Dark Matter, Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment and the XENON1T Excess

Debajyoti Choudhury,∗ Suvam Maharana,† and Vandana Sahdev‡

Department of Physics and Astrophysics, University of Delhi, Delhi 110007, India

Divya Sachdeva§
Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research Pune, Pune 411008, India

A very economic scenario with just three extra scalar fields beyond the Standard Model is invoked
to explain the muon anomalous magnetic moment, the requisite relic abundance of dark matter as
well as the xenon1t excess through the inelastic down-scattering of the dark scalar.

I. INTRODUCTION Given the field content, the most general scalar po-
tential has many parameters. For the sake of brevity,
arXiv:2007.08205v4 [hep-ph] 17 Jan 2021

The observation of an excess in the electronic recoil consider here the relevant part of the same, viz.
events at the xenon1t detector [1] has elicited much ac-
tivity, especially in the context of Dark Matter (DM). A Vφ,ω 3 µ2φ φ∗ φ + (∆2 φ2 + H.c.)
multitude of explanations have been proposed, incorpo- (1)
+ 2µφω φ∗ φ ω + (A1 + iA2 ) φ2 + H.c) ω .
 
rating different mechanisms, such as boosted DM [2, 3],
inelastic DM-target scattering [4] as well as many oth-
Also possible are other cubic and quartic terms, includ-
ers [5]. The very structure of the excess demands that
ing, possibly a ω 3 one. However, unless their coefficients
not only the DM particle be relatively light, but also
are large, such terms would not be germane to the issues
that the recoil energy satisfy 1 keV <∼ Erec. <
∼ 5 keV. To at hand. While ensuring that φ represent a viable DM de-
reconcile such a DM with the correct relic abundance
mands that its classical value (vev) vanishes identically,
and yet survive cosmological constraints emanating from
we impose an identical (simplifying) condition for ω as
large-scale structure formation, big-bang nucleosynthe-
well. These conditions and the lightness of the scalars can
sis, cosmic microwave background [6], supernovae [7] etc.,
be easily achieved by suitably adjusting the parameters
has been a herculean task. In this paper, we point out
of the full potential.
that a relatively simple model can not only satisfy all
The presence of the ∆2 term √ serves to split the two
such constraints but also successfully address another
components of φ ≡ (φ2 + iφ1 )/ 2. For real ∆2 (an imag-
long-standing issue that the Standard Model (SM) faces,
inary component to ∆2 does not change anything qual-
namely an explanation of aµ , the anomalous magnetic
itatively beyond introducing an immaterial mixing), the
moment of the muon. Furthermore, it promises exciting
masses are given by (without loss of generality, ∆2 > 0)
signals at currently operating experiments.
q
II. MODEL m2,1 = µ2φ ± 2∆2 = µφ ± δm , δm ' ∆2 /µφ . (2)

Eschewing the more common fermionic DM, we con- As we shall see later, for a successful explanation of the
sider the simpler alternative, viz. a complex scalar field xenon1t signal, we would require µφ to be a few GeVs
φ. The lack of excess events in the first bin at xenon1t at best (with a few hundred MeVs being preferred). In
[1, 2] restricts mφ <
∼ O(1) GeV. The dark sector commu- particular, a much heavier DM would result in too large
nicates with the SM particles through a light real scalar (and wide) an excess in the low recoil-energy bins. Fur-
field ω which also serves to generate a contribution to thermore, δm ∼ 2 keV is motivated not only by the profile
aµ . There are some advantages to choosing a scalar me- of the excess but also by the functional dependence of the
diator as opposed to the more popular dark photon. For atomic excitation factor, as would be seen in Section III.
one, it is the most economic construction in terms of field The soft trilinear terms in eq.(1) engender couplings of
content. Secondly, ω can both be the mediator as well the form gij φi φj ω, with
as potentially engender the mass split required for down-
scattering. And, finally, having a dark photon generate g11 = µφω − A1 , g22 = µφω + A1 , g12 = −2A2 . (3)
a substantial aµ would need it to couple to neutrinos as
well (at least in the simpler constructions) thereby ren- While the gij s play nearly equivalent roles in determining
dering the heavier component of the DM unstable on the relic density, g12 is key to explaining the xenon1t
cosmological time scales. excess. Also note that hωi = 6 0 would generate ∆2 .
The messenger ω can have renormalizable interaction
terms with only the Higgs field with the H † Hω 2 term
∗ [email protected] constrained by the limits on the invisible decay width of
† [email protected] H. Similarly, a ωH † H term would induce a mixing, and
‡ [email protected] is constrained by B and K decays [8–13]. However, we
§ [email protected] do not delve into this and focus, instead, on a leptophilic
 2

ω, coupling to fermions through dimension-five operators 10-1

such as [14]
 
