su2 glueball potential 1-body - arXiv · 2020. 8. 31. · YMT is the relevant theory. Needless to...

21
arXiv:1910.07756v2 [hep-lat] 28 Aug 2020 Glueball scattering cross section in lattice SU (2) Yang-Mills theory Nodoka Yamanaka 1,2 , ∗ Hideaki Iida 3 , Atsushi Nakamura 4,5,6 , and Masayuki Wakayama 7,8,9,5 1 Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kyoto University, Kitashirakawa-Oiwake, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan 2 Amherst Center for Fundamental Interactions, Department of Physics, University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003, USA 3 Department of Physics, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan 4 Pacific Quantum Center, Far Eastern Federal University, Sukhanova 8, Vladivostok, 690950, Russia 5 Research Center for Nuclear Physics, Osaka University, Ibaraki, Osaka 567-0047, Japan 6 Theoretical Research Division, Nishina Center, RIKEN, Wako, Saitama 351-0198, Japan 7 School of Science and Engineering, Kokushikan University, Tokyo 154-8515, Japan 8 Center for Extreme Nuclear Matters (CENuM), Korea University, Seoul 02841, Republic of Korea and 9 Department of Physics, Pukyong National University (PKNU), Busan 48513, Republic of Korea (Dated: August 31, 2020) We calculate the scattering cross section between two 0 ++ glueballs in SU (2) Yang-Mills theory on lattice at β =2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 using the indirect (HAL QCD) method. We employ the cluster-decomposition error reduction technique and use all space-time symmetries to improve the signal. In the use of the HAL QCD method, the centrifugal force was subtracted to remove the systematic effect due to nonzero angular momenta of lattice discretization. From the extracted interglueball potential we determine the low energy glueball effective theory by matching with the one-glueball exchange process. We then calculate the scattering phase shift, and derive the relation between the interglueball cross section and the scale parameter Λ as σ φφ = (2 - 51)Λ -2 (stat.+sys.). From the observational constraints of galactic collisions, we obtain the lower bound of the scale parameter, as Λ > 60 MeV. We also discuss the naturalness of the Yang-Mills theory as the theory explaining dark matter. PACS numbers: 11.15.-q,12.39.Mk,95.35.+d,98.80.-k I. INTRODUCTION The study of dark matter (DM) [1–4] is one of the most fundamental subjects of physics. Its presence is provid- ing us the most consistent explanation for many astro- physical and cosmological phenomena and problems such as the large scale structure formation [5–23]. While the DM is less likely to be mainly composed of astrophysical objects [24–34], there are no particle physics candidates in the standard model (SM), and many models beyond it are under investigation [1, 3, 4, 35–85]. The “WIMP miracle” [41, 86–94], i.e. the suggestive coincidence of the weak coupling and the DM density that would have thermally been generated with the latter as the interac- tion between ordinary matter and DM, motivated us to experimentally test their direct scattering [95–109], the DM decay to visible cosmic rays [110–132], and DM pro- ductions at collider experiments [98, 133–159], but no positive results have been reported so far. In this context, an additional Yang-Mills theory (YMT) which does not or very weakly interacts with the SM particles is an attractive candidate, since the lightest particle of the spectrum is a glueball [160–235], fulfilling the conditions required for being DM [236–254]. This “dark” YMT may naturally be generated in grand uni- fication frameworks [236, 237, 245, 255–266], and it is * [email protected] possible to experimentally detect them by observing the gravitational wave background [246, 267–282] left from the first order de/confinement phase transition (YMTs have first order de/confinement phase transition for color number N c ≥ 3 [283–290]). The glueballs, like the other hadrons, are generated by the nonperturbative physics of nonabelian gauge theory, so the lattice gauge theory simulation is required to quan- tify their dynamics [290–327]. The glueballs should also exist in the quantum chromodynamics of the SM, and extensive experimental search is ongoing [328–338], but the mixing with other hadrons [339–369] is complicat- ing the analysis of their production and decay processes [183, 370–396]. In the case of the DM, the glueballs of the YMT are stable. The absence of quarks is indeed an important advantage, since the hierarchy problem will become almost irrelevant. Here we challenge the quantification of the interglue- ball cross section. The DM self-interaction (scattering) may affect the structure of the galactic halos and their collisions [397–426]. The DM scattering cross section is actually constrained by observations [427–431]. We ex- pect the lattice calculation of the interglueball scattering to yield quantitative relation between the cross section and the unknown scale parameter Λ of the dark YMT, which will be bounded by the observational data. In this work, we use the HAL QCD method [432–448], which is quite successful in the determination of the interhadron potential on lattice, to quantify the glueball scattering.

Transcript of su2 glueball potential 1-body - arXiv · 2020. 8. 31. · YMT is the relevant theory. Needless to...

  • arX

    iv:1

    910.

    0775

    6v2

    [he

    p-la

    t] 2

    8 A

    ug 2

    020

    Glueball scattering cross section in lattice SU(2) Yang-Mills theory

    Nodoka Yamanaka1,2,∗ Hideaki Iida3, Atsushi Nakamura4,5,6, and Masayuki Wakayama7,8,9,51Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kyoto University, Kitashirakawa-Oiwake, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan

    2Amherst Center for Fundamental Interactions, Department of Physics,University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003, USA

    3Department of Physics, The University of Tokyo,7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan

    4Pacific Quantum Center, Far Eastern Federal University, Sukhanova 8, Vladivostok, 690950, Russia5Research Center for Nuclear Physics, Osaka University, Ibaraki, Osaka 567-0047, Japan6Theoretical Research Division, Nishina Center, RIKEN, Wako, Saitama 351-0198, Japan

    7School of Science and Engineering, Kokushikan University, Tokyo 154-8515, Japan8Center for Extreme Nuclear Matters (CENuM),

    Korea University, Seoul 02841, Republic of Korea and9Department of Physics, Pukyong National University (PKNU), Busan 48513, Republic of Korea

    (Dated: August 31, 2020)

    We calculate the scattering cross section between two 0++ glueballs in SU(2) Yang-Mills theoryon lattice at β = 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 using the indirect (HAL QCD) method. We employ thecluster-decomposition error reduction technique and use all space-time symmetries to improve thesignal. In the use of the HAL QCD method, the centrifugal force was subtracted to remove thesystematic effect due to nonzero angular momenta of lattice discretization. From the extractedinterglueball potential we determine the low energy glueball effective theory by matching with theone-glueball exchange process. We then calculate the scattering phase shift, and derive the relationbetween the interglueball cross section and the scale parameter Λ as σφφ = (2−51)Λ−2 (stat.+sys.).From the observational constraints of galactic collisions, we obtain the lower bound of the scaleparameter, as Λ > 60 MeV. We also discuss the naturalness of the Yang-Mills theory as the theoryexplaining dark matter.

    PACS numbers: 11.15.-q,12.39.Mk,95.35.+d,98.80.-k

    I. INTRODUCTION

    The study of dark matter (DM) [1–4] is one of the mostfundamental subjects of physics. Its presence is provid-ing us the most consistent explanation for many astro-physical and cosmological phenomena and problems suchas the large scale structure formation [5–23]. While theDM is less likely to be mainly composed of astrophysicalobjects [24–34], there are no particle physics candidatesin the standard model (SM), and many models beyondit are under investigation [1, 3, 4, 35–85]. The “WIMPmiracle” [41, 86–94], i.e. the suggestive coincidence ofthe weak coupling and the DM density that would havethermally been generated with the latter as the interac-tion between ordinary matter and DM, motivated us toexperimentally test their direct scattering [95–109], theDM decay to visible cosmic rays [110–132], and DM pro-ductions at collider experiments [98, 133–159], but nopositive results have been reported so far.In this context, an additional Yang-Mills theory

    (YMT) which does not or very weakly interacts with theSM particles is an attractive candidate, since the lightestparticle of the spectrum is a glueball [160–235], fulfillingthe conditions required for being DM [236–254]. This“dark” YMT may naturally be generated in grand uni-fication frameworks [236, 237, 245, 255–266], and it is

    ∗ [email protected]

    possible to experimentally detect them by observing thegravitational wave background [246, 267–282] left fromthe first order de/confinement phase transition (YMTshave first order de/confinement phase transition for colornumber Nc ≥ 3 [283–290]).The glueballs, like the other hadrons, are generated by

    the nonperturbative physics of nonabelian gauge theory,so the lattice gauge theory simulation is required to quan-tify their dynamics [290–327]. The glueballs should alsoexist in the quantum chromodynamics of the SM, andextensive experimental search is ongoing [328–338], butthe mixing with other hadrons [339–369] is complicat-ing the analysis of their production and decay processes[183, 370–396]. In the case of the DM, the glueballs ofthe YMT are stable. The absence of quarks is indeed animportant advantage, since the hierarchy problem willbecome almost irrelevant.

    Here we challenge the quantification of the interglue-ball cross section. The DM self-interaction (scattering)may affect the structure of the galactic halos and theircollisions [397–426]. The DM scattering cross section isactually constrained by observations [427–431]. We ex-pect the lattice calculation of the interglueball scatteringto yield quantitative relation between the cross sectionand the unknown scale parameter Λ of the dark YMT,which will be bounded by the observational data. In thiswork, we use the HAL QCD method [432–448], which isquite successful in the determination of the interhadronpotential on lattice, to quantify the glueball scattering.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1910.07756v2mailto:[email protected]

  • 2

    This paper gives the complete and detailed discussionof the letter [449], in which the DM cross section withinthe YMT was quantitatively derived for the first time onlattice. In the next section, we will explain the natural-ness of the YMT as the candidate of DM model beyondthe SM. We then describe in Section III the setup of lat-tice simulation and the calculation of the interglueballpotential obtained by employing the HAL QCD method.In Section IV, we show the result of our calculation ofthe potential in SU(2) lattice YMT, determine the glue-ball effective field theory by matching the one-glueballexchange process with our lattice data, derive the glue-ball cross section, and constrain the scale parameter fromobservation. The final section is devoted to the summary.

    II. NATURALNESS OF DARK YANG-MILLS

    THEORY

    In this section, we shall show that the glueball DMis very natural among composite DM scenarios [241–245, 251, 253, 266, 450–531] and dark gauge theories.The assumption of the existence of dark gauge sectors isindeed a reasonable answer to the problem of the ad hocgauge group of the SM, since they may naturally arisein many contexts such as in string or grand unificationtheories [236, 237, 245, 255–266]. Here we do not discusstheir origin, but rather the constraint on the dark gaugesector that could be imposed assuming the naturalness.The DM model has to be conceived respecting many

    phenomenological constraints such as the electric neu-trality, the nonrelativisticity, the consistency with thebigbang nucleosynthesis, experimental data from directand indirect detections, etc. The simplest possibility isthe massive dark photon. To give it a finite mass, theHiggs potential has to be present with a scalar quadraticterm. The latter is known to introduce severe hierarchi-cal problem due to the quadratic divergence, unless theHiggs potential is just an effective one below some energyscale close to the dark photon mass. The same reasoningapplies for nonabelian gauge theories with scalar field(s),whether it (they) induces the Higgs mechanism or not.The second class of theory is the gauge theory without

    spontaneous breakdown by the Higgs mechanism. In thiscase, we can first conceive an asymptotically free gaugetheory. However, we have to note that the fermions mustbe massless (or very light compared to the current tem-perature of the Universe), which will conflict with thenonrelativistic property and the bigbang nucleosynthe-sis. In this class of gauge theory, colored particles shouldtherefore be confined, and the mass of hadrons is gen-erated dynamically. The chiral fermions are not favoredfor several reasons as shown below. If the fermions arechiral i.e. massless, the general case will be the sponta-neous break down of chiral symmetry. Massless Nambu-Goldstone modes are then generated, which are also notallowed phenomenologically, due to the constraint on thenumber of relativistic particles at the bigbang nucleosyn-

    thesis. We may equally think of a case where the chi-ral symmetry is not spontaneously broken, requiring thegeneration of massless composite fermions with the sameglobal symmetry as the original theory, as required bythe ’t Hooft anomaly matching. This scenario is againforbidden for the same reason as the previous case. If theelementary fermions become massive due to other spon-taneous breakdown of the chiral symmetry through theYukawa interaction (like the SM), this means that there isat least one additional scalar field which forms the Higgspotential, thus generating again the hierarchical problem.We finally arrive at the conclusion that the most naturalscenarios are nonabelian gauge theories with vectorlikefermions.In QCD-like theories, the vectorlike fermions may have

    arbitrary masses. If the vectorlike fermions are lighterthan the confining scale (ΛNc) and have gauge chargesof the SM sector, the dark baryon number asymmetrymay be generated through the sphaleron process. On thecontrary, if the masses of vectorlike fermions are heavierthan ΛNc , the glueball of this gauge sector will becomethe DM. If we wish to explain the DM within the non-abelian gauge theory with vectorlike fermions, we there-fore have two choices, the DM composed of baryons madeof vectorlike fermions, or lightest glueballs for which theYMT is the relevant theory. Needless to say, we may alsoconceive a pure YMT without any other fields

    LYM = −1

    4

    N2c−1∑

    a=1

    Fµνa Faµν , (1)

    where Fµνa is the dark gluon field strength. In this case,the number of input parameters is minimal, so that theYMT is the most natural theory explaining the DM. An-other feature which has to be emphasized is that, in grandunification scenarios, ΛNc is controlled by the integernumber of colors Nc which runs the coupling logarithmi-cally over the energy scale, and it may generate a varietyof energy scales.

    III. SIMULATION AND FORMALISM

    A. Simulation setup

    Let us now present the detail of the simulation of YMTon lattice. In this work, we simulate it with five latticespacings corresponding to β = 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5.The simulation parameters are given in Table I.The relation between the string tension σ and Λ, the

    scale parameter of SU(2) YMT, was calculated for thegeneral Nc [532, 533], giving

    Λ√σ

    = 0.503(2)(40) +0.33(3)(3)

    N2c. (2)

    By using the result of the calculation of the string ten-sion of Ref. [312] (see Table II), it is possible to express

  • 3

    TABLE I. Simulation parameters of SU(2) YMT. “Thermal-ization” denotes the number of thermalization sweeps used inthe pseudo-heat method, and “Separation” is the interval ofsweeps taken between each data taking.

