antimatter) and HEP-Flavor physics. References [1] G. Aad, et al. Phys.Lett. B716 (2012) 1–29 arXiv: 1207.7214. [2] S. Chatrchyan, et al. Phys.Lett. B716 (2012) 30– 61. arXiv:1207.7235 [3] P. W. Higgs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 12 (1964) 132–133. [4] S. Chatrchyan, et al. Phys.Rev.Lett. 110 (2013) 081803 arXiv:1212.6639. [5] G. Aad, et al. Phys.Lett. B726 (2013) 120–144 arXiv:1307.1432. [6] J. e. Beringer et al. (PDG) Phys. Rev D86 (2012) 0100010. [7] J. Erler, arXiv:1209.3324. 46 http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7214 http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7214 http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7235 http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.6639 http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.1432 http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.3324 LHC, Astrophysics and Cosmology [8] P. Fayet, Nucl.Phys.,Proc.Suppl. 101 (2001) 81–98 arXiv:hep-ph/0107228. doi:10.1016/S0920-5632(01)01495-5 [9] P. Nath, R. Arnowitt Physics Letters B 56 (2) (1975) 177 – 180. [10] A. H. Chamseddine, R. Arnowitt, P. Nath Phys. Rev. Lett. 49 (1982) 970–974. [11] A. Djouadi, Phys. Rept. 459 (2008) 1–241 arXiv:hep-ph/0503173. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2007.10.005 [12] J. M. Arnold, P. F. Perez, B. Fornal, Phys.Lett. B718 (2012) 75–79 arXiv:1207.2529. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.09.066 [13] S. P. Martin, in G. L. Kane (Ed.), Perspectives on Supersymmetry, 1998, p. 1 arXiv:arXiv:hep-ph/ 9709356. [14] S. Chatrchyan, et al., Eur.Phys.J. C73 (2013) 2469 arXiv:1304.0213. [15] J. Ellis,G. Ridolfi,F. Zwirner, Physics Letters B 262 (4) (1991) 477 – 484. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2469-8 [16] M. Carena, et al. Phys.Rev. D83 (2011) 055007 arXiv:1011.5304. [17] A. H. Guth, Phys.Rev. D23 (1981) 347–356. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.055007 [18] A. D. Linde, Phys.Lett. B129 (1983) 177–181. [19] F. Bezrukov, M. Shaposhnikov, Phys.Lett. B659 (2008) 703–706. arXiv:0710.3755. [20] V. Faraoni, E. Gunzig, P. Nardone, Fund.Cosmic Phys. 20 (1999) 121 arXiv:gr-qc/9811047. [21] N. Makino, M. Sasaki, Progress of Theoretical Physics 86 (1) (1991) 103–118. [22] J. R. Espinosa, G. F. Giudice, A. Riotto, arXiv: 0710.2484. [23] F. Bezrukov, H. M. Lee, arXiv:1112.1299. [24] P. Ade, et al., arXiv:1303.5082. [25] D. H. Lyth, A. Riotto, Physics Reports 314 (1999) 1 – 146. [26] M. Yamaguchi, Class.Quant.Grav. 28 (2011) 103001. arXiv:1101.2488. [27] C. Pallis, PoS Corfu 2012 (2013) 061. arXiv:1307. 7815. [28] A. D. Linde, Phys.Lett. B131 (1983) 330–334. [29] K. Nakayama, F. Takahashi, Phys.Lett. B707 (2012) 142–145. arXiv:1108.3762. [30] P. Ade, et al., arXiv:1303.5076. [31] G. Steigman, B. Dasgupta, J. F. Beacom, Phys.Rev. D86 (2012)023506 arXiv:1204.3622. [32] J. Lewin, P. Smith, Astropart.Phys. 6 (1996) 87– 112. [33] R. Bernabei, et al., Eur.Phys.J. C67 (2010) 39–49 arXiv:1002.1028. [34] C. Aalseth, et al. Phys.Rev.Lett. 107 (2011) 141301 arXiv:1106.0650. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1303-9 [35] G. Angloher, et al. Eur.Phys.J. C72 (2012) 1971 arXiv:1109.0702. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.141301 [36] P. Belli, et al., Phys.Rev. D84 (2011) 055014 arXiv:1106.4667. [37] M. Drees, G. Gerbier,arXiv:1204.2373. [38] L. Bergström, H. Snellman, Phys. Rev. D 37 (1988) 3737–3741. [39] S. D. Hunter, et al. (EGRET Collaboration) As- trophys.J. 481 (1997) 205. [40] W. de Boer, arXiv:hep-ph/0508108. [41] M. Ackermann, et al. (Fermi-LAT Collaboration), Physical Review D 88, 082002 arXiv:1305.5597. [42] A. Morselli in these proceedings, 2013. [43] J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, S. D. White, As- trophys.J. 462 (1996) 563–575 arXiv:astro-ph/ 9508025. [44] L. Bergstrom, T. Bringmann, J. Edsjo, Phys.Rev. D83 (2011) 045024 arXiv:1011.4514. [45] C. Weniger, JCAP 1208 (2012) 007 arXiv:1204. 2797. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.045024 [46] M. Gustafsson, arXiv:1310.2953. [47] A. Buffington, C. D. Orth, G. F. Smoot, Astroph.J. 199 (1975) 669–679. [48] M. Aguilar, et al. (AMS-02 Collaboration) Physi- cal Review Letters 110 (14) (2013) 141102. [49] Q. Yuan, et al. arXiv:1304.1482. [50] P.-F. Yin, Z.-H. Yu, Q. Yuan, X.-J. Bi, arXiv: 1304.4128. 