 Hello everybody, welcome to the Latin America Women are on Physics. I'm Camilo Garcia-Selli from Desig in Hamburg and I'll be your host today. This time we have a very interesting talk by Laura Lupe Sonoris who will tell us about Higgs-Copol Minimal Dark Matter. Laura is a permanent staff researcher at the University of Liberia de Bruzelles in Belgium. Laura did her PhD in the same institution, but before obtaining her permanent position she held postdoctoral positions in Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Max Planck Institute in Heidelberg in Germany, and at the Frey University of Brussels. And okay before we start the talk I would like to encourage you to ask questions. You can do that by typing them in the designated box in YouTube which you can find on the right hand side of your screen. At the end of Laura's talk I will read the questions loud. Thanks Laura for accepting the invitation to present your work and please go ahead. And now you have to share your screen with us. I'm sorry, but I have no idea what is happening. So the screen is mine now? Yeah, you have to click on the left corner. So anyway, thank you. So as you can see, now everybody is supposed to see me, so I'm going to share my screen. So I think he won't see me after that. I hope everything is going to go well. Yes, I think everything is going well so far. Okay, I completely forgot to open in advance the thing, so let's go. Okay. Oh, thank you very much for being all there. Sorry for this beginning a bit chaotic. So I'm going to talk about, sorry, okay. So I'm going to talk about six couple of minimal dark matter scenarios and this is a work I've been doing in collaboration with Michel Tiguet, Brian Saldívar and Patelis Sivello-Glu. So let's first begin by describing what I mean by fermionic, I mean, to a minimal hex dark matter models. So I mean, first there is minimal dark matter. So in the minimal dark matter scenario, you have, I mean, you need at least one component in the dark sector, which would be your dark matter that talks to the standard model through a certain portal. And let's say that in minimal scenarios, you can have actually your dark matter that is made of, I mean, one single add to the standard model that could be a Majorana fermion that talks to the standard model through the standard model gauge portal. So this is the idea of the so-called minimal dark matter scenarios in which case you have fermionic dark matter. And in particular, it has been already, it's already well known in the literature that for fermionic dark matter scenarios, you typically end up with a possible triplet or a triplet kin triplet as a good candidate for dark matter. If you just take the standard model plus this single Majorana multiplet, I mean, let's say the kin triplet, let me remind you that, so I assume that this beast has a Majorana mass up there in my screen. And that the Majorana component includes, I mean, this fermionic kin triplet is composed of a neutral component that is going to be the potential dark matter candidate and some charge component that actually are going to get a mass, the smallest mass splitting with the neutral component thanks to a gauge loop contributions. So at the end of the day, you end up with the neutral state that is going to be potentially the right dark matter candidate. And if you just go through your combination of the Relic Abundance at this level, you end up with a potential triplet with a mass of 2.4 TV as a good candidate and a quintuplet with a mass of 4.4 TV. Now things are not so simple, in particular, when you are considering particles with such a large mass compared to the mass of the mediator, in this case the gauge bosons, actually the gauge bosons act as a very light mediator. And in this case, you can have actually non-perturbative effect that enters into the game, none under the name of Sommerfeld effect. And also you can have, so I mean, this is what is represented here, you have multiple kind of exchanges of light mediator that are going to affect the computation of the annihilation cross-section of your dark matter candidate into a standard model finite state. And you can also have actually bound state formation with the emission of a vector boson in particular photon and some bound state that is also, I mean, that potentially can also affect your dark matter relic abundance computation. In the case of the triplet, it's mainly Sommerfeld effect that plays a role. You go from a mass of 2.4 TV to 3 TV when you take into account all these effects. For quintuplet, there is a recent paper of a metadata and collaborator which have been computing the effects from this 4 TV approximately to the Sommerfeld enhanced case, which goes up to about a 9.5 TV. And then on the top of this, you have bound state formation that can bring your dark matter quintuplet with a relic abundance, which accounts for all the dark matter in the universe, which are mass of 11.5 TV. The question now is this minimal dark matter scenario constraint. It is constrained and actually constraints can be very strong, especially when you look at indirect detection searches for dark matter. So here in this plot, the annihilation cross section is shown for a quintuplet scenario obtained in this paper as a function of the mass of the quintuplet. So as I just said, you expect taking into account bound state formation your quintuplets that give rise to all the dark matter to be in this window, in this green window. Shown in this plot, you have also the typical annihilation cross section for annihilation to W, W, and photon into photons. Actually, here it seems that the constraints are a bit far away from the cross section itself, but if you look at the latest constraints from the HES collaboration, a paper of Rin Chiusu, sorry for my not good pronunciation from ICSE 2017, they actually get to to constrain the annihilation cross section into gamma gamma up to cross section of 10 to the