Lint 3 (ω/Λ)H ỹµ L̄2 µR + ỹe L̄1 eR + H.c. ,
10-2 Babar
where L1,2 are the electron and muon doublets and Λ

yµ
is the cutoff scale, presumably in the multi-TeV range.
(While ỹτ could exist as well, it does not largely concern 10-3 e-II
)µ Bell
us, and we shall remark on its consequences later.) On (g-2
symmetry breaking, these lead to effective Yukawa terms
√ 0.01 0.1 1
Leff
Yuk 3 ω [yµ µ̄µ + ye ēe] , y` ≡ ỹ` v/ 2Λ . (4) mω (GeV)

We shall, henceforth, parametrize FIG. 1. The 2σ band favoured by (g − 2)µ and the constraint
from the 4µ final state assuming Br(ω → µ+ µ− ) = 1.0. The
ye = ns (me /mµ ) yµ (5) dotted curve is the projection from BELLE-II experiment [24].

where the scaling factor ns = O(1). and explaining the discrepancy [22]
Before delving into phenomenological consequences,
−11
we must discuss the decays. While φ1 is absolutely stable, δaµ ≡ aexp SM
µ − aµ = (261 ± 63 ± 48) × 10 ,
φ2 decays may occur at one-loop. Owing to the tiny δm ,
these are restricted to φ1 + N1 γ + N2 (ν ν̄) alone. While yields a band in the yµ -mω plane (Fig.1).
φ2 → φ1 + γ is ruled out from considerations of angular Even for ye = 0, the BABAR search for dark photons
momenta, decays into neutrinos are highly suppressed in the 4µ final state [23] can be reinterpreted in terms
owing to the W -mass. The leading decay mode, viz. of e+ e− → µ+ µ− ω followed by ω → µ+ µ− [14, 21, 24]
φ2 → φ1 γγ proceeds through the effective ωγγ vertex, for the scalar mediator yielding an upper bound of yµ < ∼
with the decay width being given by (2 − 8) × 10−3 for 0.2 GeV < ∼ mω < ∼ 3 GeV. As can be
 2 easily ascertained from Fig.1, this has little bearing on
α g12 Q2
y δm7 the solution for (g − 2)µ .
f f
X
Γφ1 γγ =  Owing to its much smaller size, a non-zero ye does not
3πmω 2 mf 3360π 3 m22
f =e,µ materially affect this conclusion. The situation, though,
i2  0.07GeV 4 could change drastically if a yτ were to exist, for it would
h g12
= 4.3 × 10−31 s−1 lead to e+ e− → τ + τ − ω → τ + τ − `+ `− at BABAR [25].
10−2 GeV mω In the event of yi ∝ mi , the constraints on yτ could
h y i2  δ 7  0.5GeV 2 be interpreted in terms of much stronger bounds on yµ
µ m
× (ns + 1)2 (6) and ye . Note, however, that both the BABAR analyses
10−4 2keV mφ
assume Br(ω → µ+ µ− ) = 1.0 for mω > 0.21 GeV or
It might seem that the consequent emission should have Br(ω → e+ e− ) = 1.0 for 0.04 GeV < mω < 0.21 GeV.
been seen by X-ray observatories such as Chandra or In our scenario, whenever it is kinematically allowed to,
XMM-Newton etc.[15, 16]. However, note that, with the ω decays overwhelmingly into a φi φj pair (see eq. 7),
the decay being a 3-body one, the excess would be a thereby negating both the aforementioned constraints.
continuum ranging upto ∼ 1 keV with a maximum at
∼ 0.8 keV. The absence of a sharp line naturally reduces B. Constraints on ye
the sensitivity as compared to, say, that in Ref. [17], and
even with a conservative interpretation, the parameter We begin by exploring the channels for mω < 2mφ
space to the left of the peak in Fig. 3 is consistent with so as to remove the dependence on the invisible decay
the absence of an excess. modes. With ye being tiny, for mω < 2mµ the scalar de-
On the other hand, when allowed, the partial widths cay would, typically, lead to displaced vertices. The con-
of ω into leptonic and scalar channels are given, respec- straints from beam dump experiments, such as E141 [26],
tively, by (here, βX ≡ (1 − 4m2X /m2ω )1/2 ) E137 [27, 28] and Orsay linac [29] where ω is produced
through e− + N → e− + N + ω, are displayed in Fig.2.
Γ`` = y`2 mω β`3 /(8π), Γij = gij
2
βφ (2 − δij ) /(32πmω ).
The shape of the disallowed region is largely determined
(7)
by the energy of the decay electrons and the vertex dis-
A. Anomalous magnetic moment of the muon placement. For mω > 2mµ , the small lifetime of ω dras-
tically reduces the sensitivity. Rather, the BABAR search
The interaction of eq.(4) generates an additional con- for dark photons via e+ e− → γA0 → γ`+ `− [32] can be
tribution δaµ at one-loop itself. The expression is used to constrain ye [21]. For yµ  ye , only the muonic
straightforward [14, 18–21] viz., channel is relevant, and assuming this to be the over-
whelmingly dominant mode [14, 33] leads to strong limits
yµ2 m2µ
Z 1
z 2 (2 − z) dz for mω ∈ [0.02, 1] GeV (yellow region in Fig. 2). One can
δaµ = 2 2 2 2
(8)
8π 0 mω (1 − z) + mµ z similarly reinterpret the BABAR bounds for mω > 1 GeV
 3

