Upload
others
View
6
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Looking for Dark Matter in Cosmic Rays
Andrea VittinoUniversita’ di Torino and IPhT, CEA/Saclay
Under the supervision of Nicolao Fornengo (Unito) and Marco Cirelli (CEA)
Seminario del secondo annoTorino, February 14 2014
A dark universeThere are overwhelming evidences for the existence of dark matter:
If DM is made of particles that interact among themselves and with standard
model particles we may hope to detect it
This talk is about indirect detection
• We are looking for the most visible products of DM annihilation: antiparticles
• We are looking for them in the cosmic rays flux
• In particular, we are interested in:
‣ Antiprotons (Fornengo, Maccione, AV, “Constraints on particle dark matter from
cosmic-ray antiprotons”, arXiv: 1312..3579[hep-ph])
‣ Anti-nuclei (Fornengo, Maccione, AV, “Dark Matter searches with cosmic antideuterons: status and perspectives” JCAP 09 (2013) 031, Cirelli, Fornengo, Taoso, AV “Anti-helium from Dark
Matter annihilations”, arXiv: 1401.4017)
‣ Positrons (Di Mauro, Donato, Fornengo. Lineros, AV, “Interpretation of AMS-02 electrons and positrons data ”, arXiv:1402.0321)
Antimatter as a tool for indirect detection
• We are looking for the most visible products of DM annihilation: antiparticles
• We are looking for them in the cosmic rays flux
• In particular, we are interested in:
‣ Antiprotons (Fornengo, Maccione, AV, “Constraints on particle dark matter from
cosmic-ray antiprotons”, arXiv: 1312..3579[hep-ph])
‣ Anti-nuclei (Fornengo, Maccione, AV, “Dark Matter searches with cosmic antideuterons: status and perspectives” JCAP 09 (2013) 031, Cirelli, Fornengo, Taoso, AV “Anti-helium from Dark
Matter annihilations”, arXiv: 1401.4017)
‣ Positrons (Di Mauro, Donato, Fornengo. Lineros, AV, “Interpretation of AMS-02 electrons and positrons data ”, arXiv:1402.0321)
Antimatter as a tool for indirect detection
• Some years ago, antideuterons have been proposed as an almost background free channel for DM indirect detection [F. Donato, N. Fornengo, P.Salati, Phys.Rev. D62 (2000) 043003]
• A reaction that generates many antideuterons also generates a lot of antiprotons. We can derive very strong bounds on DM annihilation cross section from PAMELA measurements on the antiprotons flux
Antideuterons are a good discovery channel for DM!
Antiprotons are an excellent tool to constrain DM properties
Antiprotons and antideuterons
• Some years ago, antideuterons have been proposed as an almost background free channel for DM indirect detection [F. Donato, N. Fornengo, P.Salati, Phys.Rev. D62 (2000) 043003]
• A reaction that generates many antideuterons also generates a lot of antiprotons. We can derive very strong bounds on DM annihilation cross section from PAMELA measurements on the antiprotons flux
Antideuterons are a good discovery channel for DM!
Antiprotons are an excellent tool to constrain DM properties
Antiprotons and antideuterons
How do we calculate antiprotons and antideuterons fluxes?
1 - Production (DM annihilation or decay)
2 - Propagation in the galaxy
3 - Solar modulation
From the Source to the Earth
1 - Production (DM annihilation or decay)
2 - Propagation in the galaxy
3 - Solar modulation
From the Source to the Earth
We work in a “model
indipendent” way (i.e. pure annihilation
channels)
Hadronization is modeled with a MC event generator (Pythia)
The spectra can be taken directly from Pythia, while for the spectra we
have to merge two antinucleons
DM model Hadronization Coalescence
p
d
np
p
d
�
�
q,W,Z
What can we say about coalescence?