minus 26 centimeter cube per second with gamma ray constraints from the galactic center. So this is with a CASP profile with more, I mean, more core profile. You can potentially evade these constraints. You have also a recent paper of Cuoco and collaborators for November 2017 where they look at cosmic ray constraints. And in this case, it seems even more difficult to evade, actually. Yeah, cosmic ray constraints in the case of quintuplets and triplets, dark matter. At the level of direct detection, things are pretty much different, actually. You have in this other plot of Fizeno and collaborators from 2015, the scattering cross section on nucleon as a function of dark matter mass and this blue dots dashed line correspond actually to a quintuplet dark matter, which do not depends much on the mass. So I mean, you can go to a higher mass and you still have the same cross section and you have to keep in mind that actually the constraints from Xeno one term are actually higher up here. So this is not a cross section that is going to be tested soon. So I mean, at the end of the day, you have to keep in mind that family dark matter, minimal dark matter scenarios is a possibility, but it might be excluded due to indirect detection searches. So the point here is actually to look a bit of what can we expect if we extend a bit this portal to the standard model, including X, so the standard on the scalar. If you want to play with, I mean, if we scale out dark matter, it's very easy to take this into account for family dark matter. You cannot just play with a single Majorana candidate. You have to add two wild fermions into the game. So I will go back to this. I mean, the rest of the talk, what I just, I mean, for those who are already sick of this talk, I give you already the main message of this talk. So I mean, the idea indeed is to include the Hicks into the game, into the portal. What I mean, what we got as the main feature of this model is that at the end of the day, in these Hicks-coupled fermionic-medimal dark matter scenarios, you always end up with a typically very compressed spectra between the neutral candidate that is going to play the role of the dark matter and the charged candidate, with typical, I mean, mass differences for couplings of the order of one that are the order of the GV compared to the masses of the dark matter that are multi-TV. An important point is, as I said in the previous case, I mean, you have to be very careful because not perturbative effect play, I mean, change much the parameter space where you expect to have the right dark matter abundance. So this is something you definitely have to take into account, playing with these kind of models. And at the end of the day, I mean, somehow you end up with something, some stuff that is because of this compressed spectra that are going to look so like something that is a triplet or a quintuplet of SU2 and might, I mean, actually be tested by direct dark matter structures due to their coupling to the Hicks. So, okay, let me go step by step now and begin by the treatment of these Hicks-coupled minimal dark matter scenario at the intermediate level first. So this is the picture I had before. As I just said, I want to include the H particle into the portal and we firmly dark matter, it means that I'm going to have to have not only a Majorana fermion, but two white fermions into the to play this game. I'm going to have to introduce a two symmetry for dark matter stability. So in the case of just minimal dark matter scenarios, the quintuplet is actually stable. But here I'm obliged to introduce that to symmetry. For this, this combination, one Majorana plus two white fermions, I mean, this is something you have this is a setup that you have already seen somewhere before. It's, for example, in super symmetry. You have the singlet doublet, which is a bino-exeno system, the triplet doublet. This is a Wino-exeno system. Actually, you can go to higher representation. So here are the possibilities. Singlet doublet, triplet doublet, those I just said. You can also consider the triplet quadruplet case combination, which has already been considered in the literature before, but not taken into account non-perturbative effects. And the quintuplet four-plet is another possibility that was not considered before. You can even go to higher representation, but I mean, this many as it has been typically done in these minimal scenarios. If you want to keep a little bit of activity until M-plan, at least at least high energies, I mean, you don't go to a larger representation than the five-plet four-plet. So here, somehow I'm going to try to give a general view of these x-couple minimal dark model scenarios, considering four models. Singlet doublet, triplet doublet, triplet four-plet, and quintuplet four-plet. Good. So what does my Lagrangian look like in this scenario? So it's in this Lagrangian you see here, I have the kinetic term, so which involve all the gate interactions, Dirac term, these two, vile fermions, psi and psi tilde, Majorana fermion, Majorana mass, and two Yukawa couplings for the coupling of the two vile fermions of opposite hypercharges. Good. So from this Lagrangian, you can actually extract the very generic mass pattern, which, I mean, in the generic in the sense that you always get the same result, whatever the model you are going to consider. And the main point, as I said before, is that at least when you, I mean, you just go to the custodial symmetry limit, where you take Yukawa one equal Yukawa two, you can directly see that you always, except in the Singlet doublet case, have a neutral, I mean, the lightest neutral component, so you get a neutral component from one vile fermion, a neutral component from another vile fermion, and a neutral component from the Majorana, they mix together, so you have to, I mean, you have to recognize the mass matrix, but at the end of the day, the lightest neutral component of