    β Volume Configurations Thermalization Separation2.1 103 × 12 1000000 5000 1502.2 124 9999990 5000 150

    2.3 143 × 16 4100000 8000 2402.4 163 × 24 2030000 5000 1502.5 203 × 24 520000 12000 600

    the lattice spacings a in the unit of Λ. We note thatΛ is an unknown parameter, since the property of theDM particle is totally unknown. The aim of our workis precisely to calculate the low energy constants of thelow energy glueball effective Lagrangian and the inter-glueball scattering cross section in the unit of Λ, so thatthe constraint from observational data will give a boundon it.

    TABLE II. The string tensions of Ref. [312] and lattice spac-ings derived from Eq. (2) for several β.

    β a√σ a[Λ−1]

    2.1 0.608(16) 0.356(27)2.2 0.467(10) 0.273(20)2.3 0.3687(22) 0.216(15)2.4 0.2660(21) 0.156(11)2.5 0.1881(28) 0.110(8)

    Let us now define the 0++ glueball operator:

    φ(t, ~x) = Re[P12(t, ~x) + P12(t, ~x+ a~e3) + P23(t, ~x)

    +P23(t, ~x+ a~e1) + P31(t, ~x) + P31(t, ~x+ a~e2)].

    (3)

    Here Pij are the plaquette operators in the i − j direc-tion, with ~e1,2,3 the unit vector. The 0

    ++ glueball hasthe same quantum number as the vacuum, so it has anexpectation value which corresponds to a divergence inthe continuum limit. To extract physical information,we have to subtract it from the glueball field operator φ.The glueball correlators are then expressed in terms ofφ̃(t, ~x) ≡ φ(t, ~x)− 〈φ(t, ~x)〉.In order to improve the glueball operator, we also apply

    the APE smearing [306, 317, 318]. The smeared link

    operator U(n)i is constructed by maximizing

    ReTr[U(n+1)i (t, ~x)V

    (n)†i (t, ~x)], (4)

    where

    V(n)i (t, ~x) ≡ αU

    (n)i (t, ~x) +

    ∑

    ±j 6=i

    U(n)j (t, ~x)

    ×U (n)i (t, ~x+ a~ej)U(n)†j (t, ~x+ a~ei). (5)

    The optimal choices of α and n for each β are given in Ta-ble III. We compare in Fig. 1 the effective mass plots withthe smeared and unsmeared glueball operators. We seethat the smeared operator requires much less imaginarytime to form the plateau, and the statistical error is muchsmaller. With the above setup, we found the glueballmass mφ as shown in Table III for β = 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4,and 2.5. The largest uncertainty of mφ is coming fromthe relation (2).

    TABLE III. Smearing parameters α and n used to optimizethe 0++ glueball operator. The results of our calculations of0++ glueball masses (in lattice unit) are also shown.

    β α n amφ mφ[Λ]2.1 16.0 3 1.853(13) 5.21(39)2.2 16.0 5 1.517(10) 5.55(41)2.3 10.0 7 1.241(6) 5.75(54)2.4 2.0 11 0.924(8) 5.93(43)2.5 2.0 27 0.696(6) 6.32(46)

    0

    5

    10

    15

    20

    25

    0 2 4 6 8 10

    SU(2), β=2.5, 203×24

    Effe

    ctiv

    e m

    ass

    (uni

    t: Λ

    )

    t/a

    520000Conf non-smr,203

    520000Conf 27x smr,203

    Teper(164,1998)

    0

    5

    10

    15

    20

    25

    0 2 4 6 8 10

    FIG. 1. Glueball effective mass calculated with the standardglueball operator (3) (green points) and with APE smearing(blue points) at β = 2.5. The result of the previous work[312] (red line, with the uncertainty band) is also shown forcomparison.

    B. Nambu-Bethe-Salpeter amplitude

    To extract the scattering cross section between twohadrons, we have to calculate the Nambu-Bethe-Salpeter(NBS) amplitude, defined as follows:

    Ψφφ(t, ~x− ~y) ≡1

    V

    ∑

    ~r

    〈0|T [φ̃(t, ~x+ ~r)φ̃(t, ~y + ~r)J (0)]|0〉.

    (6)Here J is the source operator which has the same quan-tum number as the two-glueball state, and it may beimproved using the APE smearing. However, the sink

  • 4

    -2x10-6

    -1x10-6

    0

    1x10-6

    2x10-6

    3x10-6

    4x10-6

    5x10-6

    6x10-6

    7x10-6

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6

    SU(2), β=2.1, 103×12

    NB

    S a

    mpl

    itude

    (la

    ttice

    uni

    t)

    r (lattice unit)

    NBS(1-body src, t=1,1000000 confs.) -2x10-7

    0

    2x10-7

    4x10-7

    6x10-7

    8x10-7

    1x10-6

    1.2x10-6

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

    SU(2), β=2.2, 124

    NB

    S a

    mpl

    itude

    (la

    ttice

    uni

    t)

    r (lattice unit)

    NBS(1-body src, t=1,9999990 confs.)

    -5x10-7

    -4x10-7

    -3x10-7

    -2x10-7

    -1x10-7

    0

    1x10-7

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

    SU(2), β=2.3, 143×16

    NB

    S a

    mpl

    itude

    (la

    ttice

    uni

    t)

    r (lattice unit)

    NBS(1-body src, t=1,4100000confs.)

    -3x10-8

    -2.5x10-8

    -2x10-8

    -1.5x10-8

    -1x10-8

    -5x10-9

    0

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6

    SU(2), β=2.4, 163×24

    NB

    S a

    mpl

    itude

    (la

    ttice

    uni

    t)

    r (lattice unit)

    NBS(1-body src, t=2, 2030000confs.)

    -6x10-9

    -5x10-9

    -4x10-9

    -3x10-9

    -2x10-9

    -1x10-9

    0

    1x10-9

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6

    SU(2), β=2.5, 203×24

    NB

    S a

    mpl

    itude

    (la

    ttice

    uni

    t)

    r (lattice unit)

    NBS(1-body src, t=2, 520000confs., 203)

    FIG. 2. NBS amplitudes for the 1-body wall source calculations on lattice with β = 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5.

    operators should not be smeared, since the nonlocality ofthe operator will affect the definition of the interglueballdistance. For the 0++ glueball, all n-body operator (φ̃n)(n ∈ N, n 6= 0) may be chosen. We also note that J alsohas expectation value, so we have to subtract it. We caneasily show that the removal at one side, either at the

    source or at the sink, is sufficient, since we have

    〈0|T [[Osnk(t, ~r)− 〈Osnk(t, ~r)〉][Osrc(0)− 〈Osrc(0)〉]]|0〉= 〈0|T [[Osnk(t, ~r)− 〈Osnk(t, ~r)〉]Osrc(0)|0〉= 〈0|T [Osnk(t, ~r)[Osrc(0)− 〈Osrc(0)〉]]|0〉. (7)

    For the computational convenience, we choose to removethe expectation value of the source J . We show in Fig.2 the behavior of the NBS amplitude with 1-body sourceat β = 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5. We see characteristic

  • 5

    -3x10-8

    -2.5x10-8

    -2x10-8

    -1.5x10-8

    -1x10-8

    -5x10-9

    0

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6

    SU(2), β=2.4, 163×24

    NB

    S a

    mpl

    itude

    (la

    ttice

    uni

    t)

    r (lattice unit)

    NBS(1-body src, t=2, 2030000confs.)

    -2x10-7

    0

    2x10-7

    4x10-7

    6x10-7

    8x10-7

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6

    SU(2), β=2.4, 163×24

    NB

    S a

    mpl

    itude

    (la

    ttice

    uni

    t)

    r (lattice unit)

    NBS(2-body src, t=2, 2030000confs.)

    -8x10-6

    -6x10-6

    -4x10-6

    -2x10-6

    0

    2x10-6

    4x10-6

    6x10-6

    8x10-6

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6

    SU(2), β=2.4, 163×24

    NB

    S a

    mpl

    itude

    (la

    ttice

    uni

    t)

    r (lattice unit)

    NBS(3-body src, t=2, 2030000confs.)

    FIG. 3. NBS amplitudes for the 1-, 2-, and 3-body wall sourcecalculations on 163 × 24 lattice with β = 2.4.

    oscillations with a valley at each lattice unit. This in-teger variation is suggesting us the relevance of nonzeroangular momentum (l ≥ 4) effects due to the lattice dis-cretization. At integer r, l = 4 wave contributes, whileother higher partial waves also contribute at other non-integer r. This fact is the origin of the above integeroscillation. We will see later how to remove this system-atic effect when extracting the interglueball potential.

    In Fig. 3, we compare the same quantity between 1-,2-, and 3-body sources for β = 2.4. We see that for the1-body source calculation, the NBS amplitude becomeszero at large r, while it is finite for the cases of 2- and3-body sources. This is because the NBS amplitude with1-body source cannot be splitted into two spatially sepa-rated correlators, while that with 2- and 3-body sourcescan. We note that this fact does not occur if the ex-pectation values of the source (and sink) operator arenot correctly subtracted, and this proves that the clus-ter decomposition principle is correctly working with thedefinition (7). Since the lattice calculation becomes nois-ier as the mass dimension of the operator increases, wewill mainly discuss the NBS amplitude with the 1-bodysource. The correlator (6) is purely gluonic, and the sta-tistical error is significant in the lattice calculation. Toimprove the accuracy, we use all space-time symmetries(space-time translation and cubic rotation) to effectivelyincrease the statistics.

    C. Finite volume effect

    We now inspect the finite volume effect. In lookingat the damping of each NBS amplitude of Fig. 2, wesee that the signal is correctly becoming zero consistentbefore reaching the half of the lattice spatial length.

    -2.5x10-7

    -2x10-7

    -1.5x10-7

    -1x10-7

    -5x10-8

    0

    5x10-8

    1x10-7

    1.5x10-7

    2x10-7

    0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

    NB

    S a

    mpl

    itude

    (la

    ttice

    uni

    t)

    r (unit: Λ-1)

    NBS(1-body src,163x24)NBS(1-body src,323x24,rescaled)

    FIG. 4. Comparison of the calculations of the NBS amplitudeusing the 1-body wall source with the volumes 163 × 24 and323 × 24 (β = 2.5). The NBS amplitude was calculated with1045000 and 126000 configurations for the 163 ×24 and 323×24 lattices, respectively.

    Another important point to be discussed in the con-text of the finite volume effect is the vacuum fluctuationof gluonic operators. Let us compare the lattice calcula-tions with two different volumes 163 × 24 and 323 × 24for β = 2.5. We plot in Fig. 4 the results of the NBSamplitude (1-body wall source) calculated with approx-imately the same statistics, which are considered to beproportional to the volume thanks to the use of transla-tional symmetries. We see that the results are in agree-

  • 6

    ment, although the statistical error is large for the caseof 323 × 24 lattice. It is actually known that the noiseenhances when distant gluonic correlations (disconnectedinsertions) contribute to the correlator, since such con-tribution increases with the volume, as we chose the wallsource. In the next section, we precisely use this fact toreduce the statistical uncertainty, by removing the un-correlated contribution.

    D. The cluster-decomposition error reduction

    technique

    As we saw in Section III C, the contribution tothe correlator from gluonic operators that are four-dimensionally well separated yields statistical fluctuationwhich accumulates with the increase of the volume. Thisis because these operators have expectation values andthey are fluctuating even when they are isolated. Theidea then came to remove these meaningless fluctuationsoriginating from the distant positions of the operators,and just keep the contribution from the true correla-tion with closely located interpolating fields. Since theYMT has a mass gap, the correlation is exponentiallysuppressed in the Euclidean space, so that we can seta four-dimensional cutoff which removes the contribu-tion from the uncorrelated region [534]. This is also animportant technical application of the cluster decompo-sition principle. We plot in Fig. 5 the example of thecalculation of the glueball two-point correlator using theabove mentioned method, the cluster-decomposition er-ror reduction technique (CDERT). We found that, forβ = 2.4, the systematic error is less than the statisticalone with the cut ρ = 7 (lattice unit).

    -5x10-7 0

    5x10-7 1x10-6

    1.5x10-6 2x10-6

    2.5x10-6 3x10-6

    3.5x10-6 4x10-6

    4.5x10-6

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6

    Glu

    ebal

    l 2-p

    oint

    cor

    rela

    tor

    t/a

    cutoff= 3cutoff= 4cutoff= 5cutoff= 6cutoff= 7cutoff= 8

    wall

    -5x10-7 0

    5x10-7 1x10-6

    1.5x10-6 2x10-6

    2.5x10-6 3x10-6

    3.5x10-6 4x10-6

    4.5x10-6

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6

    FIG. 5. CDERT applied to the glueball two-point functioncalculated with 100 configurations and the smeared operatoron 163 × 24 lattice with β = 2.4. We see that the correla-tor saturates at the cutoff ρ = 7 (lattice unit), and furtherincrease of the cutoff enlarges the statistical error bar.

    In this work, we apply the CDERT used in Ref. [534]to the calculation of the NBS amplitude on 163 × 24 lat-

    tice with β = 2.4, for which the computational cost wasoptimal (for β = 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, increasing the number ofconfigurations was more efficient to reduce the statisti-cal error, while the application of the CDERT was toocostly for 203 × 24 lattice with β = 2.5). We set cutoffsto the relative four-dimensional distances between thesource operator and the sink ones. The NBS amplitudewith the 1-body source is then calculated as

    Ψ′φφ(t, ~x− ~y) =1

    V

    ∑

    ~r

    ∑

    ~rsrc∈C(t,~x+~r)⋃

    C(t,~y+~r)

    〈0|T [φ̃(t, ~x+ ~r)φ̃(t, ~y + ~r)φ̃(0, ~rsrc)]|0〉,(8)

    where C(t, ~v) is the 3-dimensional projection of the 4-dimensional hypersphere with the center (t, ~v) and withthe radius ρ onto the t = 0 (3-dimensional) hyperplane.The cutoffs are simultaneously applied to both glueballoperators of the sink, which means that the wall sourceis changed to a source with a restricted region wheretwo spheres of the cutoffs overlap. We note that thissimultaneous application of the cutoff to the above twopairs of operators upsets the possibility to reduce thecomputational cost using the Fourier transform, whichwas very efficient in the case of two-point functions [534].In the case of SU(2) YMT, the calculation of the NBSamplitude with the CDERT is the most computationallycostly step of this work. We also apply the same cutoffto the distance between the two interpolating fields ofthe sink, but this manipulation is just equivalent to notconsidering the radial plot of the NBS amplitude for theradius beyond the cutoff. In Fig. 6, we plot the resultof the application of the CDERT to the NBS amplitudecalculated on 163 × 24 lattice at β = 2.4 with the cutoffρ = 7 (lattice unit). We see that the CDERT couldsuccessfully reduce the statistical error by more than afactor of two, keeping consistency with the wall sourcecalculation.