Production
A simple idea: antinucleons coalesce if they are close enough (in the phase space)
is the probability that the antinucleons are formed:
dNd
dT/
Zd3~kpd
3~kn Fpn(ps,~kp,~kn)C(~� = ~kp � ~kn)
F(pn)(ps,~kp,~kn) =
dN(pn)
d3~kpd3~kn
F(pn)
The function is the probability that the antinucleons merge:
We take (radius of the antideuteron)
C
C(~�) = ✓(�2 � p20) ✓(�r2 � r20)is a free
parameter. Which isits value?
p0
The Coalescence puzzle
r0 ⇡ 2 fm
i.e. we don’t consider antinucleons coming from the decay of long-living particles
We tune to reproduce ALEPH data:
0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.222x10<6
5x10<6
10<5
p0 [GeV]
Rd
[ALEPH collaboration, Phys. Lett. B 369 (2006) 192]
production rate in e+e- collisions at the Z resonance
p0 = (195 ± 22) MeV
Basically, a is formed if(|�(~k)| < 195 MeV
|�(~r)| < 2 fm
p0
d
d
The Coalescence puzzle
p0 = (195 ± 22) MeV
1 - Production (DM annihilation or decay)
2 - Propagation in the galaxy
3 - Solar modulation
From the Source to the Earth
Two-zone diffusion model
K(r, z, E) = �K0
✓R
1 GV
◆�
~Vc = sign(z)Vc
is the DM halo density profile
R
L
DM halo
To propagate both the and the we have to solve a transport equation:dp
1
2< �v >
dNp,d
dT
✓⇢(r, z)
mDM
◆2
⇢(r, z)
diffusivezone
Galactic propagation
�r[K(r, z, E)rnp,d
(r, z, E)] + Vc
(z)@
@znp,d
(r, z, E) + 2h�(z)�annp,d
np,d
(r, z, E)+
2h�(z)@E
(�KEE
(E)@E
np,d
(r, z, E) + btot
(E)np,d
(r, z, E)) = qp,d
(r, z, E)
Source term
DiffusionConvection
Annihilation
Reacceleration Energy losses
For DM annihilation:
If we neglect both reacceleration and energy losses we can factorize the flux:
� K0 (kpc2/Myr) L (kpc) Vc (km/s)MIN 0.85 0.0016 1 13.5MED 0.70 0.0112 4 12MAX 0.46 0.0765 15 5
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000104
105
106
107
108
109
1010
T [GeV]
R [y
r]
EinastoNFWcored isothermalMAX
MED
MIN
All the astrophysics is confined here!
K0, Vc and δ constrained by B/C data
p
The two-zone diffusion model is defined by these parameters:
�d.p(E) =�d,p
4⇡nd,p(r = r�, z = 0, E) =
�d,p
4⇡
✓⇢�
mDM
◆2
Rd,p(E)1
2< �v >
dNd,p
dE
F.Donato, N.Fornengo, D.Maurin, P.Salati and R.Taillet Phys.Rev.D 69 (2004) 063501
Energy losses and reacceleration(Work in progress!)
We write the solution as a Bessel series:
A
0
BBBBBB@
...nj�1i
nji
nj+1i...
1
CCCCCCA=
0
BBBBBB@
...n0,j�1i
n0,ji
n0,j+1i...
1
CCCCCCA
ni
+2h
Bi
d
dE
"btot
(E)ni
�KEE
(E)dnp,d
i
dE
#= n0
i
np,d(r, z, E) =X
i
ni(z, E)J0
✓⇣ir
R
◆
To include reacceleration and energy losses one has to solve:
Which is equivalent to:
Solution can be found by (numerically) invertingA
1 - Production (DM annihilation or decay)
2 - Propagation in the galaxy
3 - Solar modulation
From the Source to the Earth
The Sun’s magnetic field (SMF) has the form of a large rotating spiral
An heliospheric current sheet (HCS), whose shape varies with time according to solar activity,
separates field lines directed towards or away from the Sun
How can we model the motion of a charged particle inside the SMF?