the game is always going to be degenerate with at least the single Singlet charge fermion, and maybe the doublet charge fermion in the higher representation. But this is in the exact custodial symmetry limit. So this, for example, if I look at the quintuplet fourplet model, I show the masses of the different components of this game as a function of the Yukawa. This is Yukawa two, okay, I have a variant Yukawa two, and this is Yukawa one, which is equal to one. So the custodial symmetry limit is here, for example, okay. I see that Yukawa two equal Yukawa one equal one, okay. I have actually the neutral Singlet charge and doublet charge particles that are completely degenerating masses. At Yukawa two equal minus Yukawa one, so this point, I see the continuous green line that is degenerate with the dashed black line, which means that actually the neutral component is completely degenerate with the Singlet charge component. So okay, this is at the custodial point, right? Now if I go, I mean, if I go further from these points, you, I mean, by, just by eye here, you see that you always have very degenerate spectra. Actually, the mass difference between the lightest neutral component and the Singlet charge component is always going to go as the Yukawa coupling entering into the game, to the square, to the fourth. The VEV of the standard model kicks divided by the mass of the heavy component in the story, the Majorana or the direct. At the end of the day, this corresponds for Yukawa for the one to mass differences of the order of the GEV for, I mean, this kind of scenario. So the message here is that the neutral component is always, I mean, at three level, at least the lightest and get a rather compressed spectra. So small mass differences with at least one charge component. This is another way of, I mean, showing, of giving you the results for all cases. So all models, Singlet doublet, triplet doublet, triplet quadruplet, quintuplet quadruplet. What we want to say here is that at the end of the day, this combination always appear to split into Singlet triplet and quintuplet combinations. And that the neutral component is always going to be either in a singlet, a triplet or quintuplets at these custodial points. So this is shown for the quintuplet quadruplet, but you find this generic situation in all the models that we consider. Okay. Now, let me go to the case, I mean, to what is, what do we expect as the parameter space for in this scenario for the lightest component to be the dark matter where what is the typical mass we expect for this, for this dark matter candidate. When I have a single dark matter, I mean, the minimal dark matter model, okay, let's say just the quintuplet or just the triplet or whatever, my annihilation cross-section always goes as alpha 2 to the square, okay, electric coupling to the square divided by the mass of the dark matter, square, okay, just in the, let's say, SU2 symmetric limit, I forget about the gaugeables and masses. You have some pre-factor here that depends on the representation of the, of the, of the multiplets and n square for the dimension of the, of the multiple that comes into the, but okay. So these are somehow the, the limiting cases I have here in my Higgs coupled minimal dark matter scenarios in the sense that when the yukawa are very small and let's say the mass of the Dirac component here is very high, I expect to recover the minimal dark matter scenario with just the, the, the Majorana dark matter candidate. In the case of, for example, the five-platform combination, if I consider very high Dirac masses, I should recover the pure five-platform case, remember at the perturbative level, I has, I had 4.4 TV. In the same way, if I consider very high Majorana masses, okay, small yukawa couplings, I expect to recover something, I mean the Majorana completely decoupled, I expect to recover something that looks like a pure four-platform and the pure four-platform actually has a mass around 2.3 TV to give the, all the relic abundance where, where you forget about the fact that this could give a too strong Dirac detection signal. Okay, so now what happened when I mix these two guys, I mean, when I'm in this region, what happened there? How can I extract the limits of the, the viable parameter space for dark matter? Actually, it appears that, I mean, considering very small yukawa, I mean, yukawa small enough, so that the Majorana candidate and the Dirac candidates are talking to each other, but where still the, the, the annihilation effect, the inco-annuation effect are completely driven by gauge interaction. So by this type of, this type of annihilation cross-section, I end up with an effective annihilation cross-section that takes this form. I mean, this is just the, the, the, the sum of annihilation cross-section where I take into account all the degrees of freedom and the relative mass difference between them. This is just the recent cycle, a typical computation of co-annulating dark matter cases. If I take this formula into account, I just get as boundaries, I mean, where I expect to have the right relic abundance in this situation is the red line here. Okay. I expect that when I take into account the possibility to have a non-negligible yukawa, I'm going to add up interaction. I end up in this, I would, should I end up in this ballpark for the 5M4D model? And actually this, this is what we expect, the red contour. And this is what we get in putting the 5M4D Majorana 5-flat with two four-flat vile fermions. If I put this into this public code, micro-Megas, and I try to do a scan in order to get the typical scenario that are going to give me the right relic abundance, I end up with this, this exact form I obtained before. The red line, the red dashed line, this is, that is on the border there is the same red line I had here before. Oh, sorry. Okay, very slow. I go back. Okay. So in this region here, you see that I have, I go from blue to