    E. Problems with the direct method

    We now extract the scattering phase shift. It may becalculated by Fourier transforming the NBS amplitudeand by inspecting the momentum modulation of the en-ergy of the two-glueball system (the so-called Lücher’smethod) [535]. This approach is expected to be appli-cable when there are no states with smaller energy orwhen the quantum number of the two-body system for-bids transition to lighter states, and it has been applied tomany hadronic systems [536–543]. However, in the caseof the two-glueball state, it mixes with the single glueballstate. Indeed, the NBS amplitude forms a plateau withthe effective mass of a single glueball (see Fig. 7). It is,of course, possible to remove the contribution from theone-glueball state by hand or by diagonalizing the sourceoperator, but we have to keep in mind that the glueballspectrum has other states and resonances with energy

  • 7

    -3x10-8

    -2.5x10-8

    -2x10-8

    -1.5x10-8

    -1x10-8

    -5x10-9

    0

    0 1 2 3 4 5 6

    SU(2), β=2.4, 163×24

    NB

    S a

    mpl

    itude

    (la

    ttice

    uni

    t)

    r (lattice unit)

    CDERT (2030000 Confs., cut=7)Wall source (2030000 Confs.)

    FIG. 6. Glueball NBS amplitude with 1-body source (J =φ̃) obtained by applying the CDERT with the cutoff ρ = 7(lattice unit) on 163 × 24 lattice at β = 2.4. We compare itwith the wall source calculation to visualize the improvementof the signal.

    close to the two-body threshold. The extraction of thetwo-glueball scattering in the direct method is thereforevery challenging.

    0

    5

    10

    15

    20

    0 2 4 6 8 10

    SU(2), β=2.5, 163×24

    Effe

    ctiv

    e m

    ass

    (uni

    t: Λ

    )

    t/a

    NBS amplitude (p=0,10000Conf)2-point function (Teper,164,1998)

    FIG. 7. Effective mass plot of the glueball NBS amplitude inthe momentum space, with 1-body source (J = φ̃) on 163×24lattice with β = 2.5. We see that the energy of the systemsaturates at the single glueball mass.

    F. HAL QCD method

    An alternative approach to calculate the scatteringphase shift is to indirectly calculate it via the inter-glueball potential obtained from the HAL QCD method[432, 433]. The object is to extract the nonlocal po-tential U(~r, ~r′) by using the fact that the NBS am-plitude Ψφφ(t, ~r) obeys the following time-independent

    Schrödinger-like equation:

    1

    mφ∇2Ψφφ(t, ~r) =

    ∫

    d3r′U(~r, ~r′)Ψφφ(t, ~r′). (9)

    By taking a sufficiently large t (we call this “taking theground saturation”), the potential can be extracted. It iseasily possible to realize large t with large time discretiza-tion (lattice spacing), i.e. small β. In our calculation, weuse the time-independent formalism to extract the inter-glueball potential for β = 2.1 and 2.2 [Eq. (9) will notbe used exactly in its form, since we have to subtract thecentrifugal force, as seen below].The above method is unfortunately difficult to apply

    to cases where the contamination from excited statesis important. To overcome this problem, the HALQCD method was then extended to the following time-dependent formalism [439]

    [

    1

    4mφ

    ∂2

    ∂t2− ∂∂t

    +1

    mφ∇2]

    R(t, ~r) =

    ∫

    d3r′U(~r, ~r′)R(t, ~r′),

    (10)

    where R(t, ~r) ≡ Ψφφ(t,~r)e−2mφt

    . Here we have to choose t

    so that 1/t is less than the inelastic threshold ET =3mφ − 2mφ = mφ, if one wants to study the elastic scat-tering. The elasticity is an important feature of the HALQCD method, since it makes the physics essentially non-relativistic. The potential should then be local and cen-tral, U(~r, ~r′) ≈ Vφφ(~r)δ(~r−~r′), to a good approximation.We then have

    Vφφ(~r) =1

    R(t, ~r)

    [

    1

    4mφ

    ∂2

    ∂t2− ∂

    ∂t+

    1

    mφ∇2]

    R(t, ~r). (11)

    The above extension to the time-dependent formulationhas the crucial advantage that we do not need the groundstate saturation for extracting the potential [439], andit is now well established after intense discussions [544–548]. In particular, the glueball correlators are in generalvery noisy, so the use of this method is almost manda-tory for large β if one wants to keep good statistical ac-curacy. In addition, the potential handled in the HALQCD method does not depend on the renormalizationscale [432, 433]. We, however, have to keep in mind thatthe potential is not an observable, and it may depend onthe choice of the operators.As seen in Sec. III B, the NBS amplitude calculated

    on lattice might be contaminated by higher partial waveswith angular momentum l ≥ 4. The HAL QCD Collab-oration resolved this problem by using Misner’s method[448]. This consists of taking the weighted average of theNBS amplitude over a thin interval of distance betweenhadrons. However, for the case of the glueballs, the sig-nal of the potential is spatially damping very fast andonly data points close to the origin may be used, so wewill not have enough points in a thin interval to take theweighted average. In our study, we resolve this probleminstead by simply subtracting the centrifugal force which

  • 8

    is giving the leading contribution from finite angular mo-menta in the Schrödinger equation. The relation betweenthe potential and the NBS amplitude is then

    Vφφ(~r) =1

    R(t, ~r)

    [

    1

    4mφ

    ∂2

    ∂t2− ∂∂t

    +∇2mφ

    +(~r × ~∇)22mφr2

    ]

    R(t, ~r).

    (12)In the case of the glueball, the signal is also very quicklydamping in the temporal direction, so the removal of thecentrifugal force, which should have a large effect at shortdistance, is also expected to improve the quality of thepotential at small imaginary time, without waiting forthe damp of the centrifugal one. Moreover, in our study,we are interested in the low energy scattering betweenDM, so it is fortunate that we only have to consider thes-wave scattering. We also note that the subtraction ofthe centrifugal force from the kinetic term yields

    ∇2mφ

    +(~r × ~∇)22mφr2

    =~r · ~∇mφr2

    −3∑

    a,b,=1

    rarb∇a∇b2mφr2

    , (13)

    which is not containing the Laplacian ∇2 anymore. Thismeans that the second derivative disappears (we insteadhave a product of first derivatives ∇a∇b), and conse-quently the nonlocality is reduced. This will permit us toextract the potential with data points close to the origin,without being annoyed by the contact term of glueballoperators.

    -50

    0

    50

    100

    150

    200

    250

    300

    0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

    SU(2), β=2.3, 143×16

    SU

    (2)

    glue

    ball

    pote

    ntia

    l (un

    it: Λ

    )

    r (unit: Λ-1)

    HALQCD method with centrifugal force subtractedStandard HALQCD method

    FIG. 8. Comparison of the interglueball potentials extractedusing the HAL QCD method with and without the subtrac-tion of centrifugal force (143 × 16 lattice, β = 2.3). The po-tential becomes attractive after the subtraction in the regionaround r ∼ 0.3.

    In Fig. 8, we compare the interglueball potentials ex-tracted using the HAL QCD method with and withoutthe subtraction of centrifugal force. We see that the po-tential is repulsive before the subtraction of the centrifu-gal force, and turns attractive after the improvement ofEq. (12), which shows that this procedure is very efficientin removing the systematics due to l ≥ 4 effects. We also

    remark that the error bars are very large in the regionr ≥ 0.5Λ−1. This is due to the fact that the potentialis calculated by dividing by the NBS amplitude [see Eqs.(11) and (12)] which is zero in the long range for the caseof the 1-body source, due to the cluster decompositionprinciple (see Figs. 2, 3, and 6).

    IV. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

    A. Interglueball potential

    We calculate the interglueball potential for β =2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 and superpose the results with-out weight. This manipulation is allowed since the po-tential obtained in the HAL QCD method is indepen-dent of the choice of the renormalization scale. Forβ = 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5, the interglueball force is extractedusing the time-dependent formalism improved by remov-ing the centrifugal force (12). For β = 2.1 and 2.2, thetime interval is large, and the use of Eq. (12) introducessizable systematics due to the discretization through thetime derivative. In this work, we therefore employ thestandard HAL QCD method (9) improved by subtract-ing the centrifugal force to extract the potential from thelattice data at β = 2.1 and 2.2.

    We plot in Fig. 9 the result of our calculation. We seefrom our result that the interglueball potential is attrac-tive. Here we note that we removed the data points atr = 0 and r = 1 (in lattice unit). This is because the glue-ball operator we used is a superposition of plaquettes soas to form a 3-dimensional cube of spread with one latticeunit [see Eq. (3)], and the product of two glueball oper-ators at the same or consecutive spatial points may gen-erate an operator made of overlapping plaquettes, whichis a single glueball operator. This problem was also en-countered in the direct method (see Sec. III E).

    Let us now fit the potential calculated on lattice. Herewe choose two fitting forms, i.e. the Yukawa function

    VY (r) = V(1)Y

    e−mφr

    4πr, (14)

    and the two-range Gaussian (2-Gaussian) function

    VG(r) = V(1)G e

    −(mφr)

    2

    8 + V(2)G e

    −(mφr)

    2

    2 . (15)

    After the fit, we find

    VY (r) = −231(8)e−mφr

    4πr(χ2/d.o.f. = 1.3), (16)

    VG(r) = −8.5(0.5)Λe−(mφr)

    2

    8 − 26.6(2.6)Λe−(mφr)

    2

    2

    (χ2/d.o.f. = 0.9). (17)

    The results are plotted in Fig. 9. Both fits have χ2 closeto one, which shows that they work reasonably well.

  • 9

    -40

    -20

    0

    20

    40

    0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8SU

    (2)

    glue

    ball

    pote

    ntia

    l (un

    it: Λ

    )

    r (unit: Λ-1)

    β=2.5,520000Confs,wall src.β=2.4,2030000Confs,CDERTβ=2.3,4100000Confs,wall src.β=2.2,9999990Confs,t=3,wall src.β=2.1,1000000Confs,t=2,wall src.Single Yukawa fit2-Gaussian fit

    FIG. 9. Interglueball potential calculated on lattice in SU(2)YMT at β = 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5. The fits with theYukawa (14) and 2-Gaussian (15) fitting forms are also dis-played. The colored band denotes the uncertainty (statisticaland systematic). For each β, we do not displayed data pointsat r = 0, 1, and r ≥ 4 (lattice unit) because we did not usethem in the fit.

    B. 0++ glueball effective Lagrangian

    Let us try to analyze our result in terms of a simplescalar effective field theory. The general renormalizableeffective theory of the 0++ glueball is given by the fol-lowing trilinear + φ4 Lagrangian

    Lφ =1

    2(∂µφ)2 −

    m2φ2

    φ2 − A3!φ3 − λ

    4!φ4. (18)

    The above trilinear interaction (term with A) gener-ates an attractive Yukawa potential (see Fig. 10) whichhas the longest range, and explains well our lattice re-sult. By matching the one-glueball exchange processwith the nonrelativistic Yukawa potential, we have |A| =2mφ

    √

    −V (1)Y ≈ 190Λ. The φ4 interaction may be repul-sive depending on the sign of the coupling λ, but thisone is giving a delta function potential in the continuumtheory, and it is difficult to fit it directly from latticedata.

    k

    FIG. 10. One-glueball exchange process in the t-channelgenerated by the glueball trilinear interaction, with the ex-changed momentum k.

    The trilinear coupling A of the lightest 0++ glueballhas actually been extracted in SU(3) lattice YMT [305]

    using Lüscher’s finite volume method [535, 549], and it

    was obtained 3A2

    16πm2φ

    = 155 ± 45, which is comparableto our result of SU(2) YMT 3A

    2

    16πm2φ

    ≈ 60. This is alsoconsistent with the calculation of the strong coupling ex-

    pansion 3A2

    16πm2φ

    ≈ 120 [550]. As an aside, we note that theglueball mass m2φ, the trilinear coupling A, and the φ

    4

    coupling λ scale as O(N0c ), O(N−1c ), and O(N

    −2c ), in the

    large Nc limit, respectively. This results in the scaling ofthe interglueball cross section σφφ = O(N

    −4c ).

    It is also possible to derive the glueball effectiveLagrangian by using the conformal invariance and bysupposing that the glueball field operator is the traceanomaly, which explicitly breaks the scale (conformal)symmetry at the quantum level. In the low energy limit,it has the following unique form [166, 167, 174, 179, 180,187, 221, 551–554]

    Lφ =1

    2e2 φ

    fφ (∂µφ)(∂µφ)−H0(

    1

    4− φ

    fφ

    )

    e4 φ

    fφ , (19)

    where the decay constant fφ and the vacuum expecta-tion value H0 are the only two free parameters. Withthis effective theory, the glueball mass is given as mφ =√

    −4H0/f2φ. To completely determine the low energyeffective Lagrangian of the glueball, another constraintis required. Here we match the one-glueball exchangeprocess generated by Eq. (19) with the nonrelativisticYukawa potential (16) (see Appendix A for derivation).After matching we have

    |fφ| ≈ 1.4Λ, (20)H0 ≈ −18Λ4. (21)

    From the above discussion, we could obtain the depen-dence of the low energy glueball effective Lagrangian (19)on the scale parameter Λ of SU(2) YMT. This is actuallythe first ab initio derivation of the low energy dynamicsof SU(2) YMT, and we expect it to be applied in thepredictions of important low energy observables. Sincethe deconfinement transition of SU(2) YMT occurs atthe critical temperature Tc ≈ 1 × Λ [287, 290], which ismuch smaller than the glueball mass mφ ∼ 6Λ, it is evenpossible to predict observables near Tc using the abovelow energy glueball Lagrangian without large corrections.Potentially interesting quantities to be evaluated are theDM relic density or the gravitational wave backgroundwhich are generated at the phase transition. We alsonote that fφ ∝ Nc and H0 ∝ N2c , so qualitative extrapo-lation of Eqs. (20) and (21) to Nc ≥ 3 is possible.

