text:
# Prospects for Indirect Detection of Neutralino Dark Matter

## I Introduction

It is now well established that luminous matter makes up only a small fraction of the mass of the observed universe. The evidence for dark matter is both astrophysical and cosmological . Such evidence requires only that dark matter is gravitationally interacting. However, additional constraints, especially the success of light-element cosmonucleosynthesis calculations, strongly disfavor the possibility that dark matter is composed solely of baryons , and so some form of matter foreign to our everyday world is required. The dark matter problem is therefore also an important problem for particle physics, as particle physics both suggests promising possibilities and imposes stringent constraints.

Neutralinos are well-motivated candidates to provide much or all of the non-baryonic dark matter. An effectively stable particle is a generic component of models with weak-scale supersymmetry. This particle is the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP), and is typically the neutralino, a mixture of the superpartners of Higgs and electroweak gauge bosons. Particle physics considerations alone require the neutralino to be electrically neutral, effectively stable (assuming $`R`$-parity conservation, which is also motivated by the need to forbid too-rapid proton decay), and weakly interacting, with mass of order 100 GeV (required, as we shall quantify below, if supersymmetry naturally protects the electroweak scale from large radiative corrections). Remarkably, these properties are consistent with the possibility that the thermal relic density of neutralinos makes up most of the missing mass of the universe .

Unfortunately, these properties also guarantee that neutralinos are practically impossible to observe in collider experiments directly. They pass through collider detectors without interacting. Existing bounds on neutralinos therefore rely on model-dependent correlations between their properties and those of other supersymmetric particles. At present, in minimal supergravity, the LEP experiments constrain $`m_\chi 40\text{GeV}`$ . In the next several years, Run II of the Tevatron at Fermilab and, eventually, the Large Hadron Collider at CERN will provide more powerful collider probes.

If neutralinos make up a significant portion of the halo dark matter, many additional avenues for their detection open up. They may deposit energy as they scatter off nuclei in detectors. We have investigated the prospects for direct detection in a companion article , where we emphasized the importance and promise of a mixed gaugino-Higgsino regime, previously neglected. Here we will study the possibility of detecting neutralinos indirectly by looking for evidence of their annihilation . In the next five years, an astounding array of experiments will be sensitive to the various potential neutralino annihilation products. These include under-ice and underwater neutrino telescopes (AMANDA, NESTOR, ANTARES), atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes (STACEE, CELESTE, ARGO-YBJ, MAGIC, HESS, CANGAROO, VERITAS), space-based $`\gamma `$ ray detectors (AGILE, AMS/$`\gamma `$, GLAST), and anti-matter/anti-particle experiments (PAMELA, AMS). In many cases, these experiments will improve current sensitivities by several orders of magnitude.

In this paper we evaluate the prospects for neutralino dark matter discovery through indirect detection. The neutralino signals depend on many unknown parameters. At the same time, an abundance of theoretical and experimental information from particle physics can be brought to bear. The implications of traditional particle physics searches for dark matter searches, and vice versa, are already significant, and promise to become much stronger over the next few years. One of our main conclusions is that in a class of particle physics models favored by current particle physics constraints, astrophysical signals are especially enhanced.

Previous discussions of indirect neutralino detection fall rather sharply into two schools. Several previous works are based on specific high energy models , including a number in the framework of minimal supergravity . As we will recall below, minimal supergravity incorporates several desirable features, including the radiative breaking of electroweak symmetry and the possibility, suggested by gauge coupling unification , of perturbative extrapolation to large energy scales. Previous studies in minimal supergravity have concluded that only Bino-like dark matter is allowed by particle physics constraints. Such dark matter necessarily implies highly suppressed dark matter signals, as we will see. These studies, and their somber conclusions, have been criticized as products of overly restrictive particle physics assumptions . Recently we have argued more specifically that, even in minimal models, these studies failed to examine a very well-motivated regime of parameters, and that for this reason their conclusions are overly pessimistic .

At the other extreme, several studies scan over a large set of weak-scale supersymmetry parameters and consider values for these parameters as large as 50 TeV. (See, for example, Refs. .) These studies, and others, bring a high level of sophistication to the evaluation of astrophysical effects on dark matter signals. In this regard, we will have nothing to add, but we will incorporate many of the most accurate recent results in our study.

From a particle physics perspective, this second group of studies is impressively general, but this generality is achieved at a cost. For example, extrapolating a given set of weak-scale parameters to higher scales, one may encounter such diseases as Landau poles or charge- or color-breaking minima. Models of this sort do not arise within a reasonable high energy framework. In addition, there is the practical difficulty that the proliferation of free parameters implies that results cannot be presented in a systematic, yet transparent, fashion. Typically they are displayed as scatter plots after scanning over all parameters. It is nearly impossible, from such plots, to determine the dependence of the signal rates on the underlying physical parameters. Dedicated correlation plots have been used to highlight a few of the relations between dark matter detection experiments, but even the most general implications of these experiments for collider searches, electric dipole moments, anomalous magnetic moments, proton decay, flavor violation, and other searches for supersymmetry are very hard to discern. Finally, it can be expected that supersymmetry parameters, such as the $`\mu `$ and gaugino mass parameters, of order 50 TeV will require fine-tuning of the order of 1 part in $`10^6`$ to produce the observed electroweak scale. (While it is impossible to speak of naturalness without first specifying a mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking, at present all concrete models display this feature.) Such large fine-tuning destroys one of the main motivations for considering supersymmetric extensions of the standard model in the first place. Lacking both a systematic framework and a systematic presentation, it is impossible to see how the expectations narrow when some naturalness criterion is imposed.

It may be impossible to satisfy both schools simultaneously. However, recent results suggest an appealing compromise. As has been emphasized in Refs. , a Bino-like LSP is not a robust prediction of minimal supergravity. We find that both Bino-like and mixed gaugino-Higgsino dark matter is possible. So simply by considering all of minimal supergravity parameter space carefully, as we will do here, we remove the most egregious form of model dependence. At the same time, by staying within the confines of minimal supergravity we will be able to present results in an organized and comprehensive manner, so that correlations with all other supersymmetric signals are easily determined. As the experiments discussed below report results, it will be ever more interesting to see what models are being excluded or favored. The framework discussed here makes this possible.

Inclusion of the new gaugino-Higgsino LSP models in minimal supergravity is not just a formality. The region with mixed gaugino-Higgsino LSPs is now known to be robust and natural, given an objective definition of naturalness . It yields cosmologically interesting relic densities , and is even favored by low energy constraints such as proton decay and electric dipole moments . As we will see, all indirect detection signals are enhanced in this region. This lends increased interest to indirect dark matter searches, since large — possibly spectacular — rates are predicted within an attractive and simple high energy framework.

In the following section, we review a few essential results concerning neutralino dark matter in minimal supergravity with an emphasis on the new gaugino-Higgsino LSP region. We then consider each of three promising signals in the following sections: upward-going muons from neutrinos in Sec. III, photons in Sec. IV, and positrons in Sec. V. In Sec. VI we compare these to direct dark matter and traditional particle physics searches, and in Sec. VII we summarize our results.

## II Neutralino Dark Matter and its Annihilation

The lightest neutralino is the LSP in many supersymmetric models. Assuming $`R`$-parity conservation to prevent too-rapid proton decay through dimension-four operators, the LSP is effectively stable, and the neutralino is then an excellent candidate for cold dark matter.

The signals of neutralino dark matter are determined in large part by their composition. Neutralinos are mixtures of the superpartners of Higgs and electroweak gauge bosons. After electroweak symmetry breaking, these gauge eigenstates mix through the tree-level mass matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}M_1& 0& m_Z\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{sin}\theta _W& m_Z\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{sin}\theta _W\\ 0& M_2& m_Z\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta _W& m_Z\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta _W\\ m_Z\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{sin}\theta _W& m_Z\mathrm{cos}\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta _W& 0& \mu \\ m_Z\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{sin}\theta _W& m_Z\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta _W& \mu & 0\end{array}\right)$$
(1)
in the basis $`(i\stackrel{~}{B},i\stackrel{~}{W}^3,\stackrel{~}{H}_u^0,\stackrel{~}{H}_d^0)`$. The weak scale parameters entering this mass matrix are the Bino, Wino, and Higgsino mass parameters $`M_1`$, $`M_2`$, and $`\mu `$, and the ratio of Higgs scalar vacuum expectation values $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =H_u^0/H_d^0`$. The lightest neutralino mass eigenstate is then determined by these parameters to be some mixture

$$\chi \chi _1^0=a_1(i\stackrel{~}{B})+a_2(i\stackrel{~}{W}^3)+a_3\stackrel{~}{H}_u^0+a_4\stackrel{~}{H}_d^0.$$
(2)
We define the LSP gaugino fraction to be

$$R_\chi |a_1|^2+|a_2|^2.$$
(3)
In the following, we refer to neutralinos with $`0.9<R_\chi `$ as gaugino-like, $`0.1R_\chi 0.9`$ as mixed gaugino-Higgsino, and $`R_\chi <0.1`$ as Higgsino-like.

The preceding discussion is model-independent, assuming only minimal field content. However, the minimal supersymmetric standard model is undoubtedly a low-energy effective theory of a more fundamental theory defined at some higher scale, such as the grand unified theory (GUT) or string scale. A simple realization of this idea is the framework of minimal supergravity, which is fully specified by the five parameters (four continuous, one binary)

$$m_0,M_{1/2},A_0,\mathrm{tan}\beta ,\text{sgn}(\mu ).$$
(4)
Here, $`m_0`$, $`M_{1/2}`$, and $`A_0`$ are the universal scalar mass, gaugino mass, and trilinear scalar coupling. They are assumed to arise through supersymmetry breaking in a hidden sector at the GUT scale $`M_{\text{GUT}}2\times 10^{16}\text{GeV}`$. The hidden-sector parameters then determine all the couplings and masses of the weak scale Lagrangian through renormalization group evolution. In particular, electroweak symmetry is broken radiatively by the effects of a large top quark Yukawa coupling, and the electroweak scale is determined in terms of supersymmetry parameters through

$$\frac{1}{2}m_Z^2=\frac{m_{H_d}^2m_{H_u}^2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta }{\mathrm{tan}^2\beta 1}\mu ^2.$$
(5)
Equation (5) receives corrections beyond tree-level; in our work we include all one-loop effects in the Higgs potential . We also use two-loop renormalization group equations  with one-loop threshold corrections  and calculate all superpartner masses to one-loop . All of the qualitative features to be described below are present, however, also for one-loop renormalization group equations.