electron inelastic scattering is given by [45, 46]

KLOE Babar(ω→2φ)
10-3 vmax p+
a2 σ̄e
Z Z
Babar dhσvi f (v)
4
= 0 dv pdp|Fφ (p)|2 K(E, p),
10-4 NA6 BELLE dE 2me vmin v p−
)
(g-2 e
ye

(9)
HPS
10-5 where a0 = 1/me αem and f (v) is the distribution in
the DM’s velocity v with a Maxwellian form being a
10-6 E137, E141, Orsay very good approximation.
p The integration limits are
given by vmin = 2(E − δm )/m2 (for E ≥ δm ) and
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 vmax = v⊕ + vesc where v⊕ is the Earth’s velocity and
mω (GeV)
vesc is the local galactic escape velocity [47]. The form
FIG. 2. Constraints on the mediator ω coupling to elec- factor |Fφ (p)|2 , as a function of the momentum trans-
tron. The dotted curves indicate projected sensitivities from fer p, can be approximated to be unity in the case of a
HPS [21, 30] and Belle-II [14, 21, 31]. heavy mediator. For free electron scattering proceeding
through ω-exchange, we have
in terms of the scalar mediator which would be of the
same order as the sub-GeV bounds. However, we refrain σ̄e = ye2 g12
2
m2e /(4πm4ω m2φ ) . (10)
from exploring that region as it is of little interest here.
The lower energy experiment KLOE [34–38], on the other
hand, imposes a comparatively relaxed bound [14, 39]. In evaluating the integral, we use the atomic excitation
factor, K(E, p) from ref. [45]. The integration range for
Naturally, all the above constraints are drastically re-
p, as determined using momentum conservation, is, for
laxed for mω > 2mφ . Instead, ye can now be constrained
E ≥ δm , given by
from missing energy/momentum signals. For example,
the dark photon search of the NA64 collaboration [40] q
through nuclei-initiated e− N → e− N A0 with the A0 go- p± = m2 v ± m22 v 2 − 2m2 (E − δm ) . (11)
ing invisibly, yields constraints. Similarly, the analogous
BABAR analysis [41] for dark photons may be used as for δm ∼ E, the allowed momentum transfer ranges from
well. In depicting either in Fig. 2, we have, following approximately zero to O(100 keV) for m2 ∼ O(100 MeV).
refs. [14, 21, 24], interpreted the constraints rather con- As ref.[4] has pointed out, the second integral in eqn.(9)
servatively, eliminating a slightly larger part of the pa- would now have a peak at E ≈ δm . This, in turn,
rameter space than is strictly necessary. produces a consequent peak in the differential cross sec-
The structure of eq.(8) ensures that constraints from tion. To reproduce the profile of the observed excess at
(g − 2)e [22] are very weak. So are those from fifth force xenon1t , we need δm ∼ 2 keV and this had motivated
searches [42]. Similarly, the bounds from the cooling of our choice.
horizontal branch stars or red giants [43] are relevant The event rate R can be determined using [46]
only for mω < ∼ 0.1 MeV, while those from SN1978A [33]
extend to larger mω but are weaker. Bounds from nucle- dR ρφ dhσvi
osynthesis [33, 44] are relevant only for mω < 1 MeV and = NT 2 . (12)
are inapplicable in the present context. As Fig. 2 (and dE m2 dE
Fig.7 of ref.[33]) shows, for mω >∼ 0.05 GeV, the (g − 2)µ
favoured band of Fig. 1 is unconstrained by considera- Here, NT ' 4.2 × 1027 /tonne is the number of Xenon
tions of ye as long as 1 < atoms per unit detector mass. Since φ1,2 are nearly de-
∼ ns <
∼ 10.
generate, the energy density of incident DM particles
ρφ2 ≈ ρDM /2 ≈ 0.15 GeV/cm3 [48, 49].
III. DIRECT DETECTION VIA ELECTRON
At this point we are quite well-equipped to address the
RECOIL: XENON1T EXCESS
xenon1t excess. With (g − 2)µ constraining yµ , a choice
With the effective Yukawa couplings (4) in place, the for ns (see eq. 5) determines ye . This, in turn, fixes g12 .
triple scalar vertices give rise to three distinct DM ini- The regions of the parameter space that can explain the
tiated processes at a detector, namely φi D → φi D reported excess within 1σ are depicted in Fig. 3. Note
(where D is a detector entity, nucleus or electron) and that mω < ∼ 0.03 GeV is strongly disfavoured by low-
φ2 D → φ1 D. The former are elastic in nature with the energy data. For a given (mω , mφ ; yµ ) combination, a
typical recoil energy for an electron being O(eV) and are, larger ns would demand a smaller g12 so as to maintain
thus, unable to explain the recoil-energy profile (namely, the size of the excess, as reflected by the shifting bands.
a peak at Erec. ∼ 2 keV) of the xenon1t signal. The g12 Apart from electrons, the DM will also scatter against
term in eq.(1), though, can lead to such events provided the nuclei. However, in the absence of any coupling of ω
the mass-splitting δm ∼ O( keV). to the quarks we only have loop-suppressed contributions
For an electron recoiling with energy E, the differential to the scattering process. This also invalidates the oth-
cross-section for the atomic ionization induced by DM- erwise strong bound set by the cresst collaboration [50]
for mφ ∈ [0.3, 1] GeV.
 4

