KIAS-P20065IFT-UAM/CSIC-20-160

Disformal Dark Matter

Philippe Braxa,∗ Kunio Kanetab,† Yann Mambrinic,‡ Mathias Pierred,e§aInstitut de Physique théorique , Université Paris-Saclay,

CEA, CNRS, F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex, FrancebSchool of Physics, Korea Institute for Advanced Study, Seoul 02455, Korea

cUniversité Paris-Saclay, CNRS/IN2P3, IJCLab, 91405 Orsay, FrancedInstituto de Física Teórica (IFT) UAM-CSIC, Campus de Cantoblanco, 28049 Madrid, Spain

e Departamento de Física Teórica, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (UAM), Campus de Cantoblanco, 28049 Madrid, Spain

(Dated: November 25, 2020)

We generalize dark matter production to a two-metric framework whereby the physical metric,which couples to the Standard Model (SM), is conformally and/or disformally related to the metricgoverning the gravitational dynamics. We show that this setup is naturally present in many UltraViolet (UV) constructions, from Kähler moduli fields to tensor-portal models, and from emergentgravity to supergravity models. In this setting we study dark matter production in the early Universeresulting from both scatterings off the thermal bath and the radiative decay of the inflaton. Wealso take into account non-instantaneous reheating effects at the end of inflation. In this context,dark matter emerges from the production of the scalar field mediating the conformal/disformalinteractions with the SM, i.e. realising a Feebly Interacting Matter Particle (FIMP) scenario wherethe suppression scale of the interaction between the scalar and the SM can be taken almost as highas the Planck scale in the deep UV.

I. INTRODUCTION

The presence of two geometries, governing the grav-itational dynamics and the behaviour of matter fieldsrespectively, is frequent within the landscape of high-energy physics models. For instance, orbifolds in stringtheories [1] or Kähler metrics in supergravity models [2]are two popular cases where the geometry governing thedynamics of matter are not the same that the one gov-erning the gravitational structure of space-time. This isin fact quite an old idea and was already proposed inNordstrom gravitational theories [3], Brans-Dicke’s [4] orDirac’s [5]. More recently models of emergent gravity [6]modify the metric assuming that gravity springs fromvector interactions generated in massive hidden sectors.As a consequence, the dynamical metric in Minkowskispace-time can be reduced to [7]

gµν ≡ ηµν +TµνΛ4

, (1)

where Tµν is a linear combination of energy–momentumtensors of hidden sector particles and Λ the scale be-yond which the theory breaks down1 [the Beyond theStandard Model (BSM) scale]. Phenomenological conse-quences of emergent gravity in dark matter phenomenol-ogy and for the early Universe evolution have been stud-ied in [8]. Other possibilities are common in the super-gravity framework and involve the presence of moduli

1 Typically the mass scale of the hidden sector.

fields, inducing new couplings to the Standard Model ofthe type [9]

LSMT ⊃ ZH |DµH|2 (2)

in the Higgs sector with ZH = 1 + 1Λ t, t being the real

part of moduli fields. This setup can also be consideredas a modification of the physical geometry, dependent onthe moduli fields, especially their stabilized values at theminimum of the Kähler potential. Finally one finds sim-ilar examples in high-scale SUSY models [10]. Indeed,the minimal coupling of a gravitino2 to the StandardModel, whose longitudinal mode is the Goldstino denotedby Ψ3/2, is built by first defining a vierbein [11]

eαµ = δαµ−i

2F 2

(∂µΨ3/2γ

αΨ3/2 + Ψ3/2γα∂µΨ3/2

), (3)

√F being related to the SUSY breaking scale3. This en-

ters clearly in the category of models where the Stan-dard Model fields interact with the gravitino (Gold-stino) through its presence in the physical4metric gµν =eµae

νbηab.

2 The spin- 32superpartner of the graviton.

3 In this case, we can identify Λ to√F =

√m3/2MP , m3/2 being

the gravitino mass.4 The physical metric is also called the Jordan metric and is theone coupled to the SM fields. The Einstein metric is the one gov-erning the dynamics of space-time and enters in the normalisedEinstein-Hilbert term of General Relativity.

arX

iv:2

011.