    C. Dark matter cross section and constraint on Λ

    We now derive the interglueball cross section by firstsolving the s-wave Schrödinger equation with the fitted

  • 10

    potentials (16) and (17)

    (

    ∂2

    ∂r2+ k2 −mφV (r)

    )

    φ(r) = 0, (22)

    and extract the scattering phase shift δ(k) at vanishingmomentum k → 0, which is precisely the relevant kine-matics for the DM scattering. Asymptotically, the solu-tion of Eq. (22) behaves as φ(r) ∝ sin[kr + δ(k)]. Thequantity we have to calculate is then

    σφφ = limk→0

    4π

    k2sin2[δ(k)]. (23)

    We finally obtain the following scattering cross sectionsfor the two fitting forms we used:

    σφφ = (2.5− 4.7)Λ−2 (Yukawa), (24)σφφ = (14− 51)Λ−2 (2-Gaussian), (25)

    where the ranges correspond to the statistical error bar.The systematic error is just estimated by taking the dif-ference between the two results. Finally, the interglueballscattering cross section in the SU(2) YMT is

    σφφ = (2 − 51)Λ−2 (stat.+ sys.). (26)

    Here we could see some enhancement of σφφ for the caseof 2-Gaussian fit, which might be due to the existence ofa resonance near the two-glueball threshold. Its determi-nation will be required for the reduction of the systematicerror in the future.We can then derive the constraint on Λ from observa-

    tional data. By equating the upper bound on the DMcross section obtained from the galactic collision [431]

    σφφ/mφ < 0.47 cm2/g, (27)

    we finally have

    Λ > 60MeV. (28)

    In this work, we do not discuss the lower bound on Λwhich might be set by inspecting the astrophysics at thescale below kpc, which has yet no consensus [398, 555–575].Using the large Nc argument, we can qualitatively ex-

    tend the discussion to all Nc’s. As we saw in SectionIVB, the cross section scales as 1/N4c , while the mass ofthe 0++glueball is constant at large Nc. The lower limitof the scale parameter is then extended to Nc ≥ 3 as

    ΛNc > 60

    (

    2

    Nc

    )43

    MeV. (29)

    We note that the contribution of nonplanar diagrams toσφφ is of O(N

    −6c ) so higher order corrections in 1/Nc

    expansion are not small. To control the systematics downto the percent level, we have to calculate the interglueballcross section up to Nc = 10.

    V. CONCLUSION

    In this paper, we calculated the interglueball scatteringcross section using the HAL QCD method, and derivedthe constraint on the scale parameter of SU(2) YMTfrom the observational data of galactic collision. Theo-retically, the glueball DM is a natural conception becausethe theory does not depend on any massive parametersexcept the scale parameter. It is also part of the non-abelian gauge theory with heavy vectorlike fermions. Theother dark gauge theories have more or less hierarchicalproblems, thus proving the attractiveness of the YMT.

    In our work, the use of the HAL QCD method was al-most mandatory, since this allowed us to take data withsmall imaginary time, which was crucial for extractingphysical information from the very noisy glueball corre-lators. We also used the CDERT at β = 2.4 which wasshown to be efficient in the improvement of the signal.Another important feature is the subtraction of the cen-trifugal force which removed the systematic effect due tononzero angular momenta, which was crucial to correctthe repulsive potential to an attractive one. This attrac-tion is consistent with the one-glueball exchange picturewhich is the leading contribution in the long range region.

    We could also determine the low energy glueball effec-tive theory by matching the one-glueball exchange pro-cess with the fitted Yukawa potential. This effective La-grangian is the unique form according to the Ward iden-tity, and contains only two low energy constants. Sincethe glueball mass is much larger than the temperature ofdeconfinement transition, our glueball effective theory isexpected to be applicable even just below this temper-ature, and predictions of other observables such as theDM relic density are possible. Determining the glueballeffective field theory and its low energy constants mayalso give us an important insight into other fields such asthe conformal field theory or hadron physics. If again thelarge Nc expansion holds, the determination of the crosssection at a sufficiently large Nc would probably meanthe quantification of the conformal physics.

    In our work, we assumed the local potential, but thesystematics due to the nonlocality has to be checked inthe future, since we defined the glueball operator withplaquettes which have spatial extent. The investigationof the nonlocality can be rephrased as the inspection ofthe operator dependence, which was already discussedfor the mesonic and baryonic systems [576–578].

    Moreover, we have only calculated the DM cross sec-tion in the SU(2) YMT, and the cases for Nc ≥ 3 werejust qualitative extrapolations using 1/Nc expansion inthe present paper. Since the interglueball cross sec-tion, being an O(N−4c ) quantity, receives a correction ofO(N−6c ), we expect to complete the analysis of the 0

    ++

    glueball of SU(Nc) YMT as the DM candidate for allNc’s with the accuracy of O(1%) by accomplishing thecalculations up to Nc = 10. This project is in our viewnot impossibly challenging.

  • 11

    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

    This work was supported by “Joint Usage/ResearchCenter for Interdisciplinary Large-scale Information In-frastructures” (JHPCN) in Japan (Project ID: jh180058-NAH). The calculations were carried out on SX-ACEat RCNP/CMC of Osaka University. MW was sup-ported by the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT)(No. 2018R1A5A1025563).

    Appendix A: Derivation of Yukawa potential from

    glueball effective Lagrangian

    We derive the nonrelativistic Yukawa potential fromthe glueball effective Lagrangian of Eq. (19). The Feyn-man rule of the trilinear interaction is given in Fig. 11.

    p

    −p− k

    k

    =i

    2fφ

    [

    p2 + k2 + (p+ k)2

    ]

    + 32iH0

    f3φ

    FIG. 11. Feynman rule for the glueball trilinear interaction.

    We then calculate the t-channel one-glueball exchangeprocess (see Fig. 10) with the trilinear interaction of Fig.11:

    iM = 1694

    m4φf2φ

    −ik2 −m2φ

    + i27

    4

    m2φf2φ

    − i4f2φ

    k2, (A1)

    where k is the exchanged momentum, while the momen-tum squared of the asymptotic glueballs are replacedby m2φ, since we take the nonrelativistic approximation.

    Here we used the relation mφ =√

    −4H0/f2φ to erase H0.The first term of the last equality of Eq. (A1) yields theYukawa potential. The fitting form of Eq. (14) can bematched with the above one-glueball exchange amplitudeas

    V(1)Y = −

    169

    16

    m2φf2φ

    =169

    4

    H0f4φ

    . (A2)

    Here the additional factor 4m2φ = (√

    2mφ)4 in the de-

    nominator is coming from the normalization of nonrela-tivistic glueball state.

    [1] G. Bertone, D. Hooper and J. Silk, Phys. Rept. 405,279 (2005) [hep-ph/0404175].

    [2] D. Munshi, P. Valageas, L. Van Waerbeke and A. Heav-ens, Phys. Rept. 462, 67 (2008) [astro-ph/0612667].

    [3] G. Arcadi, M. Dutra, P. Ghosh, M. Lindner, Y. Mam-brini, M. Pierre, S. Profumo and F. S. Queiroz, Eur.Phys. J. C 78, no. 3, 203 (2018) [arXiv:1703.07364 [hep-ph]].

    [4] M. Battaglieri et al., arXiv:1707.04591 [hep-ph].[5] G. R. Blumenthal, S. M. Faber, J. R. Primack and

    M. J. Rees, Nature 311, 517 (1984).[6] J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk and S. D. M. White, Astro-

    phys. J. 462, 563 (1996) [astro-ph/9508025].[7] J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk and S. D. M. White, Astro-

    phys. J. 490, 493 (1997) [astro-ph/9611107].[8] W. Hu, Astrophys. J. 506, 485 (1998) [astro-

    ph/9801234].[9] N. Yoshida, V. Springel, S. D. M. White and G. Tormen,

    Astrophys. J. 544, L87 (2000) [astro-ph/0006134].[10] Y. P. Jing and Y. Suto, Astrophys. J. 574, 538 (2002)

    [astro-ph/0202064].[11] A. K. D. Evans and S. Bridle, Astrophys. J. 695, 1446

    (2009) [arXiv:0806.2723 [astro-ph]].[12] M. Oguri, M. Takada, N. Okabe and G. P. Smith,

    Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 405, 2215 (2010)

    [arXiv:1004.4214 [astro-ph.CO]].[13] T. Ishiyama et al., Astrophys. J. 767, 146 (2013)

    [arXiv:1101.2020 [astro-ph.CO]].[14] M. Oguri, M. B. Bayliss, H. Dahle, K. Sharon,

    M. D. Gladders, P. Natarajan, J. F. Hennawi andB. P. Koester, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 420, 3213(2012) [arXiv:1109.2594 [astro-ph.CO]].

    [15] C. S. Frenk and S. D. M. White, Annalen Phys. 524,507 (2012) [arXiv:1210.0544 [astro-ph.CO]].

    [16] N. Okabe, G. P. Smith, K. Umetsu, M. Takada andT. Futamase, Astrophys. J. 769, L35 (2013) [Astro-phys. J. Lett. 769, 35 (2013)] [arXiv:1302.2728 [astro-ph.CO]].

    [17] T. Ishiyama, Astrophys. J. 788, 27 (2014)[arXiv:1404.1650 [astro-ph.CO]].

    [18] K. Umetsu, A. Zitrin, D. Gruen, J. Merten, M. Donahueand M. Postman, Astrophys. J. 821, no. 2, 116 (2016)[arXiv:1507.04385 [astro-ph.CO]].

    [19] H. Niikura, M. Takada, N. Okabe, R. Martino andR. Takahashi, Publ. Astron. Soc. Jap. 67, no. 6, 103(2015) [arXiv:1504.01413 [astro-ph.CO]].

    [20] J. Clampitt and B. Jain, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron.Soc. 457, no. 4, 4135 (2016) [arXiv:1506.03536 [astro-ph.CO]].

    [21] E. van Uitert et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 467,

  • 12

    no. 4, 4131 (2017) [arXiv:1610.04226 [astro-ph.CO]].[22] T. h. Shin, J. Clampitt, B. Jain, G. Bernstein, A. Neil,

    E. Rozo and E. Rykoff, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron.Soc. 475, no. 2, 2421 (2018) [arXiv:1705.11167 [astro-ph.CO]].

    [23] K. Umetsu et al., Astrophys. J. 860, no. 2, 104 (2018)[arXiv:1804.00664 [astro-ph.CO]].

    [24] P. Tisserand et al. [EROS-2 Collaboration], Astron. As-trophys. 469, 387 (2007) [astro-ph/0607207].

    [25] M. Ricotti, J. P. Ostriker and K. J. Mack, Astrophys.J. 680, 829 (2008) [arXiv:0709.0524 [astro-ph]].

    [26] B. J. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda and J. Yokoyama,Phys. Rev. D 81, 104019 (2010) [arXiv:0912.5297 [astro-ph.CO]].

    [27] A. Barnacka, J. F. Glicenstein and R. Moderski, Phys.Rev. D 86, 043001 (2012) [arXiv:1204.2056 [astro-ph.CO]].

    [28] F. Capela, M. Pshirkov and P. Tinyakov, Phys. Rev.D 87, no. 12, 123524 (2013) [arXiv:1301.4984 [astro-ph.CO]].

    [29] K. Griest, A. M. Cieplak and M. J. Lehner, Phys. Rev.Lett. 111, no. 18, 181302 (2013).

    [30] Y. Ali-Häımoud and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev.D 95, no. 4, 043534 (2017) [arXiv:1612.05644 [astro-ph.CO]].

    [31] H. Niikura et al., Nat. Astron. 3, no. 6, 524 (2019)[arXiv:1701.02151 [astro-ph.CO]].

    [32] M. Oguri, J. M. Diego, N. Kaiser, P. L. Kelly andT. Broadhurst, Phys. Rev. D 97, no. 2, 023518 (2018)[arXiv:1710.00148 [astro-ph.CO]].

    [33] M. Zumalacarregui and U. Seljak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121,no. 14, 141101 (2018) [arXiv:1712.02240 [astro-ph.CO]].

    [34] M. Sasaki, T. Suyama, T. Tanaka and S. Yokoyama,Class. Quant. Grav. 35, no. 6, 063001 (2018)[arXiv:1801.05235 [astro-ph.CO]].

    [35] M. Dine and W. Fischler, Phys. Lett. 120B, 137 (1983).[36] J. Preskill, M. B. Wise and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett.

    120B, 127 (1983).[37] S. M. Barr, R. S. Chivukula and E. Farhi, Phys. Lett.

    B 241, 387 (1990).[38] S. M. Barr, Phys. Rev. D 44, 3062 (1991).[39] D. B. Kaplan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 741 (1992).[40] S. Dodelson and L. M. Widrow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 17

    (1994) [hep-ph/9303287].[41] G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski and K. Griest, Phys.

    Rept. 267, 195 (1996) [hep-ph/9506380].[42] X. D. Shi and G. M. Fuller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2832

    (1999) [astro-ph/9810076].[43] T. Moroi and L. Randall, Nucl. Phys. B 570, 455 (2000)

    [hep-ph/9906527].[44] J. L. Feng, K. T. Matchev and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett.

    B 482, 388 (2000) [hep-ph/0004043].[45] H. C. Cheng, J. L. Feng and K. T. Matchev, Phys. Rev.

    Lett. 89, 211301 (2002) [hep-ph/0207125].[46] G. Servant and T. M. P. Tait, Nucl. Phys. B 650, 391

    (2003) [hep-ph/0206071].[47] G. Narain, J. Schaffner-Bielich and I. N. Mishustin,

    Phys. Rev. D 74, 063003 (2006) [astro-ph/0605724].[48] L. Lopez Honorez, E. Nezri, J. F. Oliver and

    M. H. G. Tytgat, JCAP 0702, 028 (2007) [hep-ph/0612275].

    [49] C. G. Boehmer and T. Harko, JCAP 0706, 025 (2007)[arXiv:0705.4158 [astro-ph]].

    [50] M. Pospelov, A. Ritz and M. B. Voloshin, Phys. Lett.

    B 662, 53 (2008) [arXiv:0711.4866 [hep-ph]].[51] J. March-Russell, S. M. West, D. Cumberbatch and

    D. Hooper, JHEP 0807, 058 (2008) [arXiv:0801.3440[hep-ph]].

    [52] M. Pospelov, Phys. Rev. D 80, 095002 (2009)[arXiv:0811.1030 [hep-ph]].