100 To reduce the number of parameters, we make the sim-

mφ = 0.2 GeV
plifying assumption that all three gij s are numerically
10-1 very similar, denoting this common value by gωφφ . With
yµ constrained from (g−2)µ , we plot, in Fig. 3, the depen-
gωφφ(GeV)

10-2 dence of the DM relic abundance on gωφφ as a function of

the mediator mass mω for a given DM mass. The width
10-3 ns = 1
of the band corresponds to the spread in yµ (see Fig. 1).
ns = 2 For mω < mφ , the processes φi φj → ωω are dom-
ns = 4 inant. With the cross-section having only a mild mω -
10-4
0.1 1 dependence, so does the requisite gωφφ . Since yµ plays
mω (GeV) only a subsidiary role, the band collapses to virtually a
100
mφ = 0.5 GeV single curve. For mω > mφ , this channel is no more al-
lowed and φi φj → µ+ µ− dominates. Consequently, gωφφ
10-1 must increase with mφ to account for the s-channel sup-
gωφφ(GeV)

pression. Simultaneously, the allowed spread in yµ be-

10-2 comes relevant. The strong dip around mφ ∼ 2mω is but
a consequence of resonance enhancement.
10-3 ns = 1 Understandably, for ns < ∼ 10, the relic abundance has
ns = 2 little dependence on it. On the other hand, the parame-
ns = 4
10-4 ter space allowed by the xenon1t excess most definitely
0.1 1 does. Consequently, it is straightforward to identify the
mω (GeV)
region of parameter space that simultaneously explains
FIG. 3. gωφφ (≡ g12 ) values satisfying the xenon1t excess all three viz. (g − 2)µ , the xenon1t rate and DM relic
(green) and relic density (red), as a function of mω . abundance.
A larger mφ stipulates a smaller relic number density
IV. RELIC ABUNDANCE and, hence, a larger annihilation cross section. The req-
uisite increase in gωφφ is not as severe as that for main-
With φ2 having a lifetime greater than the age of the taining the xenon1t excess (see eq. 10) thereby neces-
Universe, the DM comprises equal parts of φ1,2 . The sitating a larger ns for ensuring overlap (see Fig. 3).
small δm ensures that the two decouple chemically well Similarly, mω  mφ would imply a progressively larger
before the heavier one could be annihilated completely or gωφφ . While an overlap with the xenon1t data can
even exponentially suppressed. By virtue of its couplings still be achieved for ns < 1, a large gωφφ would result in
to φ1,2 , the ω serves as a portal between the dark and a large quantum correction to the scalar masses, poten-
the ordinary sectors. tially destabilising the vacuum, unless appropriate (and
Post decoupling, the annihilations are crucial in deter- allowed) terms are added in the Lagrangian.
mining the relic abundance. For very light φi , the only
channel available is φi φj → e+ e− , where the two scalars
could either be the same or different. For heavier φi , the
V. OTHER COSMOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS
µ+ µ− and the ωω modes open up. The last-mentioned,
if allowed kinematically, dominates, with propagators (t-
and u-channel) corresponding to either of φ1,2 . Had we A DM candidate of the kind we propose can, poten-
included a ω 3 term in the Lagrangian, a further contribu- tially, play a nontrivial role in the very early evolution
tion from a s-channel w-exchange would have appeared. of the universe and the scenario is, thus, subject to con-
Defining the yield Yφ as the ratio of its number density straints from observables. We, now, consider these.
and entropy-density s(mφ ) of the universe, the relevant Of particular importance is the sensitivity of CMB
Boltzmann equation, in terms of x ≡ mφ /T (T being the anisotropies to energy injection from DM annihilations
temperature) and the Hubble expansion rate H(mφ ), is into `+ `− . The relevant parameter is pann ≡ f hσvi/mχ ,
where f is the fraction of the energy released that
is transferred to the intergalactic medium around a
 2 
dYφi x s(mφ ) 
= − Yφ2i − Yφequil redshift of ∼ 600. The planck collaboration [51]
dx H(m" φ)
i
#
(13) has obtained a 95% upper limit of 3.2 on p28 ann ≡
1 2
pann /[1028 cm3 s−1 GeV−1 ]. The process responsible for
X X
2 2
× gij y` hσ`` vi + Rij hσωω vi
j
2 the correct relic density viz. φi φj → ωω, has hσvi ∼
`
P 10−26 cm3 s−1 . A prompt decay of ω into e+ e− would,
where Rij ≡ k gik gkj and all the coupling constants thus, bring this scenario into conflict with the CMB
have been factored out of the cross-sections. Since δm  constraints. These could, however, be evaded if the
Tf , the mass splitting has virtually no effect on the freeze- branching fraction of ω to SM particles were less than
out and we have assumed that Yφ1 = Yφ2 . The factor of 10−2 × (mφ /1 GeV). This is most easily achieved by ex-
1/2 is occasioned by the ωs being identical particles. tending the dark sector. To this end, we introduce a
 5