Minimal supergravity is, of course, by no means the most general allowed framework. It is worth noting, however, that the assumptions most relevant for dark matter, namely, the universality of gaugino and scalar masses, are motivated not only by their simplicity, but also by concrete experimental facts. The case for gaugino mass unification is especially powerful. In the minimal supersymmetric standard model, the three gauge couplings, when evolved to high scales, meet with high precision at a point, the GUT scale . If the standard model is unified in a grand unified gauge theory, one typically obtains also gaugino mass unification. The unification of couplings calculation also distinguishes $`M_{\text{GUT}}2\times 10^{16}\text{GeV}`$ as the natural scale for a more fundamental framework.

The unification of scalar masses is motivated by a similar, although more speculative, argument. Consider the mass parameter $`m_{H_u}^2`$, which, from Eq. (5), plays the critical role in determining the weak scale for all moderate and large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ ($`\mathrm{tan}\beta 5`$). For theories with a universal scalar mass, it is a remarkable fact that the renormalization group trajectories of $`m_{H_u}^2`$ for various initial conditions $`m_0`$, when evolved to low scales, meet with high precision at a point, the weak scale . This focusing, which requires that the top quark mass be within $`5\text{GeV}`$ of its measured value, implies that the electroweak potential is highly insensitive to $`m_0`$. The longstanding problems of supersymmetry with respect to CP violation, proton decay, etc. can therefore be ameliorated without fine-tuning, simply by assuming large scalar masses. Although the focusing property holds more generally, its minimal and most concrete realization is in theories with a universal scalar mass. The assumption of a universal (and large) scalar mass is therefore motivated by the fact that it provides a simple and elegant solution to several well-known phenomenological problems of weak scale supersymmetry.

Given these motivations for minimal supergravity, we now consider their implications for neutralino dark matter. Gaugino mass unification implies $`M_1M_2/20.4M_{1/2}`$. Dark matter is therefore never Wino-like,111Wino-like LSPs exist in other frameworks, but typically they annihilate far too quickly to be cosmologically relevant . Interesting relic densities are possible, however, if there is some mechanism of late production . and in fact, throughout parameter space, $`|a_2|^2<0.07`$. Additional insights follow from re-writing Eq. (5) in terms of GUT scale parameters. For $`A_0=0`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$, for example,

$$\frac{1}{2}m_Z^20.02m_0^2+0.7M_{1/2}^2\mu ^2,$$
(6)
where the numerical coefficients of the first two terms vary fractionally by $`𝒪(10\%)`$ in the $`(m_0,M_{1/2})`$ plane . The coefficient of $`m_0^2`$ is highly suppressed . This is another expression of the focusing behavior discussed above, and implies that multi-TeV values of $`m_0`$ do not involve significant large fine-tuning. The coefficient is also negative. For fixed $`M_{1/2}`$, as $`m_0`$ increases, $`|\mu |`$ decreases, and the LSP becomes increasingly Higgsino-like. This is important, because even a 10% Higgsino admixture drastically affects the phenomenology. In Figs. 1 and 2 we show the LSP mass and gaugino fraction in the $`(m_0,M_{1/2})`$ plane. For large $`m_01\text{TeV}`$, we find a region, previously ignored, where the LSP has a significant Higgsino component. The green shaded regions are excluded by the requirement that the LSP be neutral (top left) and by the chargino mass limit of 95 GeV (bottom and right).

In Figs. 1 and 2, we also indicate the regions of cosmologically interesting relic densities; see Ref.  for details. A generous range is $`0.025\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^21`$, where the lower bound is the requirement that neutralino dark matter explain galactic rotation curves and the upper bound follows from the lifetime of the universe. Above this shaded region, $`\mathrm{\Omega }h^2>1`$; below, $`\mathrm{\Omega }h^2<0.025`$. The range $`0.1\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^20.3`$ is most preferred by current limits. Our relic density calculation is not trustworthy in the black region, where there is a Higgs scalar resonance, and very near to the left and right borders of the excluded region, where co-annihilation is important . In the bulk of parameter space, however, these effects are negligible. For all $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, cosmologically interesting densities are possible for $`m_01\text{TeV}`$. For $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$, the cosmologically preferred region contains gaugino-Higgsino dark matter.

In contrast to $`m_0`$, the parameters $`M_{1/2}`$ and $`\mu `$ enter Eq. (6) with $`𝒪(1)`$ coefficients. Naturalness therefore requires that the LSP mass (and, in fact, the masses of all four neutralinos and both charginos) should not be too far above the electroweak scale. While in principle it is possible that in some fundamental framework $`M_{1/2}`$ and $`\mu `$ are correlated precisely in a way that allows both parameters to be large without fine-tuning (a possibility considered in Ref. ), no such framework has been found to date. Barring such a possibility, extreme values such as $`M_{1/2},\mu 50\text{TeV}`$ require a fine-tuning of 1 part in $`10^6`$ and destroy one of the prime motivations for weak-scale supersymmetry. We therefore regard such large values as highly disfavored, and we will focus on neutralino masses of order 100 GeV.

Neutralinos annihilate through a variety of channels. The three leading processes are shown in Fig. 3. (Note that co-annihilation, while potentially important in determining relic densities in the early universe, is negligible now.) Annihilation into gauge bosons is of particular importance, as these processes lead to more energetic and striking signals. The $`WW`$ cross section relies on $`W\chi \chi _i^\pm `$ interactions. The only such couplings allowed by gauge invariance are $`W\stackrel{~}{H}^0\stackrel{~}{H}^\pm `$ and $`W\stackrel{~}{W}^0\stackrel{~}{W}^\pm `$. However, as noted above, gaugino mass unification implies that the Wino content of the LSP is always negligible. A large $`WW`$ cross section is therefore possible only when the LSP has a significant Higgsino component. The same conclusion holds for the $`ZZ`$ process, where the $`Z\chi \chi _i^0`$ interaction is possible only through $`Z\stackrel{~}{H}^0\stackrel{~}{H}^0`$ couplings. In Fig. 4, we see that the annihilation cross sections for $`\chi \chi WW`$ and $`\chi \chi ZZ`$ are indeed highly suppressed in regions with Bino-like LSPs, but are enhanced by three to four orders of magnitude in regions with mixed gaugino-Higgsino dark matter. As we will see, this region, favored by low energy constraints, will be the most promising for all indirect signals.

Before closing this section, we note several features of Figs. 1 and 2 that will also apply to many of the following figures. Unless otherwise noted, we present results for $`A_0=0`$, $`\mu >0`$, $`m_t=174\text{GeV}`$, and representative values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ as indicated. $`A_0`$ governs the left-right mixing of scalars, and does not enter the neutralino sector. It is therefore largely irrelevant, especially in the regions of parameter space with observable signals — where, as we will see, the scalars are heavy and decoupled.222For $`A_0=0`$, the 1999 LEP bound on the mass of the lightest CP-even Higgs boson $`m_h>107.7\text{GeV}`$ barely constrains the parameter space shown in our figures, while the 2000 limit $`m_h>113.3\text{GeV}`$ excludes the region with $`m_01`$ TeV and $`M_{1/2}300`$ GeV. However, the Higgs search is highly sensitive to the $`A_0`$ parameter. For other values of $`A_0`$, the current constraints may be evaded with negligible impact on our predictions for indirect dark matter detection. For this reason, we do not include the Higgs mass constraints in the following analysis. (Besides, the most important trilinear coupling, $`A_t`$, has a weak-scale fixed point, and so is only weakly sensitive to $`A_0`$.) Our dark matter results are rather insensitive to the sign of $`\mu `$, but the choice $`\mu >0`$ is motivated by the constraint from $`BX_s\gamma `$ (see, e.g. ). Finally, perturbativity of Yukawa couplings limits $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ to the range $`1\mathrm{tan}\beta 60`$. Low values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 3`$ are now being excluded by the LEP Higgs search. In the remaining interval, models with moderate and high values may have qualitatively different behavior, as processes proportional to down-type Yukawa couplings are enhanced by $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. We therefore typically present results for two representative values, one in each range. Plots of many other quantities, including all physical slepton, squark, and Higgs masses in the $`(m_0,M_{1/2})`$ plane, including the high $`m_0`$ region, may be found in Refs. .

Finally, in the following three sections, we will not include the effects of variations in thermal relic density in our signal rates, but rather assume, for concreteness, a fixed local neutralino density. The results are then more transparent, and are applicable to general scenarios, such as those in which a late source of neutralino production is present. Of course, in the simplest scenario, models with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2>1`$ are excluded, and those with an under-abundance of neutralinos are disfavored and imply suppressed or negligible dark matter signals. This should be kept in mind in the following sections. In Secs. VI and VII, we will combine all these considerations, and focus on the most preferred regions.

## III Neutrinos

When neutralinos pass through astrophysical objects, they may be slowed below escape velocity by elastic scattering. Once captured, they then settle to the center, where their densities and annihilation rates are greatly enhanced. While most of their annihilation products are immediately absorbed, neutrinos are not. High energy neutrinos from the cores of the Earth  and Sun  are therefore promising signals for indirect dark matter detection.

The formalism for calculating neutrino fluxes from dark matter annihilation is well developed. (See Ref.  for a review.) The neutrino flux depends first and foremost on the neutralino density, which is governed by the competing processes of gravitational capture and neutralino annihilation. If $`N`$ is the number of neutralinos in the Earth or Sun, $`\dot{N}=CAN^2`$, where $`C`$ is the capture rate and $`A`$ is the total annihilation cross section times relative velocity per volume. The present neutralino annihilation rate is then

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_A=\frac{1}{2}AN^2=\frac{1}{2}C\mathrm{tanh}^2(\sqrt{CA}t_{}),$$
(7)
where $`t_{}4.5`$ Gyr is the age of the solar system.