green to yellow colors that corresponds to larger values of the yukawa. The boundaries correspond indeed to the lowest values of the yukawa, smaller than 0.5. So and, okay, so I just confirm the, the guess we could obtain just using a recent circle like formula taking into account, gauge on the interactions. This is how the picture can be enlarged to other x-minimal couples that are not a scenario. So the four-flat five-flat is here. Three-flat four-flat in green is here. You see it's with, yes, here. The dot-flat three-flat is in the region here. So all the blue region that is allowed and the singlet dot-flat is actually in the gray region that goes in that direction. So this is the region that are going to give rise to the right-relief abundance, making use of this, I mean, from simple, very simple formula taking into account mainly gauge interaction and assuming that this particle stalls to each other to the presence of non-negligible yukawa. Just to go back to the, to the five-flat four-flat model. So this I already said before, yukama swanodorm one, I'm in the envelope, yukawa a bit larger, I can begin to populate the interior. I want to go from this picture, I mean to this, this gradient of color corresponding to the, to the yukawa to a gradient of color that correspond actually to the scattering cross-section on nucleon. So the scattering cross-section on nucleon at three levels is completely going to be driven when yukawa is non-negligible by x exchange here. Okay. What you see is that you typically get yellow colors corresponding to the highest value of the scattering cross-section on the diagonal here. It's actually very easy to check that this is exactly the region where you expect to have the highest scattering cross-section for the mass, the Majorana mass equal to the direct mass when you work in the custodial symmetry limits. Also, I mean, you see that you have the lowest value of the scattering cross-section on nucleon where the yukawa's were the smallest. So this is nothing special. And you have also some blue points here, some low value of the scattering cross-section here. Actually, you can check that these blue points correspond to cases where actually yukawa one goes to minus yukawa two. And this is also something you can very easily work out that this is just due to the exact form of the coupling of the dark matter to the Higgs here. So, okay, but this is at three levels not taking into account the, the, the, the sum of the correction. So let me go to this, to this problematic now. So what we are going to, I mean, what we are going to use here is that given that we have seen that we anyway expect all that matter to be in the multi-TV range, we are going to work in the SU2 symmetric limits where actually, so the isospin is a good quantum number that is conserved in annihilation. In the latter case, actually, instead of having to, to, to, to, to compute a complicated set of, I mean, this is going to simplify largely your computation of the sum of the effect. So the only thing, I mean, the only thing we have to compute at the end of the day is the long range potential that are going to depend directly on the quadratic casimir of the, of the representation entering to the game. So here I have, for example, a quintuplet that is going to, I need to, we have the quintuplet. I see five times five and this corresponds to a sum of representation. Okay. I have the associated casimir, quadratic casimir that enter to the game and give me just the, the, the long range potential enter into the game. And this allows me to compute the sum of felt corrections that I didn't show exactly here in this, in this, in this slide. I'm sorry. So once I have obtained the potential, the long range potential, I can extract the, the sum of an enhancement that just depend actually on this overall factor here. And the annihilation cross-section for, I mean, whatever representation of issue two can be, I mean, very easily computed through this very simple formula where you have the isospin of the beast that enter into the game that comes into the game here. Annihilation cross-section at perturbative level. I'm sorry. This slide is completely unclear. So let me show let me just go to the, to the next slide because it's going to be much more, much more, much more simple. So, so, I mean, as I just said, we work in the multi T we, we, we have that matter in the multi TV regime and the, and we consider the free start to, to happen in the asymmetric limit. So we have considered the combination of a billion like some of felt correction and just in order to obtain it, we have just used, I mean, group theory, the composition which was what is substance enters into this formula. I'm really sorry for the, for, for being so confused in explaining this. At the end of the day, so for any representation of issue two, doublet, triplet, quadruplet and quintuplet, which are the representation I have been considered. So I consider just the pure case this year. And I just associated isospin representation of the pair of annulating particles that entered into the game. Okay, I can compute the relevant coupling that then just let me go back in the computation of this long range potential due to the exchange of issue two gauge bosons. From these, I can extract the soma felt factors. Okay, considering a billion like soma felt correction, where at the end of the day, the coupling that enters into the computation of your soma felt correction is alpha two to the square multiplied by these numbers. Okay. And these soma felt factor multiplies each time scattering cross section for a given pair of a given I just be so this is what's the entry here. Okay. And the total annihilation cross section for whatever representation can be seen as the sum over the isospin of the pair of annulating particles. I hope I have not lost everybody. So, okay, at perturbative level, we can compute the total annihilation cross section