1164

7v1

[he

p-ph

] 2

3 N

ov 2

020

2

As we have just seen, several constructions include twogeometries, and the relation between the gravitationalmetric and the physical one implies modifications of thedynamics and the phenomenology of SM fields by the in-troduction of new couplings, new interactions and newfields. Some time ago, it was proposed [12] to generalizethis in a unique description where all types of dynamicalmetrics can respect some basic principles. The gener-alization consists in considering two metrics which arenot just conformally related. This more natural relation-ship involves Finslerian geometry rather than Rieman-nian geometry. Finslerian geometry is the most generalgeometry where the squared relativistic interval ds2 is ho-mogeneous of second degree in the element dx, in otherwords,

ds2(x, µdx) = µ2 ds2(x, dx) . (4)

By introducing a scalar field φ, one can define a genericfunction F (φ,X, Y ) according to

ds2 = gµν dxµ dxν = gµν dxµ dxνF (φ,X, Y ) , (5)

where

X = gαβ∂αφ∂βφ and Y =∂αφ dxα∂βφ dxβ

gαβ dxα dxβ. (6)

It can be shown that the Finslerian condition Eq. (4) canbe satisfied by

F = C(φ,X) +D(φ,X)Y , (7)

with C > 0 and D > 0 to preserve the signa-ture (+,−,−,−) and respect causality [13]. Combin-ing Eq. (5) with (7) we obtain for the physical metricgµν

gµν = C(φ,X)gµν +D(φ,X)∂µφ∂νφ . (8)

The expression (8) contains not only the classical con-formal transformation induced by C between the twometrics, but also the possibility for a disformal transfor-mation through the coefficient D, disformal in the sensethat the space-time structure is stretched differently ineach direction proportionally to ∂iφ in the ith-direction.As expected, if φ is a constant, i.e a homogeneous andisotropic field, both metrics are related by a simple con-formal transformation. If not (D 6= 0), φ is interactingwith the matter fields through their kinetic terms. No-tice that the metric gµν can also be inferred by requiringgeneral covariance and the absence of derivatives of orderlarger than two. The latter requirement follows from thegeneric appearance of ghosts in theories with higher or-der derivatives. Disformally related metrics have beenwidely used in the cosmological, gravitational and re-cently particle physics contexts [14–19]. For instance,the authors of [20] have recently given to φ the role of

the quintessence field of dark energy and analysed theparameter space defined by (C, D) which is cosmologi-cally allowed. Similarly in the gravitational context, theauthors of [21] have constructed disformal versions of theKerr space-time. We will use disformally related met-rics to induce dark matter production. In this setting,we will unravel how the phenomenology of the early Uni-verse and the appearance of dark matter could be mod-ified by the introduction of disformal coefficients. Wewill also restrict the corresponding parameter space fromlate- time observables. In particular, we will show that aFIMP scenario for dark matter production can be natu-rally realised with a disformally coupled scalar field φ tothe standard model.

Recently, [22] proposed that φ could play the roleof a portal between a WIMP dark sector and the visiblesector. However, the WIMP paradigm is nowadays underhigh scrutiny due to the lack of observed signal, especiallyin direct detection experiments. In [22] the direct detec-tion constraints were not taken into account, but coulddrastically reduce the allowed parameter space, especiallyfor dark matter masses below 100 GeV. Indeed, the morerecent measurements exclude proton-WIMP cross sectionσ & 10−46cm2 for a 100 GeV dark matter mass [23–25],which is more than six orders of magnitude below thecross section for the vanilla models of weakly interact-ing particles [26, 27]. The simplest cosmologically viableextensions of the Standard Model reproducing the relicabundance observed by Planck experiment [28] requireto invoke a new physics scale ' 5 TeV [29] which will beprobed in the next generation of experiments [30]. If nosignal is seen, this BSM scale will be pushed even furtherwell above 50 TeV.

However, relaxing the requirement of thermal equilib-rium between the dark sector and the primordial plasmaopens a completely new field of research [33, 34]. A Fee-bly Interacting Massive Particle (or Freeze-In MassiveParticle, FIMP) couples too weakly with the StandardModel bath to reach thermal equilibrium in the earlyUniverse. Such seclusion appears naturally in modelswhere the mediator is very heavy, e.g. Z ′ of unified the-ories [35, 36], massive spin-2 particles [37], moduli [9],inflaton–like portals [38] or in the Kaluza-Klein theoryframework [39]. Another possibility is to consider theo-ries where the couplings are reduced by a mass param-eter of the order of the Planck mass scale MP , as insupergravity5 [2] or a combination of the supersymme-try breaking scale and the Planck mass in High ScaleSUSY scenarios [10]. In all these cases, the temperaturedependence of the production rate renders the physicsin the earliest stages of the Universe more complex than

5 We will use throughout our work MP = (8πGN )−1 ≈ 2.4× 1018

GeV for the reduced Planck mass.