    [53] N. Arkani-Hamed and N. Weiner, JHEP 0812, 104(2008) [arXiv:0810.0714 [hep-ph]].

    [54] T. Hambye, JHEP 0901, 028 (2009) [arXiv:0811.0172[hep-ph]].

    [55] K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 79, 115002 (2009)[arXiv:0811.4429 [hep-ph]].

    [56] C. Cheung, J. T. Ruderman, L. T. Wang and I. Yavin,Phys. Rev. D 80, 035008 (2009) [arXiv:0902.3246 [hep-ph]].

    [57] Y. Hosotani, P. Ko and M. Tanaka, Phys. Lett. B 680,179 (2009) [arXiv:0908.0212 [hep-ph]].

    [58] T. Hambye, F.-S. Ling, L. Lopez Honorez and J. Rocher,JHEP 0907, 090 (2009) Erratum: [JHEP 1005, 066(2010)] [arXiv:0903.4010 [hep-ph]].

    [59] D. E. Morrissey, D. Poland and K. M. Zurek, JHEP0907, 050 (2009) [arXiv:0904.2567 [hep-ph]].

    [60] J. L. Feng, M. Kaplinghat, H. Tu and H. B. Yu, JCAP0907, 004 (2009) [arXiv:0905.3039 [hep-ph]].

    [61] M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, J. Redondo and A. Ringwald,JHEP 0911, 027 (2009) [arXiv:0909.0515 [hep-ph]].

    [62] F. D’Eramo and J. Thaler, JHEP 1006, 109 (2010)[arXiv:1003.5912 [hep-ph]].

    [63] J. L. Feng, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 48, 495 (2010)[arXiv:1003.0904 [astro-ph.CO]].

    [64] J. Shelton and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 82, 123512(2010) [arXiv:1008.1997 [hep-ph]].

    [65] H. Davoudiasl, D. E. Morrissey, K. Sigurdson andS. Tulin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 211304 (2010)[arXiv:1008.2399 [hep-ph]].

    [66] M. R. Buckley and L. Randall, JHEP 1109, 009 (2011)[arXiv:1009.0270 [hep-ph]].

    [67] A. Falkowski, J. T. Ruderman and T. Volansky, JHEP1105, 106 (2011) [arXiv:1101.4936 [hep-ph]].

    [68] T. Lin, H. B. Yu and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 85,063503 (2012) [arXiv:1111.0293 [hep-ph]].

    [69] O. Lebedev, H. M. Lee and Y. Mambrini, Phys. Lett. B707, 570 (2012) [arXiv:1111.4482 [hep-ph]].

    [70] L. Lopez-Honorez, T. Schwetz and J. Zupan, Phys. Lett.B 716, 179 (2012) [arXiv:1203.2064 [hep-ph]].

    [71] D. Hooper, N. Weiner and W. Xue, Phys. Rev. D 86,056009 (2012) [arXiv:1206.2929 [hep-ph]].

    [72] C. D. Carone and R. Ramos, Phys. Rev. D 88, 055020(2013) [arXiv:1307.8428 [hep-ph]].

    [73] M. Drewes et al., JCAP 1701, 025 (2017)[arXiv:1602.04816 [hep-ph]].

    [74] L. Hui, J. P. Ostriker, S. Tremaine and E. Witten,Phys. Rev. D 95, no. 4, 043541 (2017) [arXiv:1610.08297[astro-ph.CO]].

    [75] K. R. Dienes, F. Huang, S. Su and B. Thomas, Phys.Rev. D 95, no. 4, 043526 (2017) [arXiv:1610.04112 [hep-ph]].

    [76] L. Roszkowski, E. M. Sessolo and S. Trojanowski, Rept.Prog. Phys. 81, no. 6, 066201 (2018) [arXiv:1707.06277[hep-ph]].

    [77] T. Hambye, D. Teresi and M. H. G. Tytgat, JHEP 1707,047 (2017) [arXiv:1612.06411 [hep-ph]].

    [78] M. Bauer and T. Plehn, Lect. Notes Phys. 959, pp.(2019) [arXiv:1705.01987 [hep-ph]].

  • 13

    [79] S. Y. Ho, T. Toma and K. Tsumura, JHEP 1707, 101(2017) [arXiv:1705.00592 [hep-ph]].

    [80] X. Chu and C. Garcia-Cely, Phys. Rev. D 96, no. 10,103519 (2017) [arXiv:1708.06764 [hep-ph]].

    [81] S. Knapen, T. Lin and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 96,no. 11, 115021 (2017) [arXiv:1709.07882 [hep-ph]].

    [82] A. Falkowski, S. F. King, E. Perdomo and M. Pierre,JHEP 1808, 061 (2018) [arXiv:1803.04430 [hep-ph]].

    [83] D. Carney, S. Ghosh, G. Krnjaic and J. M. Taylor,arXiv:1903.00492 [hep-ph].

    [84] A. Mohamadnejad, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, no.3, 197 (2020)[arXiv:1907.08899 [hep-ph]].

    [85] V. Keus, Phys. Rev. D 101, no.7, 073007 (2020)[arXiv:1909.09234 [hep-ph]].

    [86] K. Griest and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64,615 (1990).

    [87] K. Griest and D. Seckel, Phys. Rev. D 43, 3191 (1991).[88] J. McDonald, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 091304 (2002) [hep-

    ph/0106249].[89] X. Chu, T. Hambye and M. H. G. Tytgat, JCAP 1205,

    034 (2012) [arXiv:1112.0493 [hep-ph]].[90] K. Blum, Y. Cui and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D

    92, no. 2, 023528 (2015) [arXiv:1412.3463 [hep-ph]].[91] A. Berlin, D. Hooper and G. Krnjaic, Phys. Rev. D 94,

    no. 9, 095019 (2016) [arXiv:1609.02555 [hep-ph]].[92] R. T. D’Agnolo, C. Mondino, J. T. Ruderman and

    P. J. Wang, JHEP 1808, 079 (2018) [arXiv:1803.02901[hep-ph]].

    [93] B. Batell, A. Freitas, A. Ismail and D. Mckeen, Phys.Rev. D 100, no.9, 095020 (2019) [arXiv:1812.05103[hep-ph]].

    [94] A. Laguë and J. Meyers, Phys. Rev. D 101, no.4, 043509(2020) [arXiv:1908.05291 [astro-ph.CO]].

    [95] G. Servant and T. M. P. Tait, New J. Phys. 4, 99 (2002)[hep-ph/0209262].

    [96] G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov and A. Se-menov, Comput. Phys. Commun. 180, 747 (2009)[arXiv:0803.2360 [hep-ph]].

    [97] Z. Ahmed et al. [CDMS-II Collaboration], Science 327,1619 (2010) [arXiv:0912.3592 [astro-ph.CO]].

    [98] A. Djouadi, A. Falkowski, Y. Mambrini and J. Quevil-lon, Eur. Phys. J. C 73, no. 6, 2455 (2013)[arXiv:1205.3169 [hep-ph]].

    [99] E. Aprile et al. [XENON100 Collaboration], Phys.Rev. Lett. 109, 181301 (2012) [arXiv:1207.5988 [astro-ph.CO]].

    [100] R. Agnese et al. [CDMS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett.111, no. 25, 251301 (2013) [arXiv:1304.4279 [hep-ex]].

    [101] R. Bernabei et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2648 (2013)[arXiv:1308.5109 [astro-ph.GA]].

    [102] L. B. Jia, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, no. 2, 112 (2018)[arXiv:1710.03906 [hep-ph]].

    [103] E. Bertuzzo, C. J. Caniu Barros and G. Grilli di Cor-tona, JHEP 1709, 116 (2017) [arXiv:1707.00725 [hep-ph]].

    [104] X. Cui et al. [PandaX-II Collaboration], Phys. Rev.Lett. 119, no. 18, 181302 (2017) [arXiv:1708.06917[astro-ph.CO]].

    [105] X. Ren et al. [PandaX-II Collaboration], Phys. Rev.Lett. 121, no. 2, 021304 (2018) [arXiv:1802.06912 [hep-ph]].

    [106] M. Crisler et al. [SENSEI Collaboration], Phys. Rev.Lett. 121, no. 6, 061803 (2018) [arXiv:1804.00088 [hep-ex]].

    [107] J. Xia et al. [PandaX-II Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B792, 193 (2019) [arXiv:1807.01936 [hep-ex]].

    [108] Z. Liu et al. [CDEX], Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, no.16,161301 (2019) [arXiv:1905.00354 [hep-ex]].

    [109] A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. [DAMIC], Phys. Rev. Lett.123, no.18, 181802 (2019) [arXiv:1907.12628 [astro-ph.CO]].

    [110] A. W. Strong and I. V. Moskalenko, Astrophys. J. 509,212 (1998) [astro-ph/9807150].

    [111] E. A. Baltz and J. Edsjo, Phys. Rev. D 59, 023511(1998) [astro-ph/9808243].

    [112] L. Bergstrom, T. Bringmann, M. Eriksson andM. Gustafsson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 131301 (2005)[astro-ph/0410359].

    [113] J. Hisano, S. Matsumoto, M. M. Nojiri and O. Saito,Phys. Rev. D 71, 063528 (2005) [hep-ph/0412403].

    [114] N. Arkani-Hamed, D. P. Finkbeiner, T. R. Slatyerand N. Weiner, Phys. Rev. D 79, 015014 (2009)[arXiv:0810.0713 [hep-ph]].

    [115] M. Cirelli, M. Kadastik, M. Raidal and A. Strumia,Nucl. Phys. B 813, 1 (2009) Addendum: [Nucl. Phys.B 873, 530 (2013)] [arXiv:0809.2409 [hep-ph]].

    [116] M. Ibe, S. Iwamoto, S. Matsumoto, T. Moroi andN. Yokozaki, JHEP 1308, 029 (2013) [arXiv:1304.1483[hep-ph]].

    [117] O. Adriani et al. [PAMELA Collaboration], Nature 458,607 (2009) [arXiv:0810.4995 [astro-ph]].

    [118] M. Pospelov and A. Ritz, Phys. Lett. B 671, 391 (2009)[arXiv:0810.1502 [hep-ph]].

    [119] C. R. Chen, M. M. Nojiri, F. Takahashi andT. T. Yanagida, Prog. Theor. Phys. 122, 553 (2009)[arXiv:0811.3357 [astro-ph]].

    [120] M. Ackermann et al. [Fermi-LAT Collaboration], Phys.Rev. Lett. 108, 011103 (2012) [arXiv:1109.0521 [astro-ph.HE]].

    [121] O. Adriani et al. [PAMELA Collaboration], Phys.Rev. Lett. 111, 081102 (2013) [arXiv:1308.0133 [astro-ph.HE]].

    [122] M. G. Aartsen et al. [IceCube Collaboration], Science342, 1242856 (2013) [arXiv:1311.5238 [astro-ph.HE]].

    [123] L. Accardo et al. [AMS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 121101 (2014).

    [124] M. Aguilar et al. [AMS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 221102 (2014).

    [125] M. Ajello et al. [Fermi-LAT Collaboration], Astro-phys. J. 819, no. 1, 44 (2016) [arXiv:1511.02938 [astro-ph.HE]].

    [126] M. G. Aartsen et al. [IceCube Collaboration], Phys.Rev. Lett. 117, no. 24, 241101 (2016) Erratum:[Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, no. 25, 259902 (2017)][arXiv:1607.05886 [astro-ph.HE]].

    [127] M. Aguilar et al. [AMS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett.117, no. 9, 091103 (2016).

    [128] M. G. Aartsen et al. [IceCube Collaboration], Eur. Phys.J. C 77, no. 10, 692 (2017) [arXiv:1705.07780 [astro-ph.HE]].

    [129] G. Ambrosi et al. [DAMPE Collaboration], Nature 552,63 (2017) [arXiv:1711.10981 [astro-ph.HE]].

    [130] M. Aguilar et al. [AMS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett.122, no. 4, 041102 (2019).

    [131] K. Murase and I. Bartos, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 69,477-506 (2019) [arXiv:1907.12506 [astro-ph.HE]].

    [132] A. De Rújula, arXiv:1909.01277 [hep-ph].[133] H. Baer, A. Mustafayev, S. Profumo, A. Belyaev and

  • 14

    X. Tata, JHEP 0507, 065 (2005) [hep-ph/0504001].[134] A. Falkowski, J. T. Ruderman, T. Volansky and J. Zu-

    pan, JHEP 1005, 077 (2010) [arXiv:1002.2952 [hep-ph]].

    [135] M. Beltran, D. Hooper, E. W. Kolb, Z. A. C. Krus-berg and T. M. P. Tait, JHEP 1009, 037 (2010)[arXiv:1002.4137 [hep-ph]].

    [136] J. Goodman, M. Ibe, A. Rajaraman, W. Shepherd,T. M. P. Tait and H. B. Yu, Phys. Lett. B 695, 185(2011) [arXiv:1005.1286 [hep-ph]].

    [137] Y. Bai, P. J. Fox and R. Harnik, JHEP 1012, 048 (2010)[arXiv:1005.3797 [hep-ph]].

    [138] J. Goodman, M. Ibe, A. Rajaraman, W. Shepherd,T. M. P. Tait and H. B. Yu, Phys. Rev. D 82, 116010(2010) [arXiv:1008.1783 [hep-ph]].

    [139] P. J. Fox, R. Harnik, J. Kopp and Y. Tsai, Phys. Rev.D 85, 056011 (2012) [arXiv:1109.4398 [hep-ph]].

    [140] A. Djouadi, O. Lebedev, Y. Mambrini and J. Quevillon,Phys. Lett. B 709, 65 (2012) [arXiv:1112.3299 [hep-ph]].

    [141] S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Rev.Lett. 108, 261803 (2012) [arXiv:1204.0821 [hep-ex]].

    [142] S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], JHEP 1209,094 (2012) [arXiv:1206.5663 [hep-ex]].

    [143] L. Carpenter, A. DiFranzo, M. Mulhearn, C. Shimmin,S. Tulin and D. Whiteson, Phys. Rev. D 89, no. 7,075017 (2014) [arXiv:1312.2592 [hep-ph]].

    [144] J. P. Lees et al. [BaBar Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett.113, no. 20, 201801 (2014) [arXiv:1406.2980 [hep-ex]].

    [145] V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Eur. Phys.J. C 75, no. 5, 235 (2015) [arXiv:1408.3583 [hep-ex]].