for doublet, triplet, quadruplet and a quintuplet. Remember for triplet, I say I was obtained 2.4 TV, a quintuplet 4.4, a quadruplet, for example, this has not been computed in literature as before, as far as I know, maybe as a perturbative level, yes, it's also 2.4 TV. Now if I take into account the soma felt factor and the formula I was trying to explain before, it gets to a dark matter that is going to give me the all the dark matter abundance for a triplet. For example, I go from 2.4 TV to 3 TV. For a quintuplet, I go from 4.4 TV to 9.3 TV. And remember, in the case of quintuplets, you have an extra enhancement of the annihilation cross section due to the presence of bonds, the formation that brings you to 11.5 TV. Okay. The quadruplet, you go from 2.4 to 3.9 TV. So this is the picture I had before. So the one I obtained considering that I have potentially a quadruplet that can coordinate it with the quintuplet, so the red region, thanks to the presence of eukahuas, and I populate this considering non-negligible value of the eukahuas. Okay. If I go to the picture when soma felt enhancement entered into the game, I'm going to move my limiting case of the quadruplet and quintuplet, for example, to the quadruplet here and the quintuplet there. Okay. And now I take into account the fact that they coordinate it and I should change completely the boundaries of my viable parameter space. Okay. So this is at the end of the day what I expect for the viable parameter space for my models containing a quadruplet quintuplet model. Okay. A model containing a quadruplet triplet model, a doublet triplet model with the blue colors and a singlet doublet that didn't change much and that affected much by the soma felt corrections. So let me just, I don't know how much time I have because I don't have any time here. But so let me just comment on the prospects for dark matter detection. So as I just, I mean, as I said before moving to soma felt correction, in this case at three level you are, I mean, driven by this kind of diagrams for the scattering cross section of dark matter on nucleons. I mean, given that you have a eukawa coupling, you increase the sensitivity of Higgs coupled minimal dark matter scenario compared to minimal dark matter scenario, which has only loop contribution to this. So you can, I mean, definitively test these Higgs coupled model scenarios. So I mean, this is the picture seen in the usual form of scattering cross section as a function of the mass of the dark matter. I mean, the quadruplet mass in the perturbative case is here, quintuplet mass is here, and this is the scattering cross section due to Higgs interaction. It's the cloud of point that you have here. So you see that you have definitely already models that would be completely excluded by, you know, one time if I could stop at particularly level computation. Okay. Now, I mean, if I had to take into account the soma felt effect, I moved this black line to this red line, and this other black line to this other red line. So I completely shift the parameter space. But at the end of the day, we expect the general form of this cloud to be, I mean, to not to change. So meaning that the models in which the relevant coupling to the to the Higgs that depends directly on the UK was large UK was are expected to give you, I mean, anyway, a stronger scattering cross section up to a certain specific cases where the UK one equal to minus UK two, you have model that can be tested in the future back then on one ton, but you still have model that can completely I mean, if it is constraints, and at the end of the day, you get to the NL O correction computation. I mean, you should go to NL O correction computation, where you I mean, that have been, for example, in the case of minimal dark matter scenario being I mean, obtained. And that we're getting to to the 10 to the minus 46 centimeter square for the, for the case of the quintuplet dark matter. Um, for what concern indirect detection searches. So we have actually now larger splitting that then in the case of the pure minimal dark matter scenario in the pure minimal dark matter scenario, it was hundreds of MEV here, we can get to larger splitting. So this we expect anyway to change the summer felt effect and potentially move the, the position of recent peaks. I mean, we didn't go into this detail, but I mean, we expect that this could help into evade against the stronger current gamma reconstruction on these models. And finally, I'm considering collider searches of this scenario, even though there are multi TV in the multi TV range. Actually, you could test these guys, especially thanks to disappearing tracks when the splitting is small. So this is among other things a study that I was done in a paper of Chilean collaborator for the triplet, for example, where they have shown that I mean multi TV dark matter candidate of this type could be tested at a 100 TV collider, which is okay, which is not the case right now. Right now we can, we can test this model up to some hundreds of GB, which is way beyond this parameter space is concerned. So as a conclusion, we have extended the non viable parameter space of X coupled minimal dark matter scenarios with the five plate four plate model that has never been considered in the past triplet square plate models had been considered in the past, but not taking into account summer felt correction. So this, this changes, this shifts the viable parameter space. In all cases, you'll have to be very careful. I mean, summer felt correction are going to affect your viable parameter space and your expectation for dark matter detection. And okay, so we argued that X coupled minimal dark matter scenarios could potentially if they didn't write detection searches and definitely be tested by direct searches, which is nice. So thank you very much for your attention. And no, I don't know what I have to do. Thank you very much, Laura. Now it's time for