Generally, this is done by using the force field approximation:
�TOA(TTOA) =2mTTOA + TTOA
2mTIS + TIS�IS(TIS) TTOA = TIS � '
Solar modulation
• The tilt angle α : it describes the spatial extent of the HCS. It is proportional to the intensity of the solar activity (α ∈ [20◦,60◦])
• The mean free path λ of the CR particle along the magnetic field direction
We exploit the code HELIOPROP to solve numerically the transport equation and explore the solar parameters space
@f
@t= �(~Vsw + ~vd) ·rf +r · (K ·rf) +
P
3(r · ~Vsw)
@f
@P
We vary 2 parameters:
The propagation in the heliosphere is described by the following equation:
Convection DriftsDiffusion
(random walk)Adiabatic losses
L. Maccione, Phys.Rev.Lett. 110, 081101(2013)
[E. N. Parker, P&SS 13, 9 (1965)]
Charge dependent solar modulation
Solid lines Force field approximation (pbar, dbar)
Dots CD solar modulation (pbar, dbar)
Above 10 GeV solar mod is negligible
In our sample, energy losses vary significantly from particle to particle (they depend on the path):
Charge dependent solar modulation
The modulated flux at ETOA is given by a weighted
average of LIS fluxes in the corresponding range of ELIS
●
●
●●
● ●●
● ●● ●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
1 10 10010−6
10−5
10−4
10−3
10−2
10−1
T [GeV]
φ p [(
m2 s
sr G
eV)−
1 ]
MED flux
● PAMELABESSbackground
Antiprotons bounds
The measured flux appears to be very well fitted by a pure
astrophysical background
Very little room left for dark matter!
To compute the 3σ bounds on <σv> we associate to the
background flux a theoretical uncertainty of the 40%
The antiprotons flux has been measured recently by PAMELA and BESS-Polar
1 10 100 100010−28
10−27
10−26
10−25
10−24PAMELA bounds − EINASTO MED − annihilating DM
mDM [GeV]
<σan
nv>
[cm
3 s−1 ]
uussbbccttW+W−
ZZ
Antiprotons bounds
MED
1 10 100 100010−29
10−28
10−27
10−26
10−25PAMELA bounds − EINASTO MAX − annihilating DM
mDM [GeV]
<σan
nv>
[cm
3 s−1 ]
uussbbccttW+W−
ZZ
1 10 100 100010−27
10−26
10−25
10−24
10−23PAMELA bounds − EINASTO MIN − annihilating DM
mDM [GeV]
<σan
nv>
[cm
3 s−1 ]
uussbbccttW+W−
ZZ
Antiprotons bounds
MIN
MAX
The uncertainty related to the propagation model is the largest one
Quite large effect, in particular for high DM masses
In our calculations we have used an Einasto profile
Here we consider also an NFW and a cored isothermal profiles
The role of the DM profile
10 100 100010−27
10−26
10−25
10−24bb channel − annihilating DM
mDM [GeV]
<σan
nv>
[cm
3 s−1 ]
EinastoNFWCored isothermal
For the solar modulation we have used parameters compatible with the
PAMELA data-taking period(negative polarity,
α = 20° λ=0.15 AU)
We vary the value of the mean free path in the SMF direction
Not so large effect!(It reaches at most the 30-50%)
The role of solar modulation-I
10 100 1000
10−26
10−25
10−24bb channel − annihilating DM
mDM [GeV]
<σan
nv>
[cm
3 s−1 ]
λ = 0.15 AUλ = 0.20 AUλ = 0.25 AU
The role of solar modulation-II
1 10 100 10000.01
0.1
1uu channel − decaying DM
mDM [GeV]
Rbo
unds
λ = 0.20 AUλ = 0.25 AU
100 200 500 10000.01
0.1
1W+W− channel − annihilating DM
mDM [GeV]
Rbo
unds
λ = 0.20 AUλ = 0.25 AU
So what can we say?