3

the vanilla reheating scenarios described in [41]. Non-instantaneous thermalization [42] or non-instantaneousreheating [43, 44] modify drastically the distributionfunction and/or the production rate of particles in theStandard Model plasma, making the dark matter den-sity calculation more complex. Considering quantum ef-fects to the inflaton decay [45] or the possibility of non-standard inflaton potentials [46, 47], show that the studyof physics at the end of the coherent oscillation stage atthe end of inflation should be treated with care.

In, this work, we propose to consider scenarios wherethe dark matter is composed of the field φ which definesthe physical metric. Indeed, a quick look at Eq. (8) showsthat the disformal term is decreasing in magnitude withthe BSM scale Λ, above which the dynamical version ofthe metric breaks down anyway. This scale suppressionshould seclude φ sufficiently from the Standard Modelplasma to suppress the production of φ and making ita perfect FIMP candidate. Moreover, the form of themetric, dictated by the consistency conditions (conserva-tion of the signature and causality) implies a discrete Z2

symmetry which ensures the stability of φ.

This paper is organized as follows. After a descriptionof our models and the expression of the couplings gener-ated by a disformal metric in section II, we compute thedark matter abundance in section III and its phenomeno-logical consequences before concluding. Throughout thiswork, we use a natural system of units in which kB =~ = c = 1. All quantities with dimension of energy areexpressed in GeV when units are not specified.

II. THE SETUP

The Lagrangian

Supposing that the action is divided into a part drivenby the geometrical (gravitational) metric g, whereas mat-ter follows the geodesics of a physical (dynamical) metricg, we can write

S = Sgφ+Sgm =

∫d4x√−gLφ(g, φ)+

∫d4x√−gLm(g, h) ,

(9)with

Lφ =1

2gµν∂

µφ∂νφ− 1

2m2φφ

2, (10)

the matter Lagrangian Lm(g, h) being the SM La-grangian expressed in term of the metric g. For instance,considering one real scalar SM degree of freedom (de-noted by h) for simplicity, gives

Lm =1

2gµν∂

µh∂νh− V (h) . (11)

In the literature, the scalar φ is often directly or indirectlyrelated to dark energy, or represents the quintessences

field, and a shift symmetry φ→ φ+ c is then imposed toavoid dangerous mass terms. In our case, as we want tobe as generic as possible, we do not impose this symme-try. Concerning the matter fields, we restrict ourselves toa singlet-like scalar h field, representing the Higgs boson,to simplify the equations and explanations. Of course,the complete particle content of the Standard Model isconsidered for our numerical results. For the same rea-son, the partial derivatives in Eq. (11) should be un-derstood as covariant derivatives. However, as discussedfurther on, the covariant part of the derivatives do notcontribute significantly to the DM production and there-fore are omitted for the sake of simplicity. By expandingthe physical metric gµν in terms of the geometrical met-ric gµν and a small deviation δgµν gµν , justified bythe fact that we consider processes occurring at energiesmuch below the BSM scale Λ, the matter action Sgm canbe expressed in the Einstein frame as

Sgm = Sgm−1

2

∫d4x√−g δgµν Tµνm ≡ Sgm+

∫d4x√−gLint.

(12)at lowest order in δgµν/gµν 1. With Tmµν the energy-momentum tensor of matter fields, from Eq. (8) wehave

δgµν =(C(φ,X)− 1

)gµν +D(φ,X)∂µφ∂νφ , (13)

giving

Lint =1

2

(1− C(φ,X)

)(Tm)µµ −

1

2D(φ,X)∂µφ∂νφT

µνm ,

(14)where Tmµν can be expressed as

Tmµν =∑

i=0,1/2,1

T iµν , (15)

where the sum is performed over all SM particles of spini, whose corresponding energy-momentum tensors aregiven by

T 0µν = ∂µh ∂νh− gµν

[1

2∂αh ∂αh− V (h)

],

T 1/2µν =

i

4

[fγµ∂νf − ∂µfγνf + (µ↔ ν)

]− igµν f /∂f ,

T 1µν =

1

2

[Fαµ Fνα + Fαν Fµα −

1

2gµνF

αβFαβ

], (16)

for scalar (h), fermionic (f) and vectorial (Aµ) mat-ter fields respectively. Fµν = ∂µAν − ∂νAµ is the fieldstrength of the spin-1 field whereas V (h) represents thescalar potential. Masses of various SM states are dis-carded as the typical temperatures involved in early Uni-verse processes are much above the electroweak scale.Terms of the form gµνV (h) can be discarded in the scalarenergy-momentum tensor. Indeed, as discussed below,such terms correspond to processes involving a higher