complex scalar η, charged under an exact Z3 symmetry this argument holds as long as µωη is not too large (< ∼
(with all other fields, SM or otherwise, transforming triv- 10 MeV), almost independent of whether we are close to
ially). The most general interaction Lagrangian involving the resonance region.
η would, then, be Processes such as φi e− → φj e− maintain kinetic equi-
librium and keep the dark sector in thermal contact with
Lη,ω 3 λη |η|4 + µωη ω|η|2 + λ0ωη ω 2 |η|2 the plasma until Tkin , when it decouples. For ns ∼ 4,

(14)
+ µη η 3 + λωη ωη 3 + H.c . comparing the interaction rate to the expansion (Hub-
ble) rate gives Tkin ∼ MeV. After the decoupling, the
While it may seem that too many free parameters have DM is no longer in kinetic equilibrium with the SM ther-
been introduced, we shall soon see that many of them mal bath and begins to cool more rapidly.
are almost irrelevant. Indeed, λ0ωη is entirely so. Once The inter-conversion process φ2 φ2 → φ1 φ1 , nonethe-
again, we assume that η does not acquire a nonzero vev. less, continues to be efficient until the temperature of
While the decay of the ω can, now, also proceed the dark sector falls below T 0 < Tkin . If T 0 < δm , the
through either of the µωη and λωη terms, the latter fractional abundance of φ2 would be exponentially sup-
0
process, being a three-body decay, tends to be kine- pressed, with N2 /N1 ∼ e−δm /T . Using the formalism of
matically suppressed. For mη sufficiently smaller than refs.[54, 55], we find, though, that T 0 >
∼ O(100 keV) and
mω /2, the domination of the ηη ∗ mode over the e+ e− N2 /N1 ∼ 1. Similarly, the interconversion as well as the
mode is ensured by a moderate µωη . Simultaneously, scattering rates are much smaller than the constraints
the aforementioned CMB bounds are satisfied as long from structure formation.
as µωη  10−4 mω (mφ /1 GeV)−1/2 . With the Z3 be-
ing unbroken, the η is absolutely stable and would also
contribute to the overall DM relic density. It should be VI. SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK
noted, though, that semi-annihilation processes such as
3η → ηη ∗ (or η + 2η ∗ → 2η) would occur and these play We present a very economical model that simultane-
a crucial role in determining the relic density for η (with ously explains the xenon1t excess (through inelastic
that for the η ∗ being equal). Several diagrams contribute DM scattering), as well as the anomalous magnetic mo-
to each of these processes and are listed in the Appendix. ment of the muon while producing the requisite dark
Involving both η and ω as mediators, the respective con- matter relic density. A single leptophilic scalar ω, lighter
tributions to the amplitudes scale, in the nonrelativistic than the DM, generates the requisite aµ while serving as
limit, as a portal between the dark and the visible sectors. A tiny
mass-splitting of O( keV) between the two components
(a) µ3η /m4η , (b) µη µ2ωη /m2η (9m2η − m2ω ), of the scalar field representing the DM is engendered by
(c) µη µωη /mη (mη + mω ), (d) µη µ2ωη /m2η (4m2η − m2ω ),
2 2 2 2
a soft term in the scalar potential (or, potentially, by a
(e) µη λη /m2η , (f ) λωη µωη /(9m2η − m2ω ), nonzero hωi). The very smallness of the splitting allows
2 2
(g) λωη µωη /(mη + mω ), (h) λωη µωη /(4m2η − m2ω ) . the heavier DM component to be stable on cosmologi-
For brevity’s sake, we assume that no amplitude is cal time scales. While the DM mass is required to be