★ Bounds coming from antiprotons measurements are really strong: for hadronic channels they are comparable or even stronger than the ones coming from gamma ray measurements.
★ The main source of uncertainty is represented by the galactic propagation and the choice of the DM profile. The solar modulation brings a smaller but unavoidable uncertainty.
★ The question now is: given these strong bounds, will we be able to see an antideuteron flux in the near future?
DM in the antideuterons channelAMS-02 GAPS
It’s operative since 2011(here we will refer to a 3 year
data-taking period)
It’s a proposed experiment which will begin its science flights in 2017/2018(in the LDB+ setup a data-taking period
of 210 days)
0.1 1 1010−8
10−7
10−6
10−5
10−4uu channel − mDM = 10 GeV
T [GeV/n]
φd [
(m2s
sr G
eV
/n)−
1]
GAPSLDB+ AMS
MED fluxes
Force FieldCD_60_0.60_1CD_60_0.15_0.5background
0.1 1 1010−8
10−7
10−6
10−5
10−4 bb channel − mDM = 20 GeV
T [GeV/n]
φd [
(m2s
sr G
eV
/n)−
1]
GAPSLDB+ AMS
MED fluxes
Force FieldCD_60_0.60_1CD_60_0.15_0.5background
0.1 1 1010−8
10−7
10−6
10−5
10−4 W+W− channel − mDM = 100 GeV
T [GeV/n]
φd [
(m2s
sr G
eV
/n)−
1]
GAPSLDB+ AMS
MED fluxes
Force FieldCD_60_0.60_1CD_60_0.15_0.5background
With the maximal cross sections allowed by antiprotons constraints:
We can have a flux on the reach of both experiments!
Background [F.Donato, N.Fornengo and D.Maurin, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008)]
uu - mDM = 10 GeV bb - mDM = 20 GeV WW - mDM = 100 GeV
Fluxes at Earth
<σv> = 0.1 x <σv>th <σv> = 0.3 x <σv>th <σv> = 2 x <σv>th
Reachability = curve in the (mDM,<σv>) plane that corresponds to a detection (with a 3σ C.L.)
10 100 100010−28
10−27
10−26
10−25
10−24
bb channel 3σ curves + PAMELA bounds
mDM [GeV]
<σv>
[cm
3 s−1 ]
MIN−MED−MAX
tilt angle = 60°mean free path = 0.60 AUspectral index = 1
10 100 100010−29
10−28
10−27
10−26
10−25
10−24
uu channel 3σ curves + PAMELA bounds
mDM [GeV]
<σv>
[cm
3 s−1 ]
MIN−MED−MAX
tilt angle = 60°mean free path = 0.60 AUspectral index = 1
Experimental Reachability
With antideuterons we can explore vast regions of the DM parameter space
Number of expected eventsFor a WIMP annihilating in the bb channel
10 100 10000.1
1
10
100bb channel
mDM [GeV]
NG
APS
Force FieldCD_60_0.15_0.5CD_60_0.20_1CD_60_0.60_1
10 x <σv>th <σv>th
0.1x<σv>th
Solid lines: configurations compatible with PAMELA bounds on antiprotons
From 3 to 5 events depending on solar modulation
Dot-dashed lines: configurations not compatible
with PAMELA bounds on antiprotons
Number of expected events
10 100 10000.1
1
10
100uu channel
mDM [GeV]
NG
APS
Force FieldCD_60_0.15_0.5CD_60_0.20_1CD_60_0.60_1
100 200 500 10000.01
0.1
1
10
100W+W− channel
mDM [GeV]
NG
APS
Force FieldCD_60_0.15_0.5CD_60_0.20_1CD_60_0.60_1
uu channel WW channel
0.1x<σv>th 0.1x<σv>th
<σv>th <σv>th 10x<σv>th
10x<σv>th
So what can we say?