4

number of SM particles and/or suppressed by additionalSM couplings, compared to processes relevant for the DMproduction. Moreover, the term igµν f /∂f in the fermionicenergy-momentum tensor vanishes for on-shell states. Inaddition, the trace of the energy-momentum tensor (T i)µµvanishes for i = 1/2 and i = 1 but not for i = 0. Thisis due to the fact that the energy-momentum tensor formassless states acquires a conformal symmetry in fourdimensions for fermions and vectors but only in 2 dimen-sions for scalars. As an example, the interaction termbetween our DM candidate φ and one SM real scalar de-gree of freedom h is given by

Lint =− 1

2D(φ,X)

(∂µφ∂νφ∂

µh∂νh− 1

2∂µφ∂

µφ∂νh∂νh),

+1

2

(C(φ,X)− 1

)(∂µh∂

µh). (17)

Notice that we have not yet made explicit the functionsC(φ,X) and D(φ,X). The only assumption made wasthat these functions yield a small δgµν/gµν 1. The lit-erature is replete with clever propositions, ranging frominvoking shift symmetries as in [22] with a quintessencepoint of view where C and D depend only on X [32],to supposing constant X = ∂µφ∂µφ in studies of KerrBlack Holes [21]. Other popular examples are Horndeskitheories which transform into themselves under specialdisformal transformations of the metric when C and Ddepends only on φ and not on X [40]. In this context, theresulting theories form almost the most general class ofghost-free scalar-tensor field theories. C and D can alsobe considered as dependent on φ only with expression ofthe type given by

C(φ) = ec φMP , D(φ) =

d

Λ4ec φMP . (18)

In our case, we propose to expand C and D around |φ|2(to ensure their positivity) which means

C(φ) ' 1 + c2|φ|2M2P

+ cX|∂µφ∂µφ|M4P

, (19)

D(φ) ' d

Λ4+

d

Λ4c2|φ|2M2P

. (20)

Considering processes at energies much below MP , it isreasonable to stop the expansion to the first term asa first approximation. Following (1), notice that suchterms emerge from the coupling to a scalar of mass mwith

Tµν = ∂µφ∂νφ− gµν(

1

2∂αφ∂αφ−

m2

2φ2

), (21)

where we identify Λ = MP , d = 1, c = 0, cX = −1/2 andc = m√

2Mp. In the following we will leave these parameters

free in a phenomenological way.

III. DARK MATTER PHENOMENOLOGY

Disformal production process

Now that the Lagrangian is defined, one can inves-tigate the DM production processes through scatteringoff Standard Model particles. As we commented in theprevious section, we will focus our analysis on the caseof a Standard Model bath composed of a real scalars h,whereas the numerical calculations will be done with thecomplete set of SM particles. The corresponding Feyn-man diagram is shown in Fig. 1 The production rate as-

<latexit sha1_base64="sU809ggrSUYbgjrwuu8eSzXnfW8=">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</latexit>

h

h

d/4p1

p2

p3

p4

FIG. 1: Example of scattering processes leading to theincrease of population for the dark matter candidate φ. p1,2

and p3,4 denote the momenta of the incoming and outgoingparticles respectively.

sociated to this process 1 + 2→ 3 + 4 where 1, 2 denoteparticles of the SM and 3, 4 the φ states as represented inFig. 1 at a temperature T can be written (see appendixfor details and notations, as well as [10])

R(T ) =1

1024π6

∫f1f2E1 dE1E2 dE2 d cos θ12

∫|M|2 dΩ13.

where Ei denote the energy of particle i = 1, 2, 3, 4and

fi =1

eEi/T ± 1(22)

represents the (thermal) distribution of the incoming par-ticles6. Using the Lagrangian of Eq. (17), the scatteringamplitudeM can be written

M =d

2Λ4t(s+ t) , (23)

where s and t are the Mandelstam variables. We thenobtain for the production rate from the scalar scatter-ers

R0 =8d2π7

297675

T 12

Λ8, (24)

Including the complete spectrum of the thermalized Stan-dard Model species, i.e. production rates from fermionsR1/2 and vectors R1, one obtains the total rate as

R(T ) = 4R0 + 45R1/2 + 12R1 ≡ βdT 