Captured neutralinos then annihilate through the processes of Fig. (3). As $`\chi \chi f\overline{f}`$ is helicity-suppressed, neutrinos are produced only in the decays of primary annihilation products. Typical neutrino energies are then $`E_\nu \frac{1}{2}m_\chi `$ to $`\frac{1}{3}m_\chi `$, with the most energetic spectra resulting from $`WW`$, $`ZZ`$, and, to a lesser extent, $`\tau \overline{\tau }`$. After propagating to the Earth’s surface, neutrinos are detected through their charged-current interactions. The most promising signal is from upward-going muon neutrinos that convert to muons in the surrounding rock, water, or ice, producing through-going muons in detectors. The detection rate for such neutrinos is greatly enhanced for high energy neutrinos, as both the charged-current cross section and the muon range are proportional to $`E_\nu `$.

The calculation of muon fluxes from neutralino annihilation in the Earth and Sun is on reasonably firm footing, as it depends only on the local dark matter density and is insensitive to details of halo modeling.333It has been suggested that muon fluxes may be enhanced, by up to two orders of magnitude, due to capture of neutralinos in highly eccentric solar system orbits . The magnitude of the enhancement depends on details of the neutralino parameters and involves astrophysical issues still under debate . We have not included it here. Nevertheless, the calculation is involved, primarily as a result of complications in evaluating capture rates  and, in the case of the Sun, in propagating the neutrinos from the core to the surface . Here we make use of the procedure of Refs. . For other analyses, see Refs. , as well as those motivated by the Tevatron $`e^+e^{}\gamma \gamma `$ event  and by the DAMA annual modulation signal .

The ‘filling parameters’ $`\sqrt{CA}t_{}`$ for the Earth and Sun are given in Figs. 5 and 6. For the Sun, $`\sqrt{CA}t_{}1`$ for all supersymmetry parameters. The neutralino density has therefore reached equilibrium, and the annihilation rate is at full strength, with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_AC/2`$. For the Earth, however, typically $`\sqrt{CA}t_{}1`$, and the annihilation rate is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_A\frac{1}{2}C^2At_{}^2`$ and far from maximal. As we will see, this plays an important part in reducing the Earth’s signal below the Sun’s.

The other major ingredient in the muon flux computation is the estimate of the neutralino capture rate $`C`$, which is shown in Figs. 7 and 8 for the Earth and Sun, respectively. The elemental compositions of the Earth and Sun are given in Ref. . A quick comparison of Figs. 7 and 8 reveals that, not surprisingly, a large astrophysical body like the Sun is much more efficient in trapping neutralinos. The Earth’s capture rate is, however, enhanced by the iron resonance for very light neutralino masses $`m_\chi 50\text{GeV}`$. The $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ dependence is also noteworthy. The capture rate in the Earth is determined primarily by the spin-independent elastic scattering cross section for $`\chi q\chi q`$ through $`s`$-channel squarks and $`t`$-channel Higgs boson exchange. All amplitudes require chirality flips, either through Higgs interactions, squark mass insertions, or quark mass insertions. The first two are proportional to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and therefore dominate for moderate and large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, leading to $`C\mathrm{tan}^2\beta `$. In contrast, for the Sun, the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ dependence is minimal; the dominant contribution is from axial-vector scattering off Hydrogen, which is largely independent of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

Muon flux rates from the Earth and Sun are presented in Figs. 9 and 10. Consistent with previous studies (see, e.g. ), we find that the flux rate is indeed small in regions of parameter space with $`m_0<1\text{TeV}`$ and Bino-like LSPs. However, for $`m_0>1\text{TeV}`$, in the region where $`m_\chi >m_W`$ and the dark matter is a gaugino-Higgsino mixture, the fluxes are greatly enhanced. Here, annihilation to gauge bosons is unsuppressed, resulting in a hard neutrino spectrum and large muon fluxes. In this region, the rates from the Sun are large for all values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. For the Earth, we see that, despite the close proximity of the Earth’s center, the muon fluxes are typically suppressed by several orders of magnitude relative to those from the Sun. However, reasonably large rates are possible even for the Earth for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, and particularly for very light neutralinos, where the capture rate is enhanced by the iron resonance, as discussed above.

The theoretical predictions of Figs. 9 and 10 can be compared with the experimental sensitivities of ongoing and near future detectors . These experiments, along with their more salient characteristics and flux limits (where available), are listed in Table I. The flux limits depend on the expected angular dispersion in the signal. This dispersion has two possible origins. One is the source: although neutralinos from the Sun are essentially a point source, in the Earth, 98% of neutralino annihilations occur within a cone of half-angle $`8.6^{}\sqrt{50\text{GeV}/m_\chi }`$ . The second is the angle $`\theta _{\text{rms}}13^{}\sqrt{25\text{GeV}/E_\nu }`$ between the neutrino and its daughter muon. As $`E_\nu m_\chi /2`$, $`\theta _{\text{rms}}`$ is typically the dominant effect. The flux limits listed are for half-cone sizes of $`15^{}`$, corresponding roughly to $`m_\chi 50\text{GeV}`$. Heavier neutralinos will produce more collimated muons, allowing smaller cone sizes with reduced backgrounds. The improved limits for smaller cone sizes may be found in the references.

Comparing Figs. 9 and 10 with Table I, we find that present limits do not significantly constrain the minimal supergravity parameter space. However, given that the effective area of neutrino telescope experiments is expected to increase by 10 to 100 in the next few years, muon fluxes of order 10–100 $`\text{km}^2\text{yr}^1`$ may be within reach. Such sensitivities are typically not sufficient to discover Bino-like LSPs, unless they are light and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is large. But they have an excellent opportunity to detect dark matter in the mixed gaugino-Higgsino dark matter scenarios, which, as we have emphasized above, are preferred by low energy particle physics constraints.

Muon energy thresholds, listed in Table I, are not included in Figs. 9 and 10. Since the muon detection rate is dominated by high energy muons as noted above, the threshold energy is typically not important, especially in the regions where a detectable signal is expected. This is not the case for all detectors, however. For example, since muons lose $`0.26\text{GeV}`$ per meter in water and ice, neutrino telescopes requiring track lengths of $`100`$ m will have thresholds of order $`25\text{GeV}`$. The dependence on threshold energy has been studied in Refs. , where it was found that for threshold energies of $`E_\mu ^{\mathrm{thr}}\frac{1}{4}m_\chi `$ to $`\frac{1}{6}m_\chi `$, the loss of signal is substantial. Low threshold energies in neutrino telescopes are clearly very important for dark matter detection. This conclusion is further strengthened by considerations of naturalness, which favor low neutralino masses.

## IV Photons

High-energy photons provide a unique signal of dark matter annihilation. They point back to their source, and their energy distribution is directly measurable, at least in principle. For these reasons, given sufficient angular and energy resolution in gamma ray detectors, a variety of signals may be considered.

The photon signal may arise from the galactic center , the galactic halo  , or even from extra-galactic sources . We will consider the galactic center, where large enhancements in dark matter density are possible . In contrast to the neutrino signal considered in Sec. III, the photon flux is highly sensitive to halo model parameters. Fortunately, the problem may be separated into two parts: one containing all halo model dependence, and the other all particle physics uncertainties. Given the predicted photon fluxes for a reference halo model, the predictions for all other halo models are then easily determined.

The photon energy distribution receives two types of contributions: line and continuum. The former results from the loop-mediated processes $`\chi \chi \gamma \gamma `$  and $`\chi \chi \gamma Z`$ . Because dark matter in the halo is extremely non-relativistic, photons from these processes have an energy width of only $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_\gamma /E_\gamma 10^3`$ and are effectively mono-energetic. While this signal would be the most spectacular of all possible indirect signals, its rates are, of course, suppressed . In a model-independent survey, Bergström, Ullio, and Buckley  have found that the photon line may be observable for neutralinos with a large Higgsino component, assuming a cuspy halo profile, such as that of Navarro, Frenk, and White , and telescopes with small angular acceptances $`10^5\text{sr}`$.

On the other hand, photons may also be produced in the cascade decays of other primary annihilation products. In contrast to the line signal, cascade decays produce a large flux of photons with a continuum of energies. This signal is far less distinctive and will almost certainly require additional confirmation to unambiguously distinguish it from background or other exotic sources. Nevertheless, we will focus here on the continuum signal, as it will provide the first hint of dark matter from gamma ray astronomy.

The differential photon flux along a direction that forms an angle $`\psi `$ with respect to the direction of the galactic center is

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }dE}=\underset{i}{}\frac{dN_\gamma ^i}{dE}\sigma _iv\frac{1}{4\pi m_\chi ^2}_\psi \rho ^2𝑑l,$$
(8)
where the sum is over all annihilation channels and $`\rho `$ is the neutralino mass density. All of the halo model dependence is isolated in the integral, which, following Ref. , we write in the dimensionless form

$$J(\psi )=\frac{1}{8.5\text{ kpc}}\left(\frac{1}{0.3\text{GeV}/\text{cm}^3}\right)^2_\psi \rho ^2𝑑l.$$
(9)
The integral is along the line of sight. Assuming a spherical halo, the mass density is given by $`\rho =\rho (r)`$, where $`r^2=l^2+R_0^22lR_0\mathrm{cos}\psi `$, and $`R_08.5`$ kpc is the solar distance to the galactic center.