★ Bounds coming from antiprotons measurements are really strong: for hadronic channels they are comparable or even stronger than the ones coming from gamma ray measurements.
★ The main source of uncertainty is represented by the galactic propagation and the choice of the DM profile. The solar modulation brings a smaller but unavoidable uncertainty.
★ The question now is: given these strong bounds, will we be able to see an antideuteron flux in the near future?
Hopefully yes!
10 100 100010−28
10−27
10−26
10−25
10−24EINASTO MED − bb channel − annihilating DM
mDM [GeV]
<σan
nv>
[cm
3 s−1 ]
PAMELAAMS
But...life is never easy!In the close future, a better knowing of the antiprotons background and a higher experimental precision will lead to much stronger bounds on <σv> coming from
antiprotons data
1 10 100 100010−29
10−28
10−27
10−26
10−25
10−24EINASTO MED − uu channel − annihilating DM
mDM [GeV]
<σan
nv>
[cm
3 s−1 ]
PAMELAAMS
uncertainty on the backgroundgoes from 40% (upper curves)
to 5% (lower curves)
AMS-02 bounds are calculated by using mock data
(for T > 1 GeV)
A possible way out: the coalescence mechanism
0.1 1 10
10−7
10−6
bb channel − mDM = 20 GeV
T [GeV/n]
φ d [(
m2 s
sr G
eV/n
)−1 ]
10 100 10000.01
0.1
1
10
100
bb channel
mDM [GeV]
NG
APS
p0 = 195 MeVp0 = 217 MeVp0 = 239 MeVp0 = 261 MeV
We have to remember that our results strongly depends on the value of the coalescence momentum which we don’t know very well
We can have enhancements of the expected signals!
N.Fornengo,L.Maccione, A.Vittino, JCAP 09 (2013) 31
What about antihelium?
What as said for the antideuterons is obviously true also for antihelium. Some remarks:
• We expect both the signal and the background to be much fainter (being a 3-body coalescence process) this is why we consider as a possible DM signal antiHe-3 and not antiHe-4
•We don’t have any experimental data on anti-Helium production to rely on
�¯Ad3N
¯A
d3k¯A=
✓4
3p3coal
◆A�1
�p
d3Np
d3kp
����kp=kA/A
!A Roughly a 10-3 suppression for each additional nucleon
The coalescence momentum is now a completely free parameter
0.1 1 10 100
DM DM → bb mDM = 40 GeV
T [GeV/n]
φ [(m
2 s sr
(GeV
/n))−
1 ]
AMS−02 reach
BESS excluded
PAMELA excluded
AMS−01 excluded
pcoal = 195 MeV
pcoal = 300 MeVpcoal = 300 MeVpcoal = 300 MeVpcoal = 300 MeVpcoal = 300 MeVpcoal = 300 MeVpcoal = 300 MeVpcoal = 300 MeVpcoal = 300 MeV
bkg
10−16
10−14
10−12
10−10
10−8
10−6
10−4
10−2
<σv> = 3x10−26 cm3s−1
EIN profile
0.1 1 10 100
DM DM → W+W− mDM = 1000 GeV
T [GeV/n]φ
[(m2 s
sr (G
eV/n
))−1 ]
AMS−02 reach
BESS excluded
PAMELA excluded
AMS−01 excluded
pcoal = 195 MeV
pcoal = 300 MeV
pcoal = 300 MeV
pcoal = 300 MeV
pcoal = 300 MeV
pcoal = 300 MeV
pcoal = 300 MeV
pcoal = 300 MeV
pcoal = 300 MeV
pcoal = 300 MeVpcoal = 600 MeV
pcoal = 600 MeV
pcoal = 600 MeV
pcoal = 600 MeV
pcoal = 600 MeV
pcoal = 600 MeV
pcoal = 600 MeV
pcoal = 600 MeV
pcoal = 600 MeV
bkg
10−16
10−14
10−12
10−10
10−8
10−6
10−4
10−2
<σv> = 3x10−25 cm3s−1
EIN profile
Prospects for detection are rather weak, unless the coalescence momentum is really large (~600 MeV)
What about antihelium?