resonance-enhanced. Such an enhancement is available relatively small, viz. O(100 MeV), a sufficient parame-
only for amplitudes (b) and (f ), and for mη ≈ mω /3 ter space exists satisfying all constraints, experimental
either of them is efficient enough that all other cou- (beam dumps, colliders etc) astrophysical (stellar cool-
plings can be switched off, leaving this sector with just ing) and cosmological (BBN, Neff ). Constraints arising
two, namely µωη and one of µη and λωη . For exam- from energy injections into the CMBR are evaded by in-
ple, with µη , µωη ∼ 0.1 mη (keeping others parameters troducing a third scalar field η to which the mediator ω
zero), we get Ωη h2 ∼ 10−4 [52]. Similarly, for µη = 0 dominantly decays into. While η itself is cosmologically
and λωη ∼ 0.1 (mη /1 GeV), one obtains Ωη h2 ∼ 10−3 . stable, its interactions drive its relic density to less than
Even far away from such a resonance, a combination of O(10−3 ).
max(µη , µωη ) & O(5 mη ) and λη , λωη > ∼ 0.01 suppresses Competing constraints render the model eminently
the relic η-density to O(10−3 ). This suppression suffices testable and, thus, interesting. For example, in Fig. 2
to ensure that the sizable ηη (∗) self-interaction that such we have indicated the projected sensitivities for ye from
terms engender are consistent with the constraints from Belle-II [14, 21, 31] and the Heavy Photon Search (HPS)
the Bullet cluster [53]. experiments [21, 30]. A similar Belle-II projection for
While it might seem that the ηη ∗ → e+ e− process yµ [24] has been indicated in Fig.1. The FASER ex-
would resurrect the problem with the CMB, it is not periment [56] too can probe such parameters. Clearly, a
so. Even though each ω decay would create multiple η- very large part of the favoured parameter space would be
particles, note that the smallness of ye ensures that the testable in the near future both in terrestrial experiments
ηη ∗ → e+ e− cross section is much smaller than that for as well as CMBR observations. Also worth studying are
3η → 2η, despite the latter being a 3 → 2 process. Thus, the consequences of a nonzero hωi, especially in the con-
the ηs settle to the tiny relic density much faster than text of finite-temperature corrections, for this presents
they pump energy into the CMB. In addition, the longer intriguing possibilities as far as cosmological history is
injection time further ameliorates the problem. Note that concerned, whether it be in terms of phase transitions,
 6

small late stage inflation etc. We hope to return to such SM acknowledge research grant CRG/2018/004889 of the
issues at a later date. SERB, India.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
APPENDIX
We thank Filippo Sala for constructive criticism and
Abhijit Kumar Saha for bringing to our notice Chan- The amplitudes in sec. V correspond to various dia-
dra and XMM-Newton observations. For partial sup- grams as shown in fig. 4, respectively. The diagrams
port, DS acknowledges a Ramanujan Fellowship grant categorically belong to either of the two processes viz.
of DST, India, VS thanks the UGC, India while DC and 3η → ηη ∗ or η + 2η ∗ → 2η.

η
ω
η η η η η η
η ω
η η η η∗ η ω η
η
η η η∗ η η∗
∗
η
η η η η
(a) (b) (c)

η η
ω η
η ∗ η η η
η
η
η∗ η η ω η η
∗ η η ∗ η η
η η
∗
η η η η∗
(d) (e)

η η η η
∗
ω
η η η ω
ω
η η η∗ η
η ∗ ∗ ∗
η η η
(f) (g) (h)

FIG. 4. Feynman diagrams corresponding to various sub-processes leading to 3-to-2 annihilation of the complex scalar, η , with
arrows representing the momentum flow.