47 http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0107228 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0920-5632(01)01495-5 http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0503173 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2007.10.005 http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.2529 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2012.09.066 http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:hep-ph/9709356 http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:hep-ph/9709356 http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.0213 http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2469-8 http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.5304 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.83.055007 http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755 http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9811047 http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.2484 http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.2484 http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.1299 http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5082 http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.2488 http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.7815 http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.7815 http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.3762 http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5076 http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.3622 http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.1028 http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.0650 http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1303-9 http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.0702 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.141301 http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.4667 http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2373 http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0508108 http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.5597 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9508025 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9508025 http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.4514 http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2797 http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2797 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.83.045024 http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.2953 http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.1482 http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4128 http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4128 Giulio Auriemma [51] J. Kopp, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 076013 [arXiv:1304.1184 [hep-ph]]. [52] A. De Simone, A. Riotto and W. Xue, JCAP 1305 (2013) 003 [arXiv:1304.1336 [hep-ph]]. [53] O. Adriani, et al. Phys.Rev.Lett. 105 (2010) 121101 arXiv:1007.0821. [54] A. Ibarra, A. S. Lamperstor- fer, J. Silk, arXiv:1309.2570. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.121101 [55] V. A. Mitsou arXiv:1304.1414. [56] J. Goodman, et al. Phys.Rev. D82 (2010) 116010 arXiv:1008.1783. [57] G. Aad, et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), JHEP 1304 (2013) 075 arXiv:1210.4491. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.116010 [58] Y. Bai, P. J. Fox, R. Harnik, JHEP 1012 (2010) 048 arXiv:1005.3797. [59] P. J. Fox, R. Harnik, J. Kopp, Y. Tsai, Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 056011 arXiv:1109.4398. [60] CMS Collaboration, Tech. Rep. CMS-PAS-EXO- 12-048, CERN, Geneva (2013). [61] O. Buchmueller et al. arXiv:1207.7315. [62] R. Aaij, et al. (LHCb Collaboration), Phys.Rev.Lett. 111 (2013) 101805 arXiv: 1307.5024. [63] D. Bauer, et al. in ”Report prepared for the Com- munity Summer Study”, (Snowmass) 2013 arXiv: 1305.1605. 48 http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.0821 http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.2570 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.121101 http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.1414 http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.1783 http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.4491 http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.82.116010 http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.3797 http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4398 http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7315 http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.5024 http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.5024 http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.1605 http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.1605 Introduction Supersymmetric Higgs Higgs Boson in Cosmology Dark Matter LHC Search for Dark Matter Candidates Summary