questions. I guess I should start with the people in the audience. Does anybody have questions? I have a couple of questions. Yes, I can hear you. Okay, so Laura, thank you very much for the nice talk to have a question. So you several times you discuss. I don't know. You can't hear me. Laura, can you hear me? Okay, but I hear you. I'm too, I mean, I don't, I hear you are talking to me, but I don't understand anything you're saying. So it's a matter of how do you? It's like, yeah, I don't understand anything. Maybe I can write the question. I think this is the good connection really, really sorry. So you could hear correctly. Can you hear us now? Now I hear. Now? Ah, bien. Now I hear. Okay, so I was wondering about the bounce state because you mentioned them several times. So I guess you were Oh God, I hear you but you're very, very, very slowly. Ah, mierda. No, it doesn't work. Ah, sorry. Can you check the chat, Laura? Can you check the chat? Because the question is there. Where is the chat? Just in the icon about the screen chair. You mentioned several times, bond states, I guess you're referring to me as a bond state, right? So this is the question of Nicolas Bernal. Yes. Okay, good. I'm really sorry. Okay. So, um, yes, I mean, these bonds, that's right. So I mean, this is definitely not my, uh, my, uh, expertise. So this is this, this paper of, it was a paper of a meter, the laborator, and it was a paper of, uh, of three, six later on this topic, right? So they, uh, get this bond state and indeed this bond state can decay and you can get specific signature of the presence of these bond states and you can have specific lines at lower energies. So I don't know, this is the question. And, uh, I mean, they, they argue that this could give you an extra potential signature of these scenarios. But I, we didn't get into, uh, into, uh, into looking at that into the details. What we just did is to, uh, account for the fact that you have to consider a higher mass, uh, into the game. So from this, you can extract some whole, the couplings that enter into the game that allows you to extract the, the, the, the, the borders of your, uh, of your, um, variable parameter space. But for example, in the case of the quadruplet, one can expect that bond state formation could affect, um, the abundance, but we did not, I mean, computed them explicitly. The point is that in order to do that, you would need to, uh, to compute the typical, um, uh, energy of the bond state. So this we checked at least, and we have seen that the bond state energy in the case of the quadruplet is lower than in the case of the quintuplet. So this is already something that will imply that we will have a less, uh, uh, turn off the video. My God, how do I do that? Like this. So, okay. I think I turned off the video. Another question. Okay. So I, did I, I didn't answer to your question, Nicholas. Yes. Thanks. Sorry. So I mean, I just wanted to say that in the case of the quadruplet, we expect that we can have an effect of the bond state, but the effect should be intermediate between the case of the triplet and the quadruplet. Okay. In the sense that, uh, the, the, the questions are much, much, much, much smaller. Uh, the energy of the bonds is much smaller in the case of the triplet and intermediate in the case of the quadruplet. Why it's been dependent scattering cross-section independent of the dark matter mass? Oh, just because the dark matter mass is a super high compared to the mass of the mass. So this is the usual thing you have. Can you read the question loud? I mean, the question is now why is it, it's been independent scattering cross-section independent of the dark matter mass of in slide two. And the answer is that, I mean, just given that the mass of the dark matter is super high compared to the mass of the nucleon, at the end of the day, this, uh, this goes out of the, the question, the, of the, of the problem. Okay. I'll present everyone. Otherwise, you can present me. Okay. Okay. Uh, Laura, I don't, I think I hear you're still a bit crying. No, no, I don't hear you. Okay. Because I'm not talking. Now I can, I can ask a question. Can you, uh, uh, can you elaborate a bit more on the interior detection signals? Because, uh, you mentioned that, uh, the mass plittings are different than in the standard scenario. Can you explain that a bit more? So, I mean, I'm not sure I understood your question. Okay. But I'm just going to, to say what I could, I have understood. So you said that, uh, I mentioned at the end that mass plitting could affect the soma felt corrections, right? Yes, that's, that's indeed a detection. Okay. Yes. So, I mean, at the end of the day, you get a strong enhancement of the, of the, I mean, you get the soma felt effect that, that gets important when you have the mass plitting between your, uh, uh, uh, neutral dark matter candidate that is very near to the, to the, that the, that the mass is very near to the, to the, the mass of, uh, the charge partners. Okay. So like this, you can go from the neutral to the charge partner exchange several times the gauge balls and then get to two photons, for example. Now if the mass plitting is larger, this is not, uh, you, you are going to be, uh, you, you are, this is not going to be, uh, so good. So this has been studied by 36 later in 2009. Okay. Um, and there are two things that interest into the game. First, uh, the bond state energy, I mean, no, sorry. First, the, the, the typical kinetic energy you have, uh, at hands compared to, uh, uh, the typical, the mass differences you have. I mean, the typical split things. So this is the first thing you have to compare. But the next things that enter into the game is to compare, um, to take into account the bond state, uh, the bond state, uh, energy. And yeah. So at the end of the day, I mean, when you have, I mean, if you look at this paper of places later to, uh, stop, if you can, you can stop sharing your