[1] E. Aprile et al. (XENON), (2020), arXiv:2006.09721 M. j. Jin, (2020), arXiv:2006.16145 [hep-ph]; H. An and
[hep-ex]. D. Yang, (2020), arXiv:2006.15672 [hep-ph]; S. Shakeri,
[2] K. Kannike, M. Raidal, H. Veermäe, A. Strumia, and F. Hajkarim, and S.-S. Xue, (2020), arXiv:2008.05029
D. Teresi, (2020), arXiv:2006.10735 [hep-ph]. [hep-ph]; H. M. Lee, (2020), arXiv:2006.13183 [hep-ph].
[3] Q.-H. Cao, R. Ding, and Q.-F. Xiang, (2020), [5] J. Smirnov and J. F. Beacom, (2020), arXiv:2002.04038
arXiv:2006.12767 [hep-ph]; R. Primulando, J. Julio, [hep-ph]; F. Takahashi, M. Yamada, and W. Yin,
and P. Uttayarat, (2020), arXiv:2006.13161 [hep-ph]; (2020), arXiv:2006.10035 [hep-ph]; G. Alonso-Álvarez
H. Alhazmi et al, (2020), arXiv:2006.16252 [hep-ph]; et al, (2020), arXiv:2006.11243 [hep-ph]; L. Su et
L. Delle Rose, G. Hütsi, C. Marzo, and L. Marzola, al, (2020), arXiv:2006.11837 [hep-ph]; M. Du et al,
(2020), arXiv:2006.16078 [hep-ph]; P. Ko and Y. Tang, (2020), arXiv:2006.11949 [hep-ph]; Y. Chen et al, (2020),
(2020), arXiv:2006.15822 [hep-ph]; B. Fornal et al, arXiv:2006.12447 [hep-ph]; N.F. Bell et al, (2020),
(2020), arXiv:2006.11264 [hep-ph]. arXiv:2006.12461 [hep-ph]; G. Paz, A. A. Petrov,
[4] K. Harigaya, Y. Nakai, and M. Suzuki, (2020), M. Tammaro, and J. Zupan, (2020), arXiv:2006.12462
arXiv:2006.11938 [hep-ph]; M. Baryakhtar, A. Berlin, [hep-ph]; K. Nakayama and Y. Tang, (2020),
H. Liu, and N. Weiner, (2020), arXiv:2006.13918 [hep- arXiv:2006.13159 [hep-ph]; G. B. Gelmini, V. Takhis-
ph]; J. Bramante and N. Song, (2020), arXiv:2006.14089 tov, and E. Vitagliano, (2020), arXiv:2006.13909 [hep-
[hep-ph]; S. Baek, J. Kim, and P. Ko, (2020), ph]; Y. Jho, J.-C. Park, S. C. Park, and P.-Y. Tseng,
arXiv:2006.16876 [hep-ph]; W. Chao, Y. Gao, and (2020), arXiv:2006.13910 [hep-ph]; L. Zu, G.-W. Yuan,
 7