The photon flux is, of course, maximized for $`\psi =0`$, but it must be averaged over the field of view. The result is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (E_{\text{thr}})=5.6\times 10^{10}\text{cm}^2\text{s}^1\times \underset{i}{}_{E_{\text{thr}}}^{m_\chi }𝑑E\frac{dN_\gamma ^i}{dE}\left(\frac{\sigma _iv}{\text{pb}}\right)\left(\frac{100\text{GeV}}{m_\chi }\right)^2\overline{J}(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega },$$
(10)
where

$$\overline{J}(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega })\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }}J(\psi )𝑑\mathrm{\Omega },$$
(11)
and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the solid angle of the field of view centered on $`\psi =0`$. $`E_{\text{thr}}`$ is the lower threshold energy; detectors also have upper cutoffs, but these are typically irrelevant, as the energy distribution falls steeply with energy. $`\overline{J}`$ has been studied for a variety of halo models in Ref. . For a typical atmospheric Cherenkov telescope (ACT) acceptance of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }=10^3\text{sr}`$, the modified isothermal profile described by $`\rho (r)\left[1+(r/a)^2\right]^1`$ yields $`3\overline{J}10^3`$. On the other hand, cuspy halos lead to values of $`\overline{J}`$ as large as $`10^5`$. (Such singular profiles have recently been argued to be incompatible with neutralino dark matter, however, based on radio emission from neutralino annihilation near the black hole at the galactic center .) We will choose a moderate reference value $`\overline{J}(10^3)=500`$, which is within the allowed ranges of both the modified isothermal and cuspy halos. The factorizability of the photon flux implies that our results can be scaled to all other halo models easily.

The particle physics model dependence enters through all the other factors of Eq. (8). The energy integral is roughly $`𝑑E𝑑N_\gamma ^i/𝑑E0.5`$ for all $`i`$, but the energy distribution depends significantly on the annihilation channel. The differential gamma ray multiplicity has been simulated for light and heavy neutralinos in Refs.  and , respectively. The spectrum for the most important annihilation channels is described well by $`dN_\gamma /dx=ae^{bx}/x^{1.5}`$, where $`xE_\gamma /m_\chi `$ and $`(a,b)=(0.73,7.76)`$ for $`WW`$ and $`ZZ`$ , $`(1.0,10.7)`$ for $`b\overline{b}`$, $`(1.1,15.1)`$ for $`t\overline{t}`$, and $`(0.95,6.5)`$ for $`u\overline{u}`$. We neglect Higgs boson final states, as they never have branching fraction greater than 7%. For the $`gg`$ final state, we use the light quark distribution. Our crude approximation for gluons is relevant only in isolated regions with Bino-like LSPs where, as we will see, the signal is unobservable. With the exception of the irrelevant light quark distribution, the $`WW`$ and $`ZZ`$ distributions produce the most energetic photons.

The photon flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (E_{\text{thr}})`$ is given in Figs. 1113 for threshold energies of 1, 10 and 50 GeV. The maximal rates are found in the region of parameter space with mixed gaugino-Higgsino dark matter, and are insensitive to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Here branching ratios to gauge bosons are large, and the photon spectrum hard. In the rest of parameter space, $`b\overline{b}`$ is an important final state, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (E_{\text{thr}})`$ is enhanced by $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

In the past, the high energy photon spectrum with $`10\text{GeV}E_\gamma 300\text{GeV}`$ has been largely unexplored. Ground-based detectors, such as the Whipple 10m telescope, have large effective areas, but have traditionally been limited to energies above $`300\text{GeV}`$. Space-based detectors, such as EGRET, have been sensitive to photon energies up to $`20\text{GeV}`$, but are limited above this energy by their small effective area. There has therefore been an unexplored gap at intermediate energies, which happens to overlap substantially with the range of energies most favored by supersymmetric dark matter.

The experimental situation is changing rapidly, however. Currently, two heliostat arrays, STACEE and CELESTE, are running with sensitivity in the range $`20\text{GeV}E_\gamma 300\text{GeV}`$, and many more experiments with greatly improved sensitivity are expected in the next few years. Upcoming experiments with sensitivity to $`\gamma `$ rays with $`10\text{GeV}E_\gamma 300\text{GeV}`$ are listed in Table II.

An important figure of merit for the detection of $`\gamma `$ rays from the galactic center is the point source flux sensitivity. A compilation of previous estimates of flux sensitivities is given in Fig. 14 for EGRET, STACEE, CELESTE, ARGO-YBJ, MAGIC, AGILE, HESS , AMS/$`\gamma `$ , VERITAS , and GLAST . The flux sensitivities for the first six experiments are from Ref. , and those for the remaining experiments are from the references listed. The sensitivity of MAGIC assumes the availability of high quantum efficiency photosensors. The sensitivity for CANGAROO III is currently being re-evaluated . We have included it in accord with expectations that it will be comparable to that of HESS. The point flux sensitivities are, of course, dependent on the source’s location and energy spectrum. They are also subject to a variety of other experimental uncertainties and assumptions; see the references for details. A typical estimate  assumes background extrapolated from EGRET data , and a signal distribution $`dN_\gamma /dEE^{2.5}`$. Detector efficiencies and cuts are included, and a 5$`\sigma `$ signal with at least 10 photons is required. 50 hours of observation is assumed for telescopes, and one year of an all sky survey for the space-based detectors. The arrow for AMS/$`\gamma `$ in Fig. 14 indicates that a published estimate exists only for $`E_{\text{thr}}=1\text{GeV}`$, but flux sensitivity at some level can be expected out to the detector limit of 100 GeV.

The experimental sensitivities presented clearly cannot be interpreted as future dark matter discovery contours. The neutralino signal has a different energy spectrum than assumed, and the background in the direction of the galactic center is larger, due to the diffuse $`\gamma `$ ray emission from the galactic disk , which enhances $`\sqrt{B}`$ by a factor of $`5`$ . (This last fact implies that for some halo profiles, it may be advantageous to center the field of view away from the galactic center. This optimization may significantly reduce potential losses in signal significance.) In addition, there are many ambiguities in background calibration, and, as noted above, the continuum signal is not sufficiently distinct for a simple excess to identify the source as dark matter annihilation. However, the flux sensitivities of Fig. 14 do clearly portend substantial progress in the next few years, and can serve as rough indications of what signal levels will be detectable.

The expected fluxes for four supersymmetry models and $`\overline{J}=500`$ are also shown in Fig. 14. Although there is a large uncertainty from halo model dependence, it is clear that detectable signals are possible. At present, EGRET data is not overly constraining, although halo models with large $`\overline{J}5000`$ are within EGRET sensitivity and may even explain a flattening of the spectrum. In the future, AMS/$`\gamma `$ and AGILE will improve this sensitivity, and MAGIC may see excesses for $`\overline{J}500`$. Finally, GLAST will provide the greatest sensitivity of all, probing halo models with $`\overline{J}`$ as low as $`\overline{J}50`$.

If a significant excess is found in future experiments, its dark matter origin can be tested in a variety of ways. Confirmation from other searches for dark matter or supersymmetry would be the most satisfying possibility. As we will see in Sec. VI, the neutrino and positron signals probe similar models, so a coincidence of various signals is a distinct possibility. However, it has also been suggested that an angular distribution of photons that does not follow the galactic disk and bulge may be a powerful diagnostic . Also, as the dark matter signal has a shape differing from the background, detailed likelihood fits to the photon energy distribution may also be a useful tool, although far beyond the scope of this work. It seems clear, in any case, that for reasonable halo models and supersymmetry parameters, meaningful $`\gamma `$ ray signals in the next few years are possible, particularly with gaugino-Higgsino dark matter.

## V Positrons

An excess of cosmic anti-particles and anti-matter from dark matter annihilation may be detected in space-based or balloon-borne experiments. The positron signal is perhaps the most promising . In the past, soft anti-protons with energies $`100`$ MeV have also been considered . However, recent work finds larger background than previously expected, complicating the identification of an anti-proton signal . Anti-deuterium has also been suggested as a possibility .

The positron background is most likely to be composed of secondaries produced in the interactions of cosmic ray nuclei with interstellar gas, and is expected to fall as $`E_{e^+}^{3.1}`$. At energies below 10 GeV, however, this background is subject to large uncertainties from the effects of the solar wind . The soft positron spectrum also varies depending on the orbit path of the experiment. At high energies, these effects are negligible. In addition, positrons lose energy through a variety of processes, and so hard ones must typically be produced within a few kpc . For this reason, the hard spectrum is relatively insensitive to variations in the halo profile near the galactic center. The dark matter signal is therefore most promising at high energies, where the background is relatively small and well understood.

The differential positron flux is

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }_{e^+}}{d\mathrm{\Omega }dE}=\frac{\rho _0^2}{m_\chi ^2}\underset{i}{}\sigma _ivB_{e^+}^i𝑑E_0f_i(E_0)G(E_0,E),$$
(12)
where $`\rho _0`$ is the local neutralino mass density, the sum is over all annihilation channels, and $`B_{e^+}^i`$ is the branching fraction to positrons in channel $`i`$. The source function $`f(E_0)`$ gives the initial positron energy distribution from neutralino annihilation. $`G(E_0,E)`$ is the Green’s function describing positron propagation in the galaxy  and contains all the halo model dependence.

For the reasons mentioned above, processes yielding hard positrons are by far the most important for dark matter discovery. The ‘positron line’ signal from $`e^+e^{}`$ is helicity-suppressed. It may be enhanced, for example, in the case of Bino-like LSPs if selectrons are much lighter than all other scalars, but this possibility is highly unmotivated. To an excellent approximation, then, hard positrons arise from $`\chi \chi WW,ZZ`$, followed by the direct decay of gauge bosons to positrons. Assuming unpolarized gauge bosons, $`f`$ is the familiar flat distribution with endpoints determined by the gauge boson and neutralino masses. The Green’s function $`G`$ has been modeled by Moskalenko and Strong in Ref.  in a framework that consistently reproduces a wide range of observational data from anti-protons, nuclei, electrons, positrons, and photons.