A different (but complementary) channel : positrons
What’s interesting in positrons? Some years ago we had a scent of dark matter (the PAMELA excess, recently confirmed by AMS-02)
Hektor et al. Phys.Lett. B728 (2014)
An interpretation in terms of Dark Matter is possible and exciting (even
if not so easy for classical DM models)
However, it seems that also boring astrophysics can do the job (or at least can be seen as an irreducible background for DM interpretations)
Two words on astrophysical primary sources
A positron flux can be produced by both Pulsar Wind Nebulae and Supernova Remnants
Q(E) = Q0
✓E
E0
◆��
exp
✓� E
Ec
◆
★ The spectral index is estimated from radio observations: it’s expected to be [2 ± 0.3] for SNRs and [1.65±0.35] for PWNe
★ is the cut-off energy. It’s expected (from gamma-ray observations) to lay in the TeV range but, at present, it’s not so well known
★ is the normalization; it’s related to the fraction of the total emitted energy that goes into e± pairs (the efficiency for PWNe is expected to be ~few %, while for SNRs should be [10-4,10-5])
Ec
�
Q0
Our results We performed a detailed modeling of the astrophysical contribution from the known population of SNRs and PWNe to the four observables measured by
AMS-02
10-2
10-1
100
100 101 102 103
e+/(
e++
e- )
E [GeV]
e+/(e++e-)
3! bandII
PWNTOT
AMS-02PAMELA
FERMIAMS-01
HEATCAPRICE
10-3
10-2
10-1
100 101 102 103 104
E3 !
[G
eV
2 c
m-2
s-2
sr-1
]
E [GeV]
e-
3" bandII
PWNSNR local
SNR d > 3 kpcTOT
AMS-02PAMELA
FERMIAMS-01
HEATCAPRICE
10-4
10-3
10-2
100 101 102 103 104
E3 !
[G
eV
2 c
m-2
s-2
sr-1
]
E [GeV]
e+
3" bandII
PWNTOT
AMS-02PAMELA
FERMIHEAT
CAPRICE
10-3
10-2
10-1
100 101 102 103 104
E3 !
[G
eV
2 c
m-2
s-2
sr-1
]
E [GeV]
e+ + e-
3" bandII
PWNSNR local
SNR d > 3 kpcTOT
AMS-02FERMI
ATICHEAT
CAPRICEBETSHESS
Positrons fraction
Positrons flux Positrons + electrons flux
Electrons flux
Our results
10-2
10-1
100
100 101 102 103
e+/(
e++
e- )
E [GeV]
e+/(e++e-)
3! bandII
PWNTOT
AMS-02PAMELA
FERMIAMS-01
HEATCAPRICE
10-3
10-2
10-1
100 101 102 103 104
E3 !
[G
eV
2 c
m-2
s-2
sr-1
]
E [GeV]
e-
3" bandII
PWNSNR local
SNR d > 3 kpcTOT
AMS-02PAMELA
FERMIAMS-01
HEATCAPRICE
10-4
10-3
10-2
100 101 102 103 104
E3 !
[G
eV
2 c
m-2
s-2
sr-1
]
E [GeV]
e+
3" bandII
PWNTOT
AMS-02PAMELA
FERMIHEAT
CAPRICE
10-3
10-2
10-1
100 101 102 103 104
E3 !