    [146] G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C75, no. 7, 299 (2015) Erratum: [Eur. Phys. J. C 75, no.9, 408 (2015)] [arXiv:1502.01518 [hep-ex]].

    [147] M. Chala, F. Kahlhoefer, M. McCullough, G. Nar-dini and K. Schmidt-Hoberg, JHEP 1507, 089 (2015)[arXiv:1503.05916 [hep-ph]].

    [148] J. Abdallah et al., Phys. Dark Univ. 9-10, 8 (2015)[arXiv:1506.03116 [hep-ph]].

    [149] G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], JHEP 1511, 206(2015) [arXiv:1509.00672 [hep-ex]].

    [150] D. Abercrombie et al., Phys. Dark Univ. 27, 100371(2020) [arXiv:1507.00966 [hep-ex]].

    [151] V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Rev.Lett. 118, no. 2, 021802 (2017) [arXiv:1605.09305 [hep-ex]].

    [152] A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Lett.B 769, 520 (2017) Erratum: [Phys. Lett. B 772, 882(2017)] [arXiv:1611.03568 [hep-ex]].

    [153] V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS Collaboration], JHEP1702, 135 (2017) [arXiv:1610.09218 [hep-ex]].

    [154] F. Kahlhoefer, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 32, no. 13, 1730006(2017) [arXiv:1702.02430 [hep-ph]].

    [155] M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], JHEP 1801,126 (2018) [arXiv:1711.03301 [hep-ex]].

    [156] H. Beauchesne, E. Bertuzzo, G. Grilli Di Cortona andZ. Tabrizi, JHEP 1808, 030 (2018) [arXiv:1712.07160[hep-ph]].

    [157] A. M. Sirunyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], JHEP 1808,130 (2018) [arXiv:1806.00843 [hep-ex]].

    [158] A. Belyaev, E. Bertuzzo, C. Caniu Barros, O. Eboli,G. Grilli Di Cortona, F. Iocco and A. Pukhov, Phys.Rev. D 99, no. 1, 015006 (2019) [arXiv:1807.03817 [hep-ph]].

    [159] T. Abe et al. [LHC Dark Matter Working Group], Phys.

    Dark Univ. , 100351 [arXiv:1810.09420 [hep-ex]].[160] R. L. Jaffe and K. Johnson, Phys. Lett. 60B, 201 (1976).[161] S. R. Coleman, Commun. Math. Phys. 55, 113 (1977).[162] D. Robson, Nucl. Phys. B 130, 328 (1977).[163] K. Ishikawa, Phys. Rev. D 20, 731 (1979).[164] V. A. Novikov, M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein and

    V. I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B 165, 67 (1980).[165] H. Suura, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 1319 (1980).[166] J. Schechter, Phys. Rev. D 21, 3393 (1980).[167] A. Salomone, J. Schechter and T. Tudron, Phys. Rev.

    D 23, 1143 (1981).[168] J. F. Donoghue, K. Johnson and B. A. Li, Phys. Lett.

    99B, 416 (1981).[169] C. E. Carlson, J. J. Coyne, P. M. Fishbane, F. Gross

    and S. Meshkov, Phys. Lett. 98B, 110 (1981).[170] C. E. Carlson, J. J. Coyne, P. M. Fishbane, F. Gross

    and S. Meshkov, Phys. Lett. 99B, 353 (1981).[171] M. A. Shifman, Z. Phys. C 9, 347 (1981).[172] J. M. Cornwall, Phys. Rev. D 26, 1453 (1982).[173] T. H. Hansson, K. Johnson and C. Peterson, Phys. Rev.

    D 26, 2069 (1982).[174] A. A. Migdal and M. A. Shifman, Phys. Lett. 114B,

    445 (1982).[175] P. Pascual and R. Tarrach, Phys. Lett. 113B, 495

    (1982).[176] J. E. Mandula, G. Zweig and J. Govaerts, Nucl. Phys.

    B 228, 109 (1983).[177] J. M. Cornwall and A. Soni, Phys. Lett. 120B, 431

    (1983).[178] B. F. L. Ward, Phys. Rev. D 31, 2849 (1985) Erratum:

    [Phys. Rev. D 32, 1260 (1985)].[179] J. R. Ellis and J. Lanik, Phys. Lett. 150B, 289 (1985).[180] H. Gomm and J. Schechter, Phys. Lett. 158B, 449

    (1985).[181] R. L. Jaffe, K. Johnson and Z. Ryzak, Annals Phys.

    168, 344 (1986).[182] J. Bordes, V. Gimenez and J. A. Penarrocha, Phys. Lett.

    B 223, 251 (1989).[183] P. M. Gensini, Nuovo Cim. A 103, 33 (1990).[184] E. Bagan and T. G. Steele, Phys. Lett. B 234, 135

    (1990).[185] E. Bagan and T. G. Steele, Phys. Lett. B 243, 413

    (1990).[186] K. Demeterfi, I. R. Klebanov and G. Bhanot, Nucl.

    Phys. B 418, 15 (1994) [hep-th/9311015].[187] M. C. Birse, J. Phys. G 20, 1287 (1994) [hep-

    ph/9403221].[188] T. Schäfer and E. V. Shuryak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1707

    (1995) [hep-ph/9410372].[189] C. Csaki, H. Ooguri, Y. Oz and J. Terning, JHEP 9901,

    017 (1999) [hep-th/9806021].[190] J. A. Minahan, JHEP 9901, 020 (1999) [hep-

    th/9811156].[191] R. de Mello Koch, A. Jevicki, M. Mihailescu and

    J. P. Nunes, Phys. Rev. D 58, 105009 (1998) [hep-th/9806125].

    [192] M. Zyskin, Phys. Lett. B 439, 373 (1998) [hep-th/9806128].

    [193] H. Ooguri, H. Robins and J. Tannenhauser, Phys. Lett.B 437, 77 (1998) [hep-th/9806171].

    [194] N. R. Constable and R. C. Myers, JHEP 9910, 037(1999) [hep-th/9908175].

    [195] A. B. Kaidalov and Y. A. Simonov, Phys. Atom. Nucl.63, 1428 (2000) [Yad. Fiz. 63, 1428 (2000)] [hep-

  • 15

    ph/9911291].[196] A. B. Kaidalov and Y. A. Simonov, Phys. Lett. B 477,

    163 (2000) [hep-ph/9912434].[197] G. S. Bali, Phys. Rept. 343, 1 (2001) [hep-ph/0001312].[198] R. C. Brower, S. D. Mathur and C. I. Tan, Nucl. Phys.

    B 587, 249 (2000) [hep-th/0003115].[199] E. Caceres and R. Hernandez, Phys. Lett. B 504, 64

    (2001) [hep-th/0011204].[200] W. S. Hou, C. S. Luo and G. G. Wong, Phys. Rev. D

    64, 014028 (2001) [hep-ph/0101146].[201] W. S. Hou and G. G. Wong, Phys. Rev. D 67, 034003

    (2003) [hep-ph/0207292].[202] R. Dijkgraaf, M. T. Grisaru, C. S. Lam, C. Vafa

    and D. Zanon, Phys. Lett. B 573, 138 (2003) [hep-th/0211017].

    [203] H. Ita, H. Nieder and Y. Oz, JHEP 0301, 018 (2003)[hep-th/0211261].

    [204] H. Boschi-Filho and N. R. F. Braga, JHEP 0305, 009(2003) [hep-th/0212207].

    [205] H. Forkel, Phys. Rev. D 71, 054008 (2005) [hep-ph/0312049].

    [206] A. P. Szczepaniak and E. S. Swanson, Phys. Lett. B577, 61 (2003) [hep-ph/0308268].

    [207] M. Aganagic, K. A. Intriligator, C. Vafa andN. P. Warner, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 7, no. 6, 1045(2003) [hep-th/0304271].

    [208] H. Boschi-Filho and N. R. F. Braga, Eur. Phys. J. C32, 529 (2004) [hep-th/0209080].

    [209] F. Brau and C. Semay, Phys. Rev. D 70, 014017 (2004)[hep-ph/0412173].

    [210] H. B. Meyer, hep-lat/0508002.[211] V. Vento, Phys. Rev. D 73, 054006 (2006) [hep-

    ph/0401218].[212] R. G. Leigh, D. Minic and A. Yelnikov, Phys. Rev. D

    76, 065018 (2007) [hep-th/0604060].[213] K. I. Kondo, A. Ono, A. Shibata, T. Shinohara and

    T. Murakami, J. Phys. A 39, 13767 (2006) [hep-th/0604006].

    [214] P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio, F. Jugeau and S. Nicotri,Phys. Lett. B 652, 73 (2007) [hep-ph/0703316].

    [215] E. Klempt and A. Zaitsev, Phys. Rept. 454, 1 (2007)[arXiv:0708.4016 [hep-ph]].

    [216] H. Forkel, Phys. Rev. D 78, 025001 (2008)[arXiv:0711.1179 [hep-ph]].

    [217] V. Mathieu, F. Buisseret and C. Semay, Phys. Rev. D77, 114022 (2008) [arXiv:0802.0088 [hep-ph]].

    [218] N. Boulanger, F. Buisseret, V. Mathieu and C. Semay,Eur. Phys. J. A 38, 317 (2008) [arXiv:0806.3174 [hep-ph]].

    [219] V. Mathieu, N. Kochelev and V. Vento, Int. J. Mod.Phys. E 18, 1 (2009) [arXiv:0810.4453 [hep-ph]].

    [220] D. Dudal, S. P. Sorella, N. Vandersickel and H. Ver-schelde, Eur. Phys. J. C 64, 147 (2009) [arXiv:0812.2401[hep-th]].

    [221] D. Kharzeev, E. Levin and K. Tuchin, JHEP 0906, 055(2009) [arXiv:0809.3794 [hep-ph]].

    [222] D. Dudal, S. P. Sorella, N. Vandersickel and H. Ver-schelde, JHEP 0908, 110 (2009) [arXiv:0906.4257 [hep-th]].

    [223] P. Colangelo, F. Giannuzzi and S. Nicotri, Phys. Rev.D 80, 094019 (2009) [arXiv:0909.1534 [hep-ph]].

    [224] D. Dudal, M. S. Guimaraes and S. P. Sorella, Phys. Rev.Lett. 106, 062003 (2011) [arXiv:1010.3638 [hep-th]].

    [225] N. Vandersickel, arXiv:1104.1315 [hep-th].

    [226] W. Ochs, J. Phys. G 40, 043001 (2013) [arXiv:1301.5183[hep-ph]].

    [227] D. Li and M. Huang, JHEP 1311, 088 (2013)[arXiv:1303.6929 [hep-ph]].

    [228] D. Dudal, M. S. Guimaraes and S. P. Sorella, Phys. Lett.B 732, 247 (2014) [arXiv:1310.2016 [hep-ph]].

    [229] N. Brambilla et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 74, no. 10, 2981(2014) [arXiv:1404.3723 [hep-ph]].

    [230] D. M. Rodrigues, E. Folco Capossoli and H. Boschi-Filho, EPL 122, no. 2, 21001 (2018) [arXiv:1611.09817[hep-ph]].

    [231] D. Elander and M. Piai, JHEP 1706, 003 (2017)[arXiv:1703.10158 [hep-th]].

    [232] D. K. Hong, J. W. Lee, B. Lucini, M. Piaiand D. Vadacchino, Phys. Lett. B 775, 89 (2017)[arXiv:1705.00286 [hep-th]].

    [233] A. Ballon-Bayona, H. Boschi-Filho, L. A. H. Mamani,A. S. Miranda and V. T. Zanchin, Phys. Rev. D 97, no.4, 046001 (2018) [arXiv:1708.08968 [hep-th]].

    [234] M. Rinaldi and V. Vento, J. Phys. G 47, no.5, 055104(2020) [arXiv:1803.05738 [hep-ph]].

    [235] M. Rinaldi and V. Vento, [arXiv:2002.11720 [hep-ph]].[236] E. D. Carlson, M. E. Machacek and L. J. Hall, Astro-

    phys. J. 398, 43 (1992).[237] A. E. Faraggi and M. Pospelov, Astropart. Phys. 16,

    451 (2002) [hep-ph/0008223].[238] J. E. Juknevich, D. Melnikov and M. J. Strassler, JHEP

    0907, 055 (2009) [arXiv:0903.0883 [hep-ph]].[239] J. E. Juknevich, JHEP 1008, 121 (2010)

    [arXiv:0911.5616 [hep-ph]].[240] J. L. Feng and Y. Shadmi, Phys. Rev. D 83, 095011

    (2011) [arXiv:1102.0282 [hep-ph]].[241] K. K. Boddy, J. L. Feng, M. Kaplinghat and

    T. M. P. Tait, Phys. Rev. D 89, no. 11, 115017 (2014)[arXiv:1402.3629 [hep-ph]].

    [242] A. Soni and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 93, no. 11, 115025(2016) [arXiv:1602.00714 [hep-ph]].

    [243] G. D. Kribs and E. T. Neil, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 31,no. 22, 1643004 (2016) [arXiv:1604.04627 [hep-ph]].

    [244] L. Forestell, D. E. Morrissey and K. Sigurdson, Phys.Rev. D 95, no. 1, 015032 (2017) [arXiv:1605.08048 [hep-ph]].

    [245] J. Halverson, B. D. Nelson and F. Ruehle, Phys. Rev.D 95, no. 4, 043527 (2017) [arXiv:1609.02151 [hep-ph]].

    [246] A. Soni and Y. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 771, 379 (2017)[arXiv:1610.06931 [hep-ph]].

    [247] R. da Rocha, Phys. Rev. D 95, no. 12, 124017 (2017)[arXiv:1701.00761 [hep-ph]].

    [248] B. S. Acharya, M. Fairbairn and E. Hardy, JHEP 1707,100 (2017) [arXiv:1704.01804 [hep-ph]].

    [249] A. Soni, H. Xiao and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 96, no.8, 083514 (2017) [arXiv:1704.02347 [hep-ph]].

    [250] L. Forestell, D. E. Morrissey and K. Sigurdson, Phys.Rev. D 97, no. 7, 075029 (2018) [arXiv:1710.06447 [hep-ph]].

    [251] R. C. Brower et al. [USQCD], Eur. Phys. J. A 55, no.11,198 (2019) [arXiv:1904.09964 [hep-lat]].