Combining all of these results, the differential positron flux may be written as

$`E^2{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }_{e^+}}{d\mathrm{\Omega }dE}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.027\text{cm}^2\text{s}^1\text{sr}^1\text{GeV}`$ (14)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho _0}{0.3\text{GeV}/\text{cm}^3}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{100\text{GeV}}{m_\chi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _iv}{\text{pb}\beta _i}}B_{e^+}^i{\displaystyle _{z_{}^i}^{z_+^i}}𝑑zg(z,E/m_\chi ),`$
where

$`\beta _{WW,ZZ}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1m_{W,Z}^2/m_\chi ^2\right)^{1/2},`$ (15)
$`z_\pm ^i`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1\pm \beta _i\right)/2,`$ (16)
$`B_{e^+}^{WW}`$ $`=`$ $`B(W^+e^+\nu )=0.11,`$ (17)
$`B_{e^+}^{ZZ}`$ $`=`$ $`2B(Ze^+e^{})=0.067,`$ (18)
and the reduced Green’s function is

$$g(z,E/m_\chi )10^{a\mathrm{log}_{10}^2E+b\mathrm{log}_{10}E+c}\theta (zE/m_\chi )+10^{w\mathrm{log}_{10}^2E+x\mathrm{log}_{10}E+y}\theta (E/m_\chi z),$$
(19)
where $`E`$ is in GeV and the ($`z`$-dependent) coefficients $`a,b,c`$ and $`w,x,y`$ are tabulated in Ref.  for different halo profiles. As mentioned above, at high energies, these coefficients are fairly independent of the halo model, as high energy positrons originate in our solar neighborhood, where all profiles give similar densities. We adopt coefficients corresponding to the modified isothermal distribution with halo size 4 kpc. For large $`m_\chi `$, the integral of Eq. (14) is insensitive to $`m_\chi `$, and so the differential positron flux scales as $`1/m_\chi ^4`$. Neutralinos with mass not far above $`m_W`$ are therefore most easily detected.

In Fig. 15, we show three sample spectra for supersymmetry models yielding relic abundances of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^20.15`$. Two background spectra from Ref.  are also shown. The signal rates are significantly suppressed relative to those of Refs. , where the dark matter was assumed to be Higgsino-like. Higgsino-like dark matter is highly disfavored, however, as, unless it is unnaturally heavy, it annihilates too strongly to leave interesting relic abundances. As is evident from Fig. 2, in the allowed minimal supergravity parameter space the LSP is far from pure Higgsino-like, particularly in the region with preferred relic density.

As positrons result from two-body decay, we expect the signal, and the signal to background ratio $`S/B`$, to be peaked near $`m_\chi /2`$. This is evident in the three examples give in Fig. 15. In Fig. 16, we plot the optimal energy $`E_{\text{opt}}`$ at which the signal to background ratio is maximized. Our fit to background C is $`E^2d\mathrm{\Phi }_{e^+}/d\mathrm{\Omega }dE=1.16\times 10^3E^{1.23}`$, where $`E`$ is in GeV. Comparing with Fig. 1, we see that $`E_{\text{opt}}`$ is indeed approximately $`m_\chi /2`$ throughout parameter space. In Fig. 17, we plot $`S/B`$ at $`E_{\text{opt}}`$. $`S/B`$ is substantial only in the gaugino-Higgsino region with $`m_\chi >m_W`$.

Figs. 16 and 17 imply that the best experimental hope for indirect detection of dark matter through positrons is in experiments sensitive to positron energies above $`50\text{GeV}`$. In the next two to three years, both PAMELA, a satellite detector, and AMS-02, an experiment to be placed on the International Space Station, will satisfy this requirement. These experiments and other recently completed experiments are listed in Table III.

The expected number of positrons per GeV are listed in Table III at positron energies of 50 and 100 GeV. After integrating over some appropriate energy bin size, we see that the expected statistical errors are roughly $`10\%`$ for PAMELA, and $`1\%`$ for AMS-02. Of course, the signal will also be degraded by systematic errors, particularly in the background calculation. It seems likely, however, that the characteristic peaking of the dark matter signal over an interval of $`𝒪(10\text{GeV})`$ will be distinctive. In addition, some systematic errors may be eliminated by considering the ratio $`e^+/(e^{}+e^+)`$. While the positron signal is typically too small for Bino-like LSPs, an excess of $`1\%`$ is possible for gaugino-Higgsino dark matter. The region of detectable positron signals may be extended, however, if, for example, the halo is clumpy, or if the local density is larger than our reference value of $`0.3\text{GeV}/\text{cm}^3`$ .

## VI Comparison with Other Searches

In the previous three sections, we have examined several indirect signals of neutralino dark matter. As emphasized in Sec. I, however, supersymmetric dark matter cannot exist in isolation, and there are many other avenues for probing supersymmetric models. We now discuss several other promising probes and their projected sensitivities, and we then compare their reaches.

Most closely linked to indirect searches are searches for dark matter scattering off nuclei in low-background detectors. The DAMA collaboration has reported evidence for an annual modulation signal , and the activity in this field will intensify tremendously in the next few years. (For a recent review, see, e.g., Ref. .) Here we will use our previous results  to estimate the sensitivities of the direct searches. We choose CDMS (Soudan)  and CRESST  as examples of near-term future experiments. Their projected sensitivities in neutralino-proton cross section are both of order $`\sigma _{\text{proton}}10^8\text{pb}`$ for $`50\text{GeV}m_\chi 500\text{GeV}`$. More precisely, we parameterize their sensitivities as

$$\sigma _{\text{proton}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{a+b\left(\frac{m_\chi }{100\text{GeV}}\right)+c\left(\frac{m_\chi }{100\text{GeV}}\right)^2\right\}\text{pb},$$
(20)
with $`(a,b,c)=(17,4.5,3.1)`$ for $`m_\chi <84\text{GeV}`$ and $`(19,0.68,0.057)`$ for $`m_\chi >84\text{GeV}`$. This limit may be improved by an order of magnitude by the recently proposed GENIUS project , or even by CRESST itself, assuming three years of operation with improved background rejection .

Among high energy colliders, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN is the ultimate supersymmetry discovery machine and will discover at least some superpartners in all of the regions of parameter space we have plotted. The LHC is scheduled to begin operation in its low luminosity mode in 2006. Before that, however, both the LEP II and Tevatron colliders have a chance to discover superpartners. The most stringent constraint from LEP II on minimal supergravity comes from chargino searches. LEP II is now concluding its run, and by the end of 2000 will improve the current chargino mass limits by about 5 GeV. If no signal is seen, this will marginally extend the bottom and right excluded regions of our figures.

The Tevatron will begin operation early in 2001. In the first two years, Run IIa will provide an integrated luminosity of $`2\text{fb}^1`$ for each detector before a temporary shutdown for a year of detector maintenance and upgrades. In the subsequent Run IIb, the data acquisition rate is expected to be about $`5\text{fb}^1`$ per year per detector. Hence, by 2006 we expect $`1012\text{fb}^1`$ for each Tevatron collaboration. The Tevatron supersymmetry reach has been extensively studied recently , with the conclusion that there is some sensitivity, but in rather limited regions of parameter space. The most effective signal is in the clean trilepton channel  resulting from chargino-neutralino pair production, followed closely by the jets plus $`\text{ /}E_T`$ channel  and the dileptons plus $`\tau `$ jet channel . The maximal reach in chargino mass is $`170\text{GeV}`$ in the Bino LSP region at very low $`m_0`$, where the leptonic branching ratios of the electroweak gauginos are enhanced by light sleptons. This degrades rapidly at higher $`m_0`$, where hadronic decays are prominent. It also requires moderate $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. At large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, decays to $`\tau `$ leptons dominate the small $`m_0`$ region and signatures with $`\tau `$ jets must be used .

At present there are no dedicated Tevatron studies in the focus point region. (For an LHC study, see Ref. .) There are several important modifications to collider signals for $`m_0>1\text{TeV}`$. For example, the lighter chargino and neutralinos are more degenerate, leading to softer decay products, and their branching ratios to $`b`$ quarks are enhanced by their Higgsino component. Such issues may have a large impact on chargino and neutralino searches at the Tevatron. This is an important question, but currently the Tevatron reach in the focus point region is unknown.

While the Higgs boson is not a supersymmetric particle, supersymmetry (in its economical implementations) restricts its mass, and so Higgs boson searches also have an important impact on supersymmetric models. For LEP II, the ultimate exclusion limit, barring a discovery, is expected to be $`m_h>115\text{GeV}`$. At the Tevatron, the $`3\sigma `$ ($`5\sigma `$) Higgs boson discovery reach for $`10\text{fb}^1`$ is $`m_h100(120)`$ GeV . The Higgs boson mass, unlike all other quantities investigated here, is sensitive to the $`A_0`$ parameter. As the Higgs boson mass limit rises, models with non-zero $`A_0`$, large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, and $`m_01\text{TeV}`$ are increasingly favored . However, for natural values of $`A_0`$ , $`100\text{GeV}<m_h<120\text{GeV}`$ and so the Higgs boson will be discovered at the Tevatron at $`3\sigma `$, but never at $`5\sigma `$.

Finally, there are many opportunities for discovering supersymmetry in low energy experiments. These include effects in hadronic and leptonic flavor violation, CP violation, proton decay, and electric and magnetic dipole moments. These are discussed more completely in Ref. . Here we will focus on two particularly robust probes: $`BX_s\gamma `$ and the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon.

The best current measurements of $`BX_s\gamma `$ from CLEO and ALEPH can be combined in a weighted average of $`B(BX_s\gamma )_{\mathrm{exp}}=(3.14\pm 0.48)\times 10^4`$ . These measurements will be improved at the $`B`$ factories, where large samples of $`B`$ mesons will greatly reduce statistical errors. However, the uncertainty in the theoretical prediction of the standard model, $`B(BX_s\gamma )_{\mathrm{SM}}=(3.29\pm 0.30)\times 10^4`$, is likely to remain unchanged. By 2006, a conservative estimate is that both theoretical and experimental uncertainties will be $`0.3\times 10^4`$. Combining them linearly, the $`2\sigma `$ limit will be $`2.1\times 10^4<B(BX_s\gamma )<4.5\times 10^4`$.

The supersymmetric contribution to the muon magnetic dipole moment (MDM) $`a_\mu =\frac{1}{2}(g2)_\mu `$ is also a robust probe, since it involves only a few (flavor- and CP-conserving) parameters . The world average is $`a_\mu ^{\mathrm{exp}}=(\mathrm{116\; 592\; 05}\pm 45)\times 10^{10}`$  and is consistent with the standard model. However, once data currently being taken is analyzed, the Brookhaven experiment E821 is expected to reduce the uncertainty to $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu 4\times 10^{10}`$ . At present, uncertainties in the standard model prediction are substantial. Assuming these can be reduced, however, a reasonable estimate for future $`2\sigma `$ sensitivity is $`a_\mu ^{\text{SUSY}}=8\times 10^{10}`$.