[G
eV
2 c
m-2
s-2
sr-1
]
E [GeV]
e+ + e-
3" bandII
PWNSNR local
SNR d > 3 kpcTOT
AMS-02FERMI
ATICHEAT
CAPRICEBETSHESS
Positrons fraction
Positrons flux Positrons + electrons flux
Electrons flux
𝜸PWN = 1.9 ± 0.03
𝜸SNR = 2.382 ± 0.004
Q0,SNR = (2.748 ± 0.027)1050 GeV-1
𝜼PWN = 0.0320 ± 0.0016
We performed a detailed modeling of the astrophysical contribution from the known population of SNRs and PWNe to the four observables measured by
AMS-02
Our results
★ We found out that astrophysical sources (i.e. SNRs and PWNe), with reasonable parameters, can reproduce quite well the observables measured by the AMS-02 experiment
★ Thus, one in principle has no need to include Dark Matter in the analysis; however, since the astrophysical signal is not really well known some space is still there
★ Some further measurements (higher energy fluxies, anisotropy of the signal) can help to solve the positrons puzzle
Main Conclusions ★ Different channels carry different messages and implications for dark
matter searches
★ Antiprotons represent today the most powerful channel to constrain dark matter particles that annihilate (or decay) into hadrons. Soon-to-come AMS-02 data will likely close some windows in BSM physics
★ Despite antiprotons bounds, anti-deuterons are still a possible and very promising smoking-gun for the prensent and the near future. Antihelium is currently out of reach but can in principle be a promising signature for the future (with the caveat that we need more informations on the production mechanisms).
★ Positrons are still a puzzle. An excess is clearly there but at least a fraction of it is likely due to standard astrophysical sources. To draw meaningful conclusions about dark matter is not an easy task
★ Analysis of the constraints on DM properties that arise from the AMS-02 measurements (with M. Di Mauro, F. Donato, N.Fornengo and R. Lineros)
★ Determination of the flux of neutrinos generated by cosmic-rays interactions in the solar corona (with M. Cirelli, N. Fornengo and M. Piibeleht)
★ Study of the properties of the point sources in the gamma-ray sky with a pixel count analysis (with A.Cuoco, N. Fornengo, M. Regis and H.S. Zechlin)
★ Constraints on two-Higgs-doublet models from LHC and DM detection experiments (with M.S. Boucenna and N. Fornengo)
Ongoing Projects
• 4 papers: ‣ Interpretation of AMS-02 electrons and positrons data, M. Di Mauro, F. Donato,
N. Fornengo, R.Lineros, A. Vittino, [arXiv:1402.0321]
‣ Anti-helium from Dark Matter annihilations, M. Cirelli, N.Fornengo, M.Taoso, A.Vittino, [arXiv:1401.4017]
‣ Constraints on particle dark matter from cosmic rays antiprotons N.Fornengo, L.Maccione, A.Vittino [arXiv:1312.3579]
‣ Dark matter searches with cosmic antideuterons: status and perspectives N.Fornengo,L.Maccione, A.Vittino, JCAP 09 (2013) 31, [arXiv:1306.4171]
• 2 proceedings: ‣ Perspectives of dark matter searches with antideuterons AV, N.Fornengo,
L.Maccione [arXiv:1308.4848] To appear in NIM A
‣ The role of antiprotons and antideuterons in DM indirect detection M. AV,
N.Fornengo, L.Maccione to appear in World Scientific
My PhD - I
• 5 talks in international Conferences and workshops: ‣ APS meeting, Paris December 16-18 2013
‣ New perspectives in DM, Lyon October 22-26 2013
‣ 14th ICATPP Conference, Como September 23-27 2013
‣ 13th RICAP Conference, Roma May 22-24 2013
‣ IDAPP two-days meeting, Ferrara October 29-31 2012
• 1 invited seminar: ‣ IFIC (Valencia), May 14 2013
• 3 summer schools attended:
‣ ISAPP 2013, Djuronaset (Stockholm) July 29 - August 6 2013
‣ UNILHC, IFIC (Valencia) August 26 - September 5 2012
‣ ISAPP 2012, APC (Paris), July 2-13 2012
My PhD - II