    [252] Z. Kang, Phys. Lett. B 801, 135149 (2020)[arXiv:1901.10934 [hep-ph]].

    [253] M. P. Hertzberg and M. Sandora, JHEP 12, 037 (2019)[arXiv:1908.09841 [hep-ph]].

    [254] D. Buttazzo, L. Di Luzio, G. Landini, A. Strumia andD. Teresi, JHEP 10, 067 (2019) [arXiv:1907.11228 [hep-ph]].

  • 16

    [255] J. R. Ellis, J. L. Lopez and D. V. Nanopoulos, Phys.Lett. B 245, 375 (1990).

    [256] A. E. Faraggi, Nucl. Phys. B 387, 239 (1992) [hep-th/9208024].

    [257] G. K. Leontaris, Phys. Lett. B 372, 212 (1996) [hep-ph/9601337].

    [258] K. R. Dienes, Phys. Rept. 287, 447 (1997) [hep-th/9602045].

    [259] Z. Kakushadze and S. H. H. Tye, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77,2612 (1996) [hep-th/9605221].

    [260] Z. Kakushadze and S. H. H. Tye, Phys. Rev. D 55, 7878(1997) [hep-th/9610106].

    [261] Z. Kakushadze and S. H. H. Tye, Phys. Lett. B 392,335 (1997) [hep-th/9609027].

    [262] Z. Kakushadze and S. H. H. Tye, Phys. Rev. D 55, 7896(1997) [hep-th/9701057].

    [263] K. Benakli, J. R. Ellis and D. V. Nanopoulos, Phys.Rev. D 59, 047301 (1999) [hep-ph/9803333].

    [264] L. Delle Rose, A. E. Faraggi, C. Marzo and J. Rizos,Phys. Rev. D 96, no. 5, 055025 (2017) [arXiv:1704.02579[hep-ph]].

    [265] M. McGuigan, arXiv:1907.01944 [hep-th].[266] M. Ibe, A. Kamada, S. Kobayashi, T. Kuwahara and

    W. Nakano, Phys. Rev. D 100, no.7, 075022 (2019)[arXiv:1907.03404 [hep-ph]].

    [267] M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky and M. S. Turner,Phys. Rev. D 49, 2837 (1994) [astro-ph/9310044].

    [268] M. Maggiore, Phys. Rept. 331, 283 (2000) [gr-qc/9909001].

    [269] A. Kosowsky, A. Mack and T. Kahniashvili, Phys. Rev.D 66, 024030 (2002) [astro-ph/0111483].

    [270] A. D. Dolgov, D. Grasso and A. Nicolis, Phys. Rev. D66, 103505 (2002) [astro-ph/0206461].

    [271] C. Grojean and G. Servant, Phys. Rev. D 75, 043507(2007) [hep-ph/0607107].

    [272] C. Caprini, R. Durrer and G. Servant, Phys. Rev. D 77,124015 (2008) [arXiv:0711.2593 [astro-ph]].

    [273] S. J. Huber and T. Konstandin, JCAP 0809, 022 (2008)[arXiv:0806.1828 [hep-ph]].

    [274] C. Caprini, R. Durrer, T. Konstandin and G. Servant,Phys. Rev. D 79, 083519 (2009) [arXiv:0901.1661 [astro-ph.CO]].

    [275] C. Caprini, R. Durrer and G. Servant, JCAP 0912, 024(2009) [arXiv:0909.0622 [astro-ph.CO]].

    [276] M. Hindmarsh, S. J. Huber, K. Rummukainen andD. J. Weir, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 041301 (2014)[arXiv:1304.2433 [hep-ph]].

    [277] M. Hindmarsh, S. J. Huber, K. Rummukainen andD. J. Weir, Phys. Rev. D 92, no. 12, 123009 (2015)[arXiv:1504.03291 [astro-ph.CO]].

    [278] P. Schwaller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, no. 18, 181101(2015) [arXiv:1504.07263 [hep-ph]].

    [279] C. Caprini et al., JCAP 1604, 001 (2016)[arXiv:1512.06239 [astro-ph.CO]].

    [280] M. Fairbairn, E. Hardy and A. Wickens, JHEP 1907,044 (2019) [arXiv:1901.11038 [hep-ph]].

    [281] M. Hindmarsh and M. Hijazi, JCAP 12, 062 (2019)[arXiv:1909.10040 [astro-ph.CO]].

    [282] T. Alanne, T. Hugle, M. Platscher and K. Schmitz,JHEP 03, 004 (2020) [arXiv:1909.11356 [hep-ph]].

    [283] B. Svetitsky and L. G. Yaffe, Nucl. Phys. B 210, 423(1982).

    [284] M. Wingate and S. Ohta, Phys. Rev. D 63, 094502(2001) [hep-lat/0006016].

    [285] R. V. Gavai, Nucl. Phys. B 633, 127 (2002) [hep-lat/0203015].

    [286] B. Lucini, M. Teper and U. Wenger, Phys. Lett. B 545,197 (2002) [hep-lat/0206029].

    [287] B. Lucini, M. Teper and U. Wenger, JHEP 0401, 061(2004) [hep-lat/0307017].

    [288] B. Lucini, M. Teper and U. Wenger, JHEP 0502, 033(2005) [hep-lat/0502003].

    [289] B. Lucini, A. Rago and E. Rinaldi, Phys. Lett. B 712,279 (2012) [arXiv:1202.6684 [hep-lat]].

    [290] B. Lucini and M. Panero, Phys. Rept. 526, 93 (2013)[arXiv:1210.4997 [hep-th]].

    [291] B. Berg, Phys. Lett. 97B, 401 (1980).[292] M. Nauenberg, T. Schalk and R. Brower, Phys. Rev. D

    24, 548 (1981).[293] G. Munster, Nucl. Phys. B 190, 439 (1981) Addendum:

    [Nucl. Phys. B 200, 536 (1982)] Erratum: [Nucl. Phys.B 205, 648 (1982)].

    [294] J. Engels, F. Karsch, H. Satz and I. Montvay, Phys.Lett. 102B, 332 (1981).

    [295] K. Ishikawa, M. Teper and G. Schierholz, Phys. Lett.110B, 399 (1982).

    [296] K. H. Mutter and K. Schilling, Phys. Lett. 117B, 75(1982).

    [297] R. C. Brower, M. Creutz and M. Nauenberg, Nucl. Phys.B 210, 133 (1982).

    [298] B. Berg, A. Billoire and C. Rebbi, Annals Phys. 142,185 (1982) Addendum: [Annals Phys. 146, 470 (1983)].

    [299] B. Berg and A. Billoire, Phys. Lett. 113B, 65 (1982).[300] J. Smit, Nucl. Phys. B 206, 309 (1982).[301] M. Falcioni, E. Marinari, M. L. Paciello, G. Parisi,

    B. Taglienti and Y. c. Zhang, Nucl. Phys. B 215, 265(1983).

    [302] K. Seo, Nucl. Phys. B 209, 200 (1982).[303] K. Ishikawa, G. Schierholz and M. Teper, Z. Phys. C

    19, 327 (1983).[304] V. Azcoiti and A. Nakamura, Phys. Lett. 144B, 91

    (1984).[305] P. de Forcrand, G. Schierholz, H. Schneider and M. Te-

    per, Phys. Lett. 152B, 107 (1985).[306] M. Albanese et al. [APE Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B

    192, 163 (1987).[307] M. Teper, Phys. Lett. B 183, 345 (1987).[308] M. Teper, Phys. Lett. B 185, 121 (1987).[309] P. de Forcrand and K. F. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 245

    (1992).[310] G. S. Bali et al. [UKQCD Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B

    309, 378 (1993) [hep-lat/9304012].[311] J. Sexton, A. Vaccarino and D. Weingarten, Phys. Rev.

    Lett. 75, 4563 (1995) [hep-lat/9510022].[312] M. J. Teper, hep-th/9812187.[313] A. Vaccarino and D. Weingarten, Phys. Rev. D 60,

    114501 (1999) [hep-lat/9910007].[314] C. J. Morningstar and M. J. Peardon, Phys. Rev. D 60,

    034509 (1999) [hep-lat/9901004].[315] G. S. Bali et al. [TXL and T(X)L Collaborations], Phys.

    Rev. D 62, 054503 (2000) [hep-lat/0003012].[316] B. Lucini and M. Teper, JHEP 0106, 050 (2001) [hep-

    lat/0103027].[317] N. Ishii, H. Suganuma and H. Matsufuru, Phys. Rev. D

    66, 014507 (2002) [hep-lat/0109011].[318] N. Ishii, H. Suganuma and H. Matsufuru, Phys. Rev. D

    66, 094506 (2002) [hep-lat/0206020].[319] H. B. Meyer and M. J. Teper, Nucl. Phys. B 668, 111

  • 17

    (2003) [hep-lat/0306019].[320] B. Lucini, M. Teper and U. Wenger, JHEP 0406, 012

    (2004) [hep-lat/0404008].[321] Y. Chen et al., Phys. Rev. D 73, 014516 (2006) [hep-

    lat/0510074].[322] M. Loan and Y. Ying, Prog. Theor. Phys. 116, 169

    (2006) [hep-lat/0603030].[323] P. Orland, Phys. Rev. D 75, 101702 (2007)

    [arXiv:0704.0940 [hep-th]].[324] B. Lucini, A. Rago and E. Rinaldi, JHEP 1008, 119

    (2010) [arXiv:1007.3879 [hep-lat]].[325] E. Gregory, A. Irving, B. Lucini, C. McNeile, A. Rago,

    C. Richards and E. Rinaldi, JHEP 1210, 170 (2012)[arXiv:1208.1858 [hep-lat]].

    [326] A. Chowdhury, A. Harindranath and J. Maiti, JHEP1406, 067 (2014) [arXiv:1402.7138 [hep-lat]].

    [327] M. Teper, arXiv:1801.05693 [hep-lat].[328] V. Crede and C. A. Meyer, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 63,

    74 (2009) [arXiv:0812.0600 [hep-ex]].[329] F. Binon et al. [Serpukhov-Brussels-Annecy(LAPP)

    Collaboration], Nuovo Cim. A 80, 363 (1984).[330] T. Akesson et al. [Axial Field Spectrometer Collabora-

    tion], Nucl. Phys. B 264, 154 (1986).[331] D. Barberis et al. [WA102 Collaboration], Phys. Lett.

    B 397, 339 (1997) Erratum: [Phys. Lett. B 410, 353(1997)].

    [332] R. Barate et al. [ALEPH Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B472, 189 (2000) [hep-ex/9911022].

    [333] M. Acciarri et al. [L3 Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 501,173 (2001) [hep-ex/0011037].

    [334] G. Abbiendi et al. [OPAL Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J.C 35, 293 (2004) [hep-ex/0306021].

    [335] D. S. Carman, AIP Conf. Proc. 814, no. 1, 173 (2006)[hep-ex/0511030].

    [336] M. Ablikim et al., Phys. Lett. B 642, 441 (2006) [hep-ex/0603048].

    [337] S. Chekanov et al. [ZEUS Collaboration], Phys. Rev.Lett. 101, 112003 (2008) [arXiv:0806.0807 [hep-ex]].

    [338] S. Uehara et al. [Belle Collaboration], PTEP 2013, no.12, 123C01 (2013) [arXiv:1307.7457 [hep-ex]].

    [339] J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D 24, 1347 (1981).[340] H. J. Schnitzer, Nucl. Phys. B 207, 131 (1982).[341] H. J. Lipkin, Phys. Lett. 124B, 509 (1983).[342] J. Lanik, Phys. Lett. 144B, 439 (1984).[343] C. W. Wong, Phys. Rept. 136, 1 (1986).[344] C. Amsler and F. E. Close, Phys. Rev. D 53, 295 (1996)

    [hep-ph/9507326].[345] C. Amsler and F. E. Close, Phys. Lett. B 353, 385

    (1995) [hep-ph/9505219].[346] A. V. Anisovich, V. V. Anisovich and A. V. Sarantsev,

    Phys. Lett. B 395, 123 (1997) [hep-ph/9611333].[347] A. V. Anisovich, V. V. Anisovich and A. V. Sarantsev,

    Z. Phys. A 359, 173 (1997) [hep-ph/9702339].[348] P. Minkowski and W. Ochs, Eur. Phys. J. C 9, 283

    (1999) [hep-ph/9811518].[349] M. Strohmeier-Presicek, T. Gutsche, R. Vinh Mau and

    A. Faessler, Phys. Rev. D 60, 054010 (1999) [hep-ph/9904461].

    [350] J. R. Ellis, H. Fujii and D. Kharzeev, hep-ph/9909322.[351] F. E. Close and A. Kirk, Phys. Lett. B 483, 345 (2000)

    [hep-ph/0004241].[352] F. E. Close and A. Kirk, Eur. Phys. J. C 21, 531 (2001)

    [hep-ph/0103173].[353] A. H. Fariborz, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 19, 2095 (2004)

    [hep-ph/0302133].[354] F. Giacosa, T. Gutsche and A. Faessler, Phys. Rev. C

    71, 025202 (2005) [hep-ph/0408085].[355] H. Y. Cheng, C. K. Chua and K. F. Liu, Phys. Rev. D

    74, 094005 (2006) [hep-ph/0607206].[356] A. H. Fariborz, Phys. Rev. D 74, 054030 (2006) [hep-

    ph/0607105].[357] G. Mennessier, S. Narison and W. Ochs, Phys. Lett. B

    665, 205 (2008) [arXiv:0804.4452 [hep-ph]].[358] M. Albaladejo and J. A. Oller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101,

    252002 (2008) [arXiv:0801.4929 [hep-ph]].[359] S. Nussinov and R. Shrock, Phys. Rev. D 80, 054003

    (2009) [arXiv:0907.1577 [hep-ph]].[360] J. Chen, L. Zhang and H. Xia, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 24,

    1517 (2009).[361] E. Ruiz Arriola and W. Broniowski, Phys. Rev. D 81,

    054009 (2010) [arXiv:1001.1636 [hep-ph]].[362] S. Janowski, D. Parganlija, F. Giacosa and

    D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev. D 84, 054007 (2011)[arXiv:1103.3238 [hep-ph]].

    [363] S. Janowski, F. Giacosa and D. H. Rischke, Phys. Rev.D 90, no. 11, 114005 (2014) [arXiv:1408.4921 [hep-ph]].