In Table IV we present our estimates for sensitivities that will be achieved before the LHC begins operation. The experiments likely to achieve these projections are also listed. Using these estimates, the reach in minimal supergravity parameter space for each mode is given in Figs. 18 and 19. In reading these figures, recall that we have assumed constant local densities in our assessment of dark matter search reaches. If one assumes that the local density is modulated by the thermal relic density, the dark matter reaches outside the shaded regions should be suitably diminished. Within the shaded regions, however, our analysis applies without modification.

Several striking features emerge from Figs. 18 and 19. First, we see that, within the minimal supergravity framework, nearly all of the cosmologically preferred models will be probed by at least one experiment. This is strictly true for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$. For $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =50`$, some of the preferred region escapes all probes, but this requires $`M_{1/2}450\text{GeV}`$ and $`m_01.5\text{TeV}`$, and requires significant fine-tuning of the electroweak scale. In the most natural regions, all models in which neutralinos form a significant fraction of dark matter will yield some signal before the LHC begins operation.

Also noteworthy is the complementarity of traditional particle physics searches and indirect dark matter searches. Collider searches require, of course, light superpartners. High precision probes at low energy also require light superpartners, as the virtual effects of superpartners quickly decouple as they become heavy. Thus, the LEP and Tevatron reaches are confined to the lower left-hand corner, as are, to a lesser extent, the searches for deviations in $`BX_s\gamma `$ and $`a_\mu `$. These bounds, and all others of this type, are easily satisfied in the focus point models with large $`m_0`$, and indeed this is one of the virtues of these models. However, in the focus point models, all of the indirect searches are maximally sensitive, as the dark matter contains a significant Higgsino component. Direct dark matter probes share features with both traditional and indirect searches, and have sensitivity in both regions. It is only by combining all of these experiments, that the preferred region may be completely explored.444Note that the complementarity referred to here is not the commonly recognized one, which concerns the mass of the neutralino. It is well-known that some indirect searches are effective even for LSP masses in the TeV range, well beyond the range of colliders. However, such models are highly unnatural, and they have not been considered here.

Finally, these results have implications for future colliders. In the cosmologically preferred regions of parameter space with $`0.1<\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<0.3`$, all models with charginos or sleptons lighter than 300 GeV will produce observable signals in at least one experiment. This is evident for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =10`$ and 50 in Figs. 18 and 19. In Fig. 20, we vary $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, fixing $`M_{1/2}`$ to 400 GeV, which roughly corresponds to 300 GeV charginos. We see that the preferred region is probed for any choice of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. (For extremely low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`m_0`$, there appears to be a region that is not probed. However, this is excluded by current Higgs mass limits for $`A_0=0`$. These limits might be evaded if $`A_0`$ is also tuned to some extreme value, but in this case, top squark searches in Run II of the Tevatron will provide an additional constraint.)

These results imply that if any superpartners are to be within reach of a 500 GeV lepton collider, some hint of supersymmetry must be seen before the LHC begins collecting data. This conclusion is independent of naturalness considerations. While our quantitative analysis is confined to minimal supergravity, we expect this result to be valid more generally. For moderate values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, if the dark matter is made up of neutralinos, they must either be light, Bino-like, or a gaugino-Higgsino mixture. If they are light, charginos will be discovered. If they are Bino-like, light sfermions are required to mediate their annihilation, and there will be anomalies in low energy precision measurements. And if they are a gaugino-Higgsino mixture, at least one indirect dark matter search will see a signal. For large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, low energy probes become much more effective and again there is sensitivity to all probe superpartner spectra with light superpartners. Thus it appears, on qualitative grounds, that all models in which the scalar masses are not widely separated, and the charginos are not extravagantly heavy, will be accessible prior to LHC operation.

## VII Conclusions

In this paper, we have examined a wide variety of indirect dark matter detection signals. These include neutrinos from annihilation of dark matter in the cores of the Earth and Sun, continuum gamma rays from annihilation in the galactic center, and positron excesses in cosmic rays from annihilation in the local solar neighborhood. In each case, the experimental landscape will be transformed in the next few years by experiments that are running or being mounted. We have tabulated the salient features and reaches of some of the most promising experiments in the previous sections.

We have evaluated the prospects for dark matter detection in the framework of minimal supergravity. This framework incorporates many of the most compelling features of supersymmetry. Previously, this framework has been thought to predict a Bino-like LSP. That severely limited its utility for dark matter studies. However, recent work has made it clear that gaugino-Higgsino mixtures and even Higgsino-like LSPs are also quite naturally realized in minimal supergravity. We have been careful to include the full range of possibilities, with important (and positive) implications for future dark matter searches.

Let us note in passing that in our parametrization of experimental probes, the case of no-scale supergravity , recently revived in the context of gaugino-mediated supersymmetry breaking , can be regarded as the special case $`m_0=0`$. Experimental probes of these models are simply evaluated by restricting to the $`m_0=0`$ axis. Several experiments, notably the trilepton Tevatron search, direct dark matter searches, and Brookhaven experiment E821 will have the power to confirm or exclude this possibility in the near future.

We have concentrated here on discovery signals. If a signal is confirmed, precision measurements may allow experiments to determine dark matter properties. For example, as has been noted in the literature, the neutralino’s mass may be determined by the angular spread of the signal in neutrino telescopes. The energy spectrum of gamma rays or positrons signals may provide similar information. The gaugino-ness may also be constrained; indeed, the existence of a significant signal in itself would constitute evidence in favor of mixed gaugino-Higgsinos.

The simplicity of minimal supergravity allows us to compare the reaches of a great variety of probes. We summarize by collecting several of our main conclusions:

* Bino-like dark matter leads to suppressed rates for all indirect dark matter signals. In this case, unless the neutralino is extremely light (near current bounds), all indirect signals are beyond detection for the foreseeable future.
* Higgsino-like dark matter cannot yield cosmologically interesting relic densities in a straightforward way. Studies that assume Higgsino-like dark matter exaggerate the power of indirect searches.
* Mixed gaugino-Higgsino dark matter gives both relic densities in the preferred range $`0.1\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^20.3`$ and detectable signals. Such dark matter is naturally present in focus point models, which are favored by low-energy constraints.
* Experiments that are running or underway will transform the prospects for indirect dark matter detection. Among the most promising experiments are the neutrino telescopes AMANDA, NESTOR, and ANTARES; the gamma ray telescope MAGIC, and the satellite detector GLAST; and AMS-02, the anti-particle/anti-matter search aboard the International Space Station. For mixed gaugino-Higgsino dark matter, these experiments will be sensitive to nearly all models with cosmologically interesting neutralino relic densities, and are competitive with next-generation direct search experiments, such as CDMS (Soudan) and CRESST.
* The various indirect searches rely on different sources of neutralino annihilation (cores of the Earth or Sun, galactic center, local solar neighborhood) and so are sensitive to different assumptions. In addition, some signals, particularly the continuum photons, will be difficult to identify unambiguously as a dark matter signal. Without actual data and detailed analyses, it is difficult to make a more precise statement. However, we have seen that many experiments are sensitive to the same supersymmetric models, and given the underlying uncertainties, redundancy is clearly a virtue.
* Indirect searches are complementary to traditional particle searches. Separately they probe only portions of the cosmologically preferred model space. Combined, essentially all cosmologically preferred models will produce at least a hint of a signal in one of these experiments before the LHC begins operation.
* In minimal supergravity models with $`0.1<\mathrm{\Omega }_\chi h^2<0.3`$, if there is no hint of supersymmetry before the LHC begins operation, no superpartners will be within reach of a 500 GeV lepton collider. Our arguments are independent of naturalness considerations, and their qualitative structure suggests that similar conclusions will remain valid in alternative frameworks.

## Acknowledgments

We thank P. Blasi, L. Hui, Z. Ligeti, U. Nierste and L. Roszkowski for helpful discussions and readings of the manuscript, and W. Hofmann, M. Mori, I. Moskalenko and T. Weekes for correspondence. This work was supported in part by the Department of Energy under contracts DE–FG02–90ER40542 and DE–AC02–76CH03000, and by the National Science Foundation under grant PHY–9513835. J.L.F. acknowledges the support of a Frank and Peggy Taplin Fellowship.


format: text

text:
# The Extreme Scattering Event Toward 1741-038: H I Absorption

## 1 Introduction

Extreme scattering events (ESE) are a class of dramatic changes in the flux density of radio sources (Fielder et al., 1994). They are typically marked by a decrease ($`50`$%) in the flux density near 1 GHz for a period of several weeks to months, bracketed by substantial increases, viz. Figure 1. Because of the simultaneity of the events at different wavelengths, the time scales of the events, and light travel time arguments, ESEs are likely due to strong scattering by ionized structures, possibly in the Galactic interstellar medium (ISM; Fiedler et al., 1987a; Romani et al., 1987; Walker & Wardle, 1998). First identified in the light curves of extragalactic sources, ESEs have since been observed during a timing program of the pulsars PSR B1937$`+`$21 (catalog ) (Cognard et al., 1993; Lestrade et al., 1998) and PSR J1643$``$1224 (catalog ) (Maitia et al., 1998).

Modelling of ESE light curves leads to inferred densities $`n_e10^2`$ cm-3 within these ionized structures (Romani et al., 1987; Clegg et al., 1998). In turn, these densities imply pressures $`nT10^6`$ K cm-3 or more, well in excess of the “average” interstellar pressure $`nT3000`$ K cm-3 (Kulkarni & Heiles, 1988).

A key issue regarding these ionized structures is their relationship to other phases of the interstellar medium. Do they represent (relatively) isolated structures, perhaps in pressure balance with a lower density, higher temperature “background” phase (Clegg et al., 1988)? or do they reflect a low level of cosmic-ray ionization within an otherwise neutral structure (Heiles, 1997)? or are they perhaps not interstellar at all, but due to photoionized molecular clouds in the Galactic halo (Walker & Wardle, 1998)?