screen. Okay. I have no idea how to do that either. Okay. So, okay. So yes. So you can reduce, I'm sorry. I'm a bit, uh, lost between sharing my screen and so on. So yes, you can, you can potentially evade. I mean, you can have a less a large important sum of an enhancement when you have a large mass splitting between the dark matter and the partner that enters into the exchange of, uh, of multiple, uh, um, uh, gauge boson exchanges. And this has been studied by Tracy Slater in 2009 in, and another paper that I mentioned in my previous, uh, in the, in the last slide before the conclusion. And the point is, uh, that we didn't do this analysis because we have worked in the issue to symmetric limit. Okay. So we just assume that the mass splitting between the partners is, uh, is zero. Okay. But I mean, definitely when you look at, uh, indirect detection sources should take into account this mass splitting. And we didn't do it explicitly, but we expect this for some value of the mass splitting, uh, compared to the bond state energy that should, it should, it should make an effect and allow to evade potentially. So we didn't compute it explicitly, but it could help in evading, uh, indirect detection searches. I'm sorry. Okay. Can you hear me now? Yes. No, I hear you. Okay. I think it was an issue with the, with your screen. Okay. Now, uh, I have more questions. I'm really, really sorry. I mean, this is completely a mess. Don't, don't, no, no, it's, no, it's a relax. So, uh, does anybody have more questions? Oh, yeah. Hello. I have a question. Yes. Did you consider different signs for the Majorana mass and actually the Xenomas or the other mass parameters? I mean, I'm asking because I know in the neutrino case, the, the, actually the sign of the masses on the Bino and Xeno, or even a complex value for the Bino mass parameter can have a strong effect on the coupling to the Higgs. So I don't know. No, we didn't take this into account. So we have considered, um, positive mass contribution, but we have, uh, and this is a, this is something important when you want to extract the, the, the sum of field correction. And when you want to, uh, to compute this, um, this, I mean, because we have been computing the addition cross-section for a given isospin pair. Okay. If you want to go from the, and the way we did it is to compute, um, uh, okay. We had to go from the, the annihilation of a pair of particle of a given charge to a pair of particle of a given isospin. Okay. In order to go from one to another, we have been using clubs Gordon. And if you want to do that properly, you have to take into account the fact that, I mean, you have some mass, I mean, sign that enters between, uh, that enters when you look at the mass term of the neutral component and the charge component. There are different signs there, which are very important, but I don't think this is your question. So your question is, have we considered complex masses and so on? And this definitely we have not been taken into account. So you think it would help to do something interesting? No, no. Also, also the science I was asking, but no, the science, we have been taking them into account. Okay. Thank you. The relative signs of the masses of the charge particles and the neutral particles. Yes. But we have not been playing with, uh, with, uh, with, uh, with complex masses and so on. Very good. Um, is there any other question? Yes. I have a second one, another one. Okay. Go for it. So, uh, Laura, when you introduce this Higgs portal, so you also have to introduce a Z2 symmetry by hand, right? Yes. I hear you know, I'm really sorry. I mean, this beginning of questions was Terry, but I'm really, really exclude, I say it's extremely sorry. But when you put this Z2 symmetry by hand, you're not like destroying one of the nice feature of this minimal dark matter. Yes. Okay. So this, I agree. I mean, but this is only good. I mean, it's the, I fully agree. I mean, we are not making something as beautiful as the quintuplet case, but I'm sorry, but the quintuplets sincerely struggle with the, with the indirect detection searches, right? So, okay. So, so I, so, okay. I agree. We are destroying the nice feature of the minimal dark matter scenario in the sense of the quintuplet dark matter scenario. I agree. But at the end of the day, this guy, somehow, I mean, as far as I understand from the studies of, I mean, this paper of Cuoco and this latest constraint from Hess is in serious trouble. So, okay. Definitely. We know that. Do you actually, I mean, in this sense, do you actually consider constraints from a land-out pause in your work? I mean, for choosing your representations, did you take that into account? Yes. So, I mean, this is, this was, I mean, I cannot show this again, because I don't want to go to share a screen. But I mean, yes, in the table, I showed at the beginning. So, the, the, the, the effect on the land-out pause has been considered by the, by, by, by, by Pantelis in particular. And in the case of the, the five-plates four-plates, we were getting to a land-out pause into the 10GV, not much, blank mass, but I mean, so we stopped there five-plates four-plates. I see. I have another question and I'm, I'm a bit curious. You said that before some of the corrections, the triplet and the quadruplet have the same mass. Yes. Yes, they have similar mass. Is this a surprising coincidence? Ah, I mean, this is a surprising coincidence. So the difference between the two is that one is, one is a complex field. I mean, wait, no, not a complex. Okay. It's, it's not equal to the, it's not self-conjugate. Okay. So you have an extra factor of two. So if you have, if you didn't have, the fact that one is, I mean, Majorana and the other is Dirac, you would have a mass difference between the two. But given that one of them is not equal to its, it's not, it's, it's not self-conjugate. Okay. You have an extra factor of two that you have to take into