    [364] M. Wakayama, T. Kunihiro, S. Muroya, A. Nakamura,C. Nonaka, M. Sekiguchi and H. Wada, Phys. Rev. D91, no. 9, 094508 (2015) [arXiv:1412.3909 [hep-lat]].

    [365] H. Y. Cheng, C. K. Chua and K. F. Liu, Phys. Rev. D92, no. 9, 094006 (2015) [arXiv:1503.06827 [hep-ph]].

    [366] V. Vento, Eur. Phys. J. A 52, no. 1, 1 (2016)[arXiv:1505.05355 [hep-ph]].

    [367] J. R. Pelaez, Phys. Rept. 658, 1 (2016)[arXiv:1510.00653 [hep-ph]].

    [368] L. Zou, H. G. Dosch, G. F. De Téramond andS. J. Brodsky, Phys. Rev. D 99, no. 11, 114024 (2019)[arXiv:1901.11205 [hep-ph]].

    [369] A. Soni, arXiv:1905.00907 [hep-ph].[370] J. J. Coyne, P. M. Fishbane and S. Meshkov, Phys. Lett.

    91B, 259 (1980).[371] M. S. Chanowitz and S. R. Sharpe, Phys. Lett. 132B,

    413 (1983).[372] J. M. Cornwall and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. D 29, 1424

    (1984).[373] S. S. Gershtein, A. K. Likhoded and Y. D. Prokoshkin,

    Z. Phys. C 24, 305 (1984).[374] J. M. Cornwall and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. D 32, 764

    (1985).[375] M. B. Cakir and G. R. Farrar, Phys. Rev. D 50, 3268

    (1994) [hep-ph/9402203].[376] F. E. Close and A. Kirk, Phys. Lett. B 397, 333 (1997)

    [hep-ph/9701222].[377] F. Giacosa, T. Gutsche, V. E. Lyubovitskij and

    A. Faessler, Phys. Lett. B 622, 277 (2005) [hep-ph/0504033].

    [378] M. Chanowitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 172001 (2005) [hep-ph/0506125].

    [379] K. T. Chao, X. G. He and J. P. Ma, Eur. Phys. J. C 55,417 (2008) [hep-ph/0512327].

    [380] Q. Zhao, B. s. Zou and Z. b. Ma, Phys. Lett. B 631, 22(2005) [hep-ph/0508088].

    [381] F. Giacosa, T. Gutsche, V. E. Lyubovitskij andA. Faessler, Phys. Rev. D 72, 094006 (2005) [hep-ph/0509247].

    [382] X. G. He and T. C. Yuan, hep-ph/0612108.[383] K. T. Chao, X. G. He and J. P. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett.

    98, 149103 (2007) [arXiv:0704.1061 [hep-ph]].

  • 18

    [384] M. S. Chanowitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 149104 (2007)[arXiv:0704.1616 [hep-ph]].

    [385] C. H. Chen and T. C. Yuan, Phys. Lett. B 650, 379(2007) [hep-ph/0702067].

    [386] K. Hashimoto, C. I. Tan and S. Terashima, Phys. Rev.D 77, 086001 (2008) [arXiv:0709.2208 [hep-th]].

    [387] H. Y. Jin, S. M. Liu, Z. F. Zhang and X. Q. Li, Chin.Phys. Lett. 25, 1609 (2008).

    [388] H. Y. Cheng and C. W. Chiang, Phys. Rev. D 81,074021 (2010) [arXiv:1001.0987 [hep-ph]].

    [389] T. Cohen, F. J. Llanes-Estrada, J. R. Pelaez and J. Ruizde Elvira, Phys. Rev. D 90, no. 3, 036003 (2014)[arXiv:1405.4831 [hep-ph]].

    [390] F. Brünner and A. Rebhan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, no.13, 131601 (2015) [arXiv:1504.05815 [hep-ph]].

    [391] J. M. Frère and J. Heeck, Phys. Rev. D 92, no. 11,114035 (2015) [arXiv:1506.04766 [hep-ph]].

    [392] D. Parganlija and F. Giacosa, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, no.7, 450 (2017) [arXiv:1612.09218 [hep-ph]].

    [393] S. J. Brodsky and F. J. Llanes-Estrada, Phys. Lett. B793, 405 (2019) [arXiv:1810.08772 [hep-ph]].

    [394] F. J. Llanes-Estrada and S. J. Brodsky, PoS Confine-ment2018, 262 (2018) [arXiv:1812.10397 [hep-ph]].

    [395] B. D. Wan and C. F. Qiao, arXiv:1904.02067 [hep-ph].[396] V. Khoze, A. Martin and M. Ryskin, J. Phys. G 46,

    no.11, 11LT01 (2019) [arXiv:1907.04603 [hep-ph]].[397] A. A. de Laix, R. J. Scherrer and R. K. Schaefer, As-

    trophys. J. 452, 495 (1995) [astro-ph/9502087].[398] D. N. Spergel and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84,

    3760 (2000) [astro-ph/9909386].[399] M. Kamionkowski and A. R. Liddle, Phys. Rev. Lett.

    84, 4525 (2000) [astro-ph/9911103].[400] J. P. Ostriker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5258 (2000) [astro-

    ph/9912548].[401] R. N. Mohapatra and V. L. Teplitz, Phys. Rev. D 62,

    063506 (2000) [astro-ph/0001362].[402] B. Moore, S. Gelato, A. Jenkins, F. R. Pearce and

    V. Quilis, Astrophys. J. 535, L21 (2000) [astro-ph/0002308].

    [403] S. Hannestad and R. J. Scherrer, Phys. Rev. D 62,043522 (2000) [astro-ph/0003046].

    [404] C. S. Kochanek and M. J. White, Astrophys. J. 543,514 (2000) [astro-ph/0003483].

    [405] J. Binney, O. Gerhard and J. Silk, Mon. Not. Roy. As-tron. Soc. 321, 471 (2001) [astro-ph/0003199].

    [406] C. J. Hogan and J. J. Dalcanton, Phys. Rev. D 62,063511 (2000) [astro-ph/0002330].

    [407] P. J. E. Peebles, Astrophys. J. 534, L127 (2000) [astro-ph/0002495].

    [408] F. C. van den Bosch and R. A. Swaters, Mon. Not. Roy.Astron. Soc. 325, 1017 (2001) [astro-ph/0006048].

    [409] A. Riotto and I. Tkachev, Phys. Lett. B 484, 177 (2000)[astro-ph/0003388].

    [410] S. H. Oh, C. Brook, F. Governato, E. Brinks, L. Mayer,W. J. G. de Blok, A. Brooks and F. Walter, Astron. J.142, 24 (2011) [arXiv:1011.2777 [astro-ph.CO]].

    [411] M. Vogelsberger, J. Zavala and A. Loeb, Mon. Not. Roy.Astron. Soc. 423, 3740 (2012) [arXiv:1201.5892 [astro-ph.CO]].

    [412] M. Rocha, A. H. G. Peter, J. S. Bullock, M. Kapling-hat, S. Garrison-Kimmel, J. Onorbe and L. A. Mous-takas, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 430, 81 (2013)[arXiv:1208.3025 [astro-ph.CO]].

    [413] J. Zavala, M. Vogelsberger and M. G. Walker, Mon. Not.

    Roy. Astron. Soc. 431, L20 (2013) [arXiv:1211.6426[astro-ph.CO]].

    [414] A. H. G. Peter, M. Rocha, J. S. Bullock and M. Kapling-hat, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 430, 105 (2013)[arXiv:1208.3026 [astro-ph.CO]].

    [415] S. Tulin, H. B. Yu and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 87,no. 11, 115007 (2013) [arXiv:1302.3898 [hep-ph]].

    [416] F. Kahlhoefer, K. Schmidt-Hoberg, M. T. Frandsen andS. Sarkar, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 437, no. 3, 2865(2014) [arXiv:1308.3419 [astro-ph.CO]].

    [417] Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, T. Volansky and J. G. Wacker,Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 171301 (2014) [arXiv:1402.5143[hep-ph]].

    [418] C. Brook, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 454, no.2, 1719-1724 (2015) [arXiv:1506.00214 [astro-ph.CO]].

    [419] N. Bernal, X. Chu, C. Garcia-Cel


YMT 312-Yazılım Tasarım Ve Mimarisi Mimari ...muhammetbaykara.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/8.-Hafta...Alternatiflerin İyileştirilmesi Alternatifleri Kombine Edin—İki veya

YMT 312-Yazılım Tasarım Ve Mimarisi Mimari ...muhammetbaykara.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/8.-Hafta...Alternatiflerin İyileştirilmesi Alternatifleri Kombine Edin—İki veya

YMT 222 SAYISAL ANALİZ (Bölüm 1)

YMT 222 SAYISAL ANALİZ (Bölüm 1)

YMT 222 SAYISAL ANALİZ (Bölüm 5)

YMT 222 SAYISAL ANALİZ (Bölüm 5)

YMT 222 SAYISAL ANALİZ (Bölüm 4)

YMT 222 SAYISAL ANALİZ (Bölüm 4)

YMT 222 SAYISAL ANALİZ (Bölüm 6a)

YMT 222 SAYISAL ANALİZ (Bölüm 6a)

THE JEWISH PROHIBITION AGAINST NEEDLESS ...1 Bal Tashchit: The Jewish prohibition against needless destruction Chapter 1 - Introduction to bal tashchit The natural environment1 is

THE JEWISH PROHIBITION AGAINST NEEDLESS ...1 Bal Tashchit: The Jewish prohibition against needless destruction Chapter 1 - Introduction to bal tashchit The natural environment1 is

Yazılım Kalite Konseptleri - muhammetbaykara.commuhammetbaykara.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/1.-Hafta... · YMT 412-Yazılım Kalite 'üvencesi ve Testi Kalite Konseptleri Dr.

Yazılım Kalite Konseptleri - muhammetbaykara.commuhammetbaykara.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/1.-Hafta... · YMT 412-Yazılım Kalite 'üvencesi ve Testi Kalite Konseptleri Dr.

YMT 312-Yazılım Tasarım Ve Mimarisi Yazılım Tasarımıweb.firat.edu.tr/mbaykara/ytm5.pdfAmaçlar Tasarımın ne olduğunu ve çeşitli tasarım türlerinin ürünün farklı yönleriyle

YMT 312-Yazılım Tasarım Ve Mimarisi Yazılım Tasarımıweb.firat.edu.tr/mbaykara/ytm5.pdfAmaçlar Tasarımın ne olduğunu ve çeşitli tasarım türlerinin ürünün farklı yönleriyle

YMT 312-Yazılım Tasarım Ve Mimarisi Mimari Stillerimuhammetbaykara.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/10.-Hafta-Mimari-Stilleri.pdf · Bu ders kapsamında yazılım tasarım kalıplarının

YMT 312-Yazılım Tasarım Ve Mimarisi Mimari Stillerimuhammetbaykara.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/10.-Hafta-Mimari-Stilleri.pdf · Bu ders kapsamında yazılım tasarım kalıplarının

Руководство по эксплуатации ISUZU MOTORS LIMITED № C&E … · 2019. 2. 7. · 2. Avoid engine racing, abrupt starting and needless hard stops. 3. Always

Руководство по эксплуатации ISUZU MOTORS LIMITED № C&E … · 2019. 2. 7. · 2. Avoid engine racing, abrupt starting and needless hard stops. 3. Always

INGLÊS€¦ · teaching and the general (critical) education of the individual. Critical literacy supporters conceive literacy in broader socio‐cultural and political terms. Critical

INGLÊS€¦ · teaching and the general (critical) education of the individual. Critical literacy supporters conceive literacy in broader socio‐cultural and political terms. Critical

Georg Friedrich Händel Messiah Samstag 12. Dezember … · Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear Denn sieh, eine Jungfrau ist schwanger und wird einen Sohn gebären, a Son, and

Georg Friedrich Händel Messiah Samstag 12. Dezember … · Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear Denn sieh, eine Jungfrau ist schwanger und wird einen Sohn gebären, a Son, and

TOY project - The Introduction of Devices for …playgrounds from a variety of viewpoints and indicators. Needless to say, the areas for playgrounds, whether there is a playground

TOY project - The Introduction of Devices for …playgrounds from a variety of viewpoints and indicators. Needless to say, the areas for playgrounds, whether there is a playground

We cannot conceive what is in the mind of God.

We cannot conceive what is in the mind of God.

Metotlar ve Fonksiyonlar - Fırat Üniversitesiweb.firat.edu.tr/ymt/ymt218/Dosyalar/4.hafta.pdfMetotlar ve Fonksiyonlar Nesneye yönelik programlama dillerinde genellikle fonksiyonlar

Metotlar ve Fonksiyonlar - Fırat Üniversitesiweb.firat.edu.tr/ymt/ymt218/Dosyalar/4.hafta.pdfMetotlar ve Fonksiyonlar Nesneye yönelik programlama dillerinde genellikle fonksiyonlar

YMT 311-Bilgi Sistemleri ve Güvenliği - web.firat.edu.trweb.firat.edu.tr/mbaykara/agguvenligi.pdf · YMT 311-Bilgi Sistemleri ve Güvenliği Ağ Güvenliği Dr. Muhammet BAYKARA

YMT 311-Bilgi Sistemleri ve Güvenliği - web.firat.edu.trweb.firat.edu.tr/mbaykara/agguvenligi.pdf · YMT 311-Bilgi Sistemleri ve Güvenliği Ağ Güvenliği Dr. Muhammet BAYKARA

Div Policy Ymt

Div Policy Ymt

Napoleon Hill – Think & Grow Rich · 2015-07-16 · Napoleon Hill – Think & Grow Rich Whatever the mind can conceive and believe, it can achieve. Hieronder volgt de samenvatting

Napoleon Hill – Think & Grow Rich · 2015-07-16 · Napoleon Hill – Think & Grow Rich Whatever the mind can conceive and believe, it can achieve. Hieronder volgt de samenvatting

YMT 222 SAYISAL ANALİZ (Bölüm 2 a)

YMT 222 SAYISAL ANALİZ (Bölüm 2 a)

YMT 311-Bilgi Sistemleri ve Güvenliğimuhammetbaykara.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/... · Ebced hesabının en fazla kullanıldığı yer hiç şüphesiz tarih düşürmedir. Bunun

YMT 311-Bilgi Sistemleri ve Güvenliğimuhammetbaykara.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/... · Ebced hesabının en fazla kullanıldığı yer hiç şüphesiz tarih düşürmedir. Bunun