This paper reports the first H I absorption measurements of a source (1741$``$038, OT$``$068 (catalog )) while it was undergoing an ESE. From these observations we can constrain the connection between the ionized structures responsible for ESEs and any neutral structures. In §2 we describe the observations, in §3 we discuss the implications of our observations, and in §4 we present our conclusions and suggestions for future work.

## 2 Observations and Analysis

Figure 1 shows a portion of the 2.25 and 8.3 GHz light curve of 1741$``$038 (catalog ) as obtained by the US Navy’s extragalactic source monitoring program at the Green Bank Interferometer (Fiedler et al., 1987b; Lazio et al., 2000a). Clearly evident is an approximately 50% decrease in the source’s flux density at 2.25 GHz and an approximately 25% decrease at 8.3 GHz. The minimum occurred on or near 1992 May 25 (JD 2448768.264), and the 2.25 GHz flux density of the ESE is nearly symmetric about this epoch. The complete GBI light curve of 1741$``$038 (catalog ), extending from 1983 to 1994, has been published previously (Clegg et al., 1998).

We used the VLA to measure the H I absorption toward 1741$``$038 (catalog ) at four epochs. Figure 2 shows these four epochs; Table 1 summarizes the observing logs for the four epochs. The first epoch, 1991 September 6, was prior to the onset of the ESE and shall be used as a control. The remaining three epochs occurred during the ESE. During the first epoch, full circular polarization was recorded; only right circular polarization was recorded for the three epochs during the ESE. At all four epochs on-line Doppler corrections and on-line Hanning smoothing were applied. A bandwidth of 0.78 MHz was recorded in 256 channels, producing a velocity resolution of 0.64 km s-1. The observations on 1992 June 6 also included a comparable amount of observing time with an observing bandwidth of 1.56 MHz in 256 channels, producing a velocity resolution of 1.29 km s-1. We calibrated these data following the same procedures described below for the narrower bandwidth observations. As these wider bandwidth observations were obtained at only a single epoch, we will focus largely on the narrower bandwidth observations. We will use the wider bandwidth observations only to test for the possibility of H I absorption at large velocities.

For the three ESE epochs, observing runs consisted of scans on 3C 48 (catalog 3C) and 3C 286 (catalog 3C), for flux density calibration, and “on-line” and “off-line” scans of 1741$``$038 (catalog ). On-line scans were centered on an LSR velocity of 0 km s-1 and included the H I line. Off-line scans were centered at an LSR velocity of $`360`$ km s-1; the scans on 3C 48 (catalog 3C) and 3C 286 (catalog 3C) were frequency-shifted by an amount between $`360`$ and $`442`$ km s-1. For the 1991 September 6 epoch, there were no off-line scans of 1741$``$038 (catalog ), the on-line scans of 1741$``$038 (catalog ) were centered at an LSR velocity of 30 km s-1, only 3C 286 (catalog 3C) was observed for flux density calibration purposes, and the scans of 3C 286 (catalog 3C) were frequency shifted to $`200`$ km s-1 and $`+200`$ km s-1.

Figure 3 shows the H I emission spectrum obtained by a single VLA antenna on 1992 June 24. The emission spectra from the other three epochs are similar; in particular, the spectra at the other two ESE epochs show no deviations above the $`2\sigma `$ level within the H I line. The shape of the line on 1991 September 6 is identical, though the maximum amplitude of the line differs by approximately 10%. We would not expect any change during the ESE because the large primary beam of the VLA antennas means that they are sensitive to H I emission on angular scales much larger than any structures plausibly responsible for the ESE itself. The emission spectra we obtain are in generally good agreement with that found by Dickey et al. (1983) using the NRAO 90 m telescope: The peak emission occurs near 5 km s-1, and the emission is skewed toward positive velocities. The width of the emission line from our spectrum and the brightness temperature of the line are larger than that found by Dickey et al. (1983) owing to the smaller diameter antenna in our case (25 m vs. 90 m).

Because we are searching for changes in an absorption line with time, we discuss in detail the steps we took to calibrate these observations. Our primary focus will be on the three observations with a common bandwidth and velocity resolution during the ESE. The calibration of the wider bandwidth observations on 1992 June 6 was identical to the procedure described below. The calibration of the first epoch, 1991 September 6, was extremely similar; we shall only point out the minor ways in which it differed from the calibration of the other four observations.

The conventional calibration of spectral-line observations involves determining a bandpass correction. With such widely distributed emission as for the H I line, position-switched observations of another source cannot be utilized to find the bandpass correction, and frequency switching requires observations both above and below the H I line. Furthermore, frequency switching can introduce phase jumps, which would then be propagated into the bandpass correction, and errors introduced in the frequency switching ultimately limit the bandpass that can be obtained (Wilcots et al., 1997). In this case, frequency-switched observations both above and below the H I line were available only on 1991 September 6 and then only for 3C 286 (catalog 3C).

More important than the shape of the bandpass during any particular observation, however, is its stability from one observation to the next, particularly during the ESE. In order to assess this stability, we constructed bandpass corrections for each of the three ESE epochs using the off-line scans on 1741$``$038 (catalog ). For any given antenna at any epoch, the amplitude of the bandpass correction was within 8.4% of unity with a standard deviation of approximately 5% and the maximum phase correction was no more than 7$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$5 with a standard deviation of approximately 5°.

We decided ultimately to forego a bandpass correction. As further insurance against any bandpass-induced changes, we also excluded the first and last 16 channels from the analysis. We also repeated the calibration described here for the 1992 June 6 observations, including various bandpass calibrations determined from the off-line scans of 1741$``$038 (catalog ). We discuss the results in more quantitative detail below, but the lack of a bandpass calibration produces no significant change in the absorption spectra we measure.

Amplitude calibration was performed using 3C 48 (catalog 3C) and 3C 286 (catalog 3C). The frequency offsets between the on-line scans and the frequencies at which 3C 48 (catalog 3C) and 3C 286 (catalog 3C) were observed contribute to less than a 0.1% bias in the flux density calibration. Far more important is the contribution of the H I line emission to the system temperature of the on-line scans. In order to avoid a bias, we determined the antenna gain amplitudes for 1741$``$038 (catalog ) using the off-line scans only, then applied these to both the on- and off-line scans. For the 1991 September 6 observations, for which no off-line scans of 1741$``$038 (catalog ) were available, we used channels well outside the range over which the H I emission was seen. Typical differences between the flux densities on- and off-line were 10–15%. As 1741$``$038 (catalog ) is itself a VLA calibrator and well approximated by a point source over the range of available baselines, the visibility phases were calibrated using the off-line scans on 1741$``$038 (catalog ) itself.

The observations during the three ESE epochs were acquired when the VLA was in its most compact configurations (DnC and D). In these configurations the H I emission may not be entirely resolved out, particularly on the shortest baselines. As a result there may be contamination of the H I spectra from the changing sky distribution of the H I emission moving through the VLA’s sidelobes as the VLA tracks the source (Goss et al., 1979). After amplitude and phase calibration, we inspected the visibility amplitudes and phases on the shorter baselines for evidence of H I line contamination. We found that some shorter baselines did show phase and/or amplitude offsets characteristic of such contamination. As a precaution we eliminated baselines shorter than 125 m (600$`\lambda `$) from further analysis for all epochs.

Before imaging the data, a single iteration of phase-only self-calibration was performed on a single continuum channel in the on-line data. The starting model was a point source, with the flux density appropriate for each epoch (Table 1). 1741$``$038 (catalog ) is well approximated by a point source for all VLA configurations, and we subtracted the continuum in the visibility domain, utilizing line-free channels of the on-line data to generate a linear baseline. We imaged and cleaned each channel of the data cube separately. We also produced a continuum image from the line-free channels of the on-line data (prior to performing the continuum subtraction). Absorption spectra were formed by integrating the continuum-subtracted data cube over a region whose size was that of the synthesized beam and which was centered on the position of 1741$``$038 (catalog ). These were converted to opacity spectra using the flux density determined by fitting a gaussian function to the continuum image.

Figure 4 shows the resulting H I opacity spectra for the four epochs. All of the spectra show the presence of a strong absorption feature near 5 km s-1, a slight curvature resulting from the absence of a bandpass correction, and a typical rms determined outside the H I line of $`\sigma _\tau 0.012`$. Our absorption spectra are in good agreement with that found by Dickey et al. (1983).

As a further assurance that our lack of a bandpass calibration has not introduced significant uncertainties, we repeated the above analysis using two different bandpass corrections applied to the 1992 June 6 observations. We applied a bandpass correction determined from the off-line scans of 1741$``$038 (catalog ) from 1992 June 6 and from 1992 June 24. In both cases, the spectral baseline after correction is more nearly constant with velocity. The rms uncertainty in the opacity spectrum increases slightly with the application of the 1992 June 6 bandpass correction and little, if at all, with the application of the 1992 June 24 bandpass correction. The increase in the rms uncertainty is approximately 25% from $`\sigma _\tau 0.012`$ to $`\sigma _\tau 0.015`$. In order to account for the uncertainties resulting from the lack of a bandpass calibration and from any possible changes between epochs, we shall use the value $`\sigma _\tau =0.015`$ as the value for the typical uncertainty in the opacity spectrum at all three epochs during the ESE.

## 3 Discussion

In this section we first assess the extent to which there are any changes in the absorption spectra. We then discuss what this implies about neutral structures along the line of sight to 1741$``$038 (catalog ) during the ESE.

### 3.1 Line Changes

We shall consider three quantities that might be expected to change during the ESE—the equivalent width of the H I line, $`W𝑑v\tau (v)`$; the maximum absorption and its velocity; and the shape of the line. Table 2 summarizes these observable quantities at the four epochs.

There is no gross change in the absorption line, particularly during the ESE. The maximum optical depth for the ESE epochs is $`\tau 0.61`$ and occurs at 5.8 km s-1. The equivalent width is $`W4.8`$ km s-1, and from Table 2 the maximum difference in $`W`$ between any two epochs is 0.03 km s-1. We estimate the uncertainty in $`W`$ as $`\sigma _W=\sigma _\tau \mathrm{\Delta }v`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }v`$ is the velocity extent of the line, $`\mathrm{\Delta }v10`$ km s-1. Thus, $`\sigma _W0.15`$ km s-1, and we conclude that there has been no change in the equivalent width of the line.