L. Feng, and Y.-Z. Fan, (2020), arXiv:2006.14577 [hep- [31] T. Abe et al. (Belle-II), (2010), arXiv:1011.0352
ph]; N. Okada, S. Okada, D. Raut, and Q. Shafi, [physics.ins-det].
(2020), arXiv:2007.02898 [hep-ph]; U. K. Dey, T. N. [32] J. Lees et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 201801
Maity, and T. S. Ray, (2020), arXiv:2006.12529 [hep- (2014), arXiv:1406.2980 [hep-ex].
ph]; G. Choi, M. Suzuki, and T. T. Yanagida, (2020), [33] S. Knapen, T. Lin, and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 96,
arXiv:2006.12348 [hep-ph]. 115021 (2017), arXiv:1709.07882 [hep-ph].
[6] J. Berger, K. Jedamzik, and D. G. E. Walker, JCAP 11, [34] N. Borodatchenkova, D. Choudhury, and M. Drees,
032 (2016), arXiv:1605.07195 [hep-ph]. Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 141802 (2006), arXiv:hep-
[7] J. H. Chang, R. Essig, and S. D. McDermott, JHEP 09, ph/0510147.
051 (2018), arXiv:1803.00993 [hep-ph]. [35] F. Archilli et al. (KLOE-2), Phys. Lett. B 706, 251
[8] C. Bird, P. Jackson, R. V. Kowalewski, and (2012), arXiv:1110.0411 [hep-ex].
M. Pospelov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 201803 (2004), [36] D. Babusci et al. (KLOE-2), Phys. Lett. B 720, 111
arXiv:hep-ph/0401195. (2013), arXiv:1210.3927 [hep-ex].
[9] D. O’Connell, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, and M. B. Wise, [37] D. Babusci et al. (KLOE-2), Phys. Lett. B 736, 459
Phys. Rev. D 75, 037701 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0611014. (2014), arXiv:1404.7772 [hep-ex].
[10] M. Pospelov, A. Ritz, and M. B. Voloshin, Phys. Lett. [38] A. Anastasi et al. (KLOE-2), Phys. Lett. B 757, 356
B 662, 53 (2008), arXiv:0711.4866 [hep-ph]. (2016), arXiv:1603.06086 [hep-ex].
[11] B. Batell, M. Pospelov, and A. Ritz, Phys. Rev. D 83, [39] D. S. M. Alves and N. Weiner, JHEP 07, 092 (2018),
054005 (2011), arXiv:0911.4938 [hep-ph]. arXiv:1710.03764 [hep-ph].
[12] R. Aaij et al. (LHCb), Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 161802 [40] D. Banerjee et al. (NA64), Phys. Rev. D 97, 072002
(2015), arXiv:1508.04094 [hep-ex]. (2018), arXiv:1710.00971 [hep-ex].
[13] G. Krnjaic, Phys. Rev. D 94, 073009 (2016), [41] Lees, J.P. et al (BaBar), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 131804
arXiv:1512.04119 [hep-ph]. (2017), arXiv:1702.03327 [hep-ex].
[14] J. Liu, C. E. Wagner, and X.-P. Wang, JHEP 03, 008 [42] J. Murata and S. Tanaka, Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 033001
(2019), arXiv:1810.11028 [hep-ph]. (2015), arXiv:1408.3588 [hep-ex].
[15] A. Boyarsky, D. Iakubovskyi, O. Ruchayskiy, and [43] E. Hardy and R. Lasenby, JHEP 02, 033 (2017),
V. Savchenko, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomi- arXiv:1611.05852 [hep-ph].
cal Society 387, 1361–1373 (2008). [44] D. Ghosh and D. Sachdeva, (2020), arXiv:2007.01873
[16] A. Boyarsky, O. Ruchayskiy, and M. Markevitch, The [hep-ph].
Astrophysical Journal 673, 752–757 (2008). [45] B. Roberts and V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. D 100, 063017
[17] F. Bazzocchi, M. Lattanzi, S. Riemer-Sørensen, and (2019), arXiv:1904.07127 [hep-ph].
J. W. F. Valle, JCAP 2008, 013 (2008). [46] R. Essig, J. Mardon, and T. Volansky, Phys. Rev. D 85,
[18] J. P. Leveille, Nucl. Phys. B 137, 63 (1978). 076007 (2012), arXiv:1108.5383 [hep-ph].
[19] D. Chakraverty, D. Choudhury, and A. Datta, Phys. [47] J. Lewin and P. Smith, Astropart. Phys. 6, 87 (1996).
Lett. B 506, 103 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0102180. [48] G. Hinshaw et al. (WMAP), Astrophys. J. Suppl. 208,
[20] G. Giudice, P. Paradisi, and M. Passera, JHEP 11, 113 19 (2013), arXiv:1212.5226 [astro-ph.CO].
(2012), arXiv:1208.6583 [hep-ph]. [49] P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 594,
[21] B. Batell, N. Lange, D. McKeen, M. Pospelov, A13 (2016), arXiv:1502.01589 [astro-ph.CO].
and A. Ritz, Phys. Rev. D 95, 075003 (2017), [50] A. Abdelhameed et al. (CRESST), Phys. Rev. D 100,
arXiv:1606.04943 [hep-ph]. 102002 (2019), arXiv:1904.00498 [astro-ph.CO].
[22] M. Tanabashi et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. [51] N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), (2018), arXiv:1807.06209
D 98, 030001 (2018). [astro-ph.CO].
[23] J. Lees et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 94, 011102 (2016), [52] S. Bhattacharya, P. Ghosh, and S. Verma, JCAP 2020,
arXiv:1606.03501 [hep-ex]. 040–040 (2020).
[24] B. Batell, A. Freitas, A. Ismail, and D. Mckeen, Phys. [53] S. W. Randall, M. Markevitch, D. Clowe, A. H. Gon-
Rev. D 98, 055026 (2018), arXiv:1712.10022 [hep-ph]. zalez, and M. Bradač, The Astrophysical Journal 679,
[25] J. Lees et al. (BaBar), (2020), arXiv:2005.01885 [hep-ex]. 1173–1180 (2008).
[26] E. Riordan et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 755 (1987). [54] D. P. Finkbeiner, T. R. Slatyer, N. Weiner, and I. Yavin,
[27] J.D. Bjorken et al, Phys. Rev. D 38, 3375 (1988). JCAP 09, 037 (2009), arXiv:0903.1037 [hep-ph].
[28] B. Batell, R. Essig, and Z. Surujon, Phys. Rev. Lett. [55] B. Batell, M. Pospelov, and A. Ritz, Phys. Rev. D 79,
113, 171802 (2014), arXiv:1406.2698 [hep-ph]. 115019 (2009), arXiv:0903.3396 [hep-ph].
[29] M. Davier and H. Nguyen Ngoc, Phys. Lett. B 229, 150 [56] A. e. a. Ariga (FASER Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 99,
(1989). 095011 (2019).
[30] M. Battaglieri et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 777, 91
(2015), arXiv:1406.6115 [physics.ins-det].