account of the indignation for section that really plays a role at the moment you compute the Relic Abundance. Okay. I see. Okay. So at the end of the day, it's not surprising. I mean, yeah, at the end of the day, it's myrology, I think, but just, I mean, they end up with the same mass just because one is self-conjugate and the other is not. Okay. Does anybody have more questions? Because I have a long list here. Okay. So just out of curiosity, at the very end of your, of your talk, it's like 13 or something like this, you showed Xenon limits till 14 or 13 TV. So I guess what you're doing is you're just extrapolating the, their limits from, I don't know, I have seen their limits till one TV or so. It's, it's correct with that. Are you allowed to do it? I mean, did I really extrapolate? I don't remember. I mean, the latest paper of Xenon one tonne when they, they, they show their first limits, they don't show it up to there. I'm not sure anymore. I think they show it till one or two TVs. Well, maybe in the last paper, they show it till super high masses. But I think you can constrain high masses for sure. It's just, if I have, I have continued the, the, the, the constraints, I mean, the limiting constraint, I just extrapolated the, the dependence to higher masses because I mean, I just expect the same, the same, the same dependence due to the number density that, that, that, that is, that is changing it the same way. So it's possible that one of the line I've extrapolated, but I wonder if the latest Xenon one tonne constraints or the, which was the continuous magenta line I had, I wonder if this is not exactly what I, I don't remember. I'm really sorry. I don't remember if it's possible. Either I just extrapolated or I just assuming the same dependence just because of the number density that decreases in the same way. Okay. Thanks. Okay. More questions. So Camilo, you have more questions? Yes. Well, actually it was along the same lines, like, I mean, along the same, this question of the detection, because you, you show a scan with, Yes. Perturbative level. Exactly. With the Perturbative level. And then you argue that somehow if you include this summerfell effect, you will shift these lines to the right, right in the detection plot. Yeah. Do you also mean that the scan itself, I mean, the points on the scatter plot will move and then therefore that will be, I mean, you will not constrain your points after summerfell enhancement anymore? Oh, yeah. So I'm not sure I understood the, it's okay. So what I, so, I mean, you can explain the plot again. Yeah. So that was maybe a tour. So in this plot, so I'm sorry, I'm not going to share my screen, but in the, so in the plot that was on slide seven, people can see my slide or not. The slide does not appear somewhere else. No, they, at the moment, they cannot see it. So I'm going to share my screen again. And then I will, I don't know how to make not, not screen, not, not share it anymore after one. So let's do the share. So you see something? Yeah. Okay. So, so this was the plot. Okay. So scattering cross-section as a function of the mass. And the, the plot, the scatter plot you see here is, I mean, only three level perturbative level using micro megas. Okay. Okay. What I'm sure of is that, I mean, you see that these two, so you have a bunch of points that are above the momentum limit. Okay. And so these points right now, they are obtained at perturbative, in the, in the perturbative computation. And if I take into account some of the correction, I have not only to take into account some of the correction in this range due to, to the exchange of gate boson, but also due to the exchange of the Higgs. Okay. And this makes the thing even more complicated. So I don't know for sure all these points are going to move. Okay. This is, this is absolutely clear. Now, if I go to lower values of the scattering cross-section, you see that I typically end up, so for lower values of the Yukawa, I typically end up with models that are still viable and that are in between the pure four plate case and the pure quintuplet case. Okay. And that are populated in between thanks to the presence of non-Yukawa coupling. So I cannot exclude the fact. Okay. So, I mean, what I expect is that definitely, ah, okay. So I mean, even my, my own computer is going bad. I'm getting there. I'm sorry. My computer extremely slow. I hope you're still hearing me. Can you, can you maximize the window so that I just trying to, I mean, even on my own computer, I cannot get to the right side. It's super slow. Laura, can it be because you have to hang out windows open? Ah, I don't know. Because you have the principle one. You have another one. You are right. I have to hang out to open. So let's try. Okay. So, I mean, here is the, you still see my screen? Yes. Okay. So, so, okay. So this is what, what I wanted to say. So I have this, I mean, this is the, the, the ballpark where I expect to see the viable points right now. Okay. I thought about the level between the four plates and the pure four plates and the pure five plate case. Okay. So somehow I expect that I expect to have also these points to be somehow shifted. I don't know where exactly, but at least in this ballpark, I expect to the viable dark matter scenarios in the case of a Higgs couple, minimal dark matter scenario taking into account the sum of failed corrections with the, I mean, the gauge coupling plus the Higgs coupling to end up here and to be potentially tested by Zenone. So I don't know if this is clear now. Yeah. It is clear. Yeah. Of course, looking at the screen, it's much clear. Yeah. Well, it's already one hour and it was a very interesting talk. So I would like to thank you again and I will also like to remind the people in the audience that they can subscribe to the YouTube channel and to follow us in Facebook and Twitter. And thank you very much again. And let's talk again in the next opportunity. Thank you.