One notable difference between the absorption spectra of 1991 September 6 and the ESE epochs is the change in the maximum optical depth. The maximum optical depth for all four of our epochs also differs from previous observations by Dickey et al. (1983), $`\tau _{\mathrm{max}}1`$, and Dickey & Benson (1982), $`\tau _{\mathrm{max}}3`$. Dickey & Benson (1982) observed 1741$``$038 (catalog ) using an interferometer composed of the NRAO 140 ft and 300 ft telescopes in 1980 and 1981. Dickey et al. (1983) observed 1741$``$038 (catalog ) using the phased VLA in 1982. There is some danger in comparing observations from different telescopes, and the large optical depth found by Dickey & Benson (1982) has a large uncertainty associated with it. Nonetheless, these changes in the optical depth are indicative of a decreasing secular trend in the H I column density by 50% or more over the decade between the various observations.

Qualitatively, there do appear to be fine scale changes in the line shape from epoch to epoch during the ESE. In particular the line has two, nearly equally deep minima on 1992 June 6, but only a single deep minimum in the other two epochs. We assess the significance of this difference in the line shape quantitatively by finding the maximum difference in optical depth between two epochs at the same velocity (Columns 4 and 5 of Table 2).

The maximum optical depth difference between any two epochs occurs between 1992 June 6 and June 24 and is $`\mathrm{max}(\mathrm{\Delta }\tau )=0.049`$. The maximum difference between 1992 June 6 and July 28 is 0.045. (The difference between 1992 June 24 and July 28 is half this value, reflecting their qualitatively more similar shapes.) We do not regard any of these differences as significant. The rms uncertainty in an individual opacity spectrum is $`\sigma _\tau =0.015`$. Adding the uncertainties from two spectra in quadrature, the combined uncertainty is 0.021, meaning that the maximum deviation is less than 2.3$`\sigma `$. We have also examined the difference spectra (i.e., the spectra formed by taking the difference in the absorption spectra at two epochs) for any skewness. If line features either appear or disappear, one would expect an excess of either positive or negative deviations about the average. Conversely, if the deviations are simply the result of measurement uncertainty, there should be a roughly equal number of positive and negative deviations about the average. The latter is the case for all three difference spectra.

In addition to the line shape not changing by any significant amount, there is also no evidence for the appearance of additional absorption components at other velocities. The only significant absorption occurs between $`5`$ and 10 km s-1 for all four epochs. We can also compare the absorption spectrum from our wider bandwidth (1.56 MHz; 1992 June 6) to those of Dickey et al. (1983) as they have a similar velocity coverage. Both spectra have a single deep absorption feature, with no significant absorption outside of it.

### 3.2 ESE Structures

Our limit on changes in the optical depth during the ESE of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau <0.05`$ implies the neutral column density change during the ESE must be limited to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }N_H<6.4\times 10^{18}\text{cm}\text{-2}\left(\frac{T_s}{100\mathrm{K}}\right)$$
(1)
for the structure(s) responsible for the ESE. Here $`T_s`$ is the spin temperature of the H I within the structure, and we have assumed that the structure responsible for this ESE is optically thin to H I radiation. This assumption is justified by the lack of a large change in the H I profile.

We consider $`T_s200`$ K and $`T_s10`$ K as possible values for $`T_s`$. The former value is motivated from observations by Dickey & Benson (1982) who find a typical value of $`T_s200`$ K for 14 lines of sight with a Galactic latitude $`10\mathrm{°}<|b|<20\mathrm{°}`$ (1741$``$038 (catalog ) has $`b=13\mathrm{°}`$ and is one of the 14 lines of sight observed). The latter value is motivated from models by Heiles (1997) and Walker & Wardle (1998), who have both proposed a population of cold, small-scale structures.

If $`T_s200`$ K, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_H<1.3\times 10^{19}`$ cm-2. This is not a stringent limit. Models of ESE lenses require electron column densities $`N_e10^{16}`$ cm-2 (Fielder et al., 1994; Clegg et al., 1998). We presume that any H I structure associated with an ESE lens will have a size scale of order the ESE lens, namely AU scale. If the neutral structure is in approximate pressure balance *with the ESE lens* (which itself may be overpressure with respect to the ambient medium, §1), then the neutral structure would have column densities $`N_H10^{18}`$ cm-2, well below this observational limit.

If $`T_s10`$ K, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_H<6.4\times 10^{17}`$ cm-2. This limit marginally rules out Heiles’ (1997) proposed tiny-scale atomic structures (TSASs) as being responsible for the ESE. TSASs are AU-scale structures distributed throughout the Galactic interstellar medium with neutral column densities $`N_H3\times 10^{18}`$ cm-2and interior temperatures $`T_s15`$ K. Heiles (1997) proposes TSASs in order to explain observations of small (angular) scale changes in the H I opacity, though he does not associate TSASs explicitly with ESEs.

Obviously, geometrical factors (e.g., a line of sight that does not cut through the center of a TSAS) could account for the discrepancy. Other indications of an association between TSASs and ionized structures are also not clear-cut. In favor of an association is that Clegg et al. (1998) reproduced the ESE light curve of 1741$``$038 (catalog ) by assuming a gaussian refracting lens passed in front of the source; they find an electron column density of $`10^4`$ cm-3 pc is required to produce the light curve, comparable to what the TSASs should have in their interiors due to photoionization (Heiles, 1997). On the other hand a comparable change in the dispersion measure of PSR B0823$`+`$26 occurred (Phillips & Wolszczan, 1991) with no change in the H I opacity (Frail et al., 1994). Though, after the conclusion of the DM monitoring program, an H I opacity change was detected.

Our limit on $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_H`$ appears to rule out Galactic halo molecular clouds, the AU-scale, H I-opaque structures that Walker & Wardle (1998) have proposed to explain ESEs. The photoionized skins of these clouds would provide the necessary refracting media for ESEs. We see no indication of a $`\tau >1`$ feature in our spectra (though Walker 2000, private communication, has since suggested that $`\tau 0.1`$ might be more accurate). Walker & Wardle (1998) point out that, because of multiple imaging, an H I absorption line during an ESE could saturate with a non-zero intensity, but Lazio et al. (2000b) find no evidence of multiple imaging in VLBI images of 1741$``$038 (catalog ) acquired at similar epochs as these H I absorption measurements. However, as halo objects, the clouds could have velocities approaching 500 km s-1 (i.e., a velocity range of 1000 km s-1). The velocity range of our observations, even the wide bandwidth observations of 1992 June 6, is considerably less, being no more than 250 km s-1. Thus, a significant H I absorption line could have been present outside of our velocity range.

All models considered thus far have explained an ESE as being due to an ionized object, either partially or totally ionized, occulting a background source. An alternate possibility is suggested by the decrease in the H I optical depth observed between the 1991 September 6 observations and the epochs during the ESE. If an ionizing source crossed the line of sight to 1741$``$038 (catalog ) and ionized some of the hydrogen, the result would be a decrease in the optical depth of the line. The difference in equivalent widths between 1991 September 6 and the epochs during the ESE is 1.47 km s-1. The resulting total change in the column density, integrated over the line is $`N_H=2.7\times 10^{19}\text{cm}\text{-2}(T_s/10\mathrm{K})`$.

We assume that any such ionized region would be comparable in extent to the angular diameter of 1741$``$038 (catalog ), about 0.5 mas (Fey, unpublished data). At a distance of 100 pc, the total quantity of hydrogen that would have been ionized was $`1.2\times 10^{43}(T_s/10\mathrm{K})(D/100\mathrm{pc})^2`$ atoms. An estimate of the ionizing rate required to maintain the ionization for this many atoms is, following Osterbrock (1989), at least $`10^{38}\mathrm{s}^1(T_s/10\mathrm{K})^2(D/100\mathrm{pc})`$, assuming that the ionized region was approximately spherical. An A0 star would suffice as an ionizing source.

## 4 Conclusions

We have determined the H I opacity spectra for 1741$``$038 (catalog ) at four epochs, including three as it underwent an extreme scattering event (Figure 2). The absorption spectra from the four epochs are dominated by a strong absorption feature centered on an LSR velocity of 5 km s-1. The absorption feature itself is probably a blend of multiple components. Our absorption spectra are quite similar to a lower-resolution spectrum obtained by Dickey et al. (1983).

We find a secular trend of decreasing maximum optical depth during the decade between the observations of Dickey & Benson (1982), Dickey et al. (1983), and those reported here. In the early 1980s, $`\tau 1`$ toward 1741$``$038 (catalog ) while we find $`\tau 0.7`$.

We find no evidence for any change in the H I absorption feature during the ESE. Its equivalent width, maximum optical depth, and velocity at the maximum optical depth are all unchanged for the three epochs during the ESE. The maximum optical depth change between any two epochs during the ESE is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau <0.05`$ ($`2.3\sigma `$) which we do not regard as significant.

The limit on the optical depth change, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau <0.05`$, implies a limit on the H I column density of any neutral structure(s) associated with the ESE lens, $`N_H<6.4\times 10^{18}\text{cm}\text{-2}(T_s/100\mathrm{K})`$, having a spin temperature $`T_s=100`$ K. This limit poses no significant constraint on structures with $`T_s200`$ K.

Some proposed colder structures are allowed. Tiny-scale atomic structures (Heiles, 1997), with $`T_s15`$ K and $`N_H3\times 10^{18}`$ cm-2, are marginally ruled out, though geometric arguments may allow TSASs to be responsible for ESEs and meet this constraint on the H I column density. Walker & Wardle (1998) propose cold, H I-opaque molecular clouds in the Galactic halo. Any such structures within our observed velocity range are clearly excluded. However, the observed velocity range covers only 25% of the allowed range, so such a cloud could have been responsible for this ESE without violating our observational constraints.

We are grateful to E. Brinks for many helpful comments about the analysis of Galactic H I data. We are saddened that our thanks must be posthumous to the referee, R. Hjellming, for his comments that helped improve this paper. We also thank J. van Gorkom and S. Spangler for motivational commments. The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc. Basic research in radio astronomy at the NRL is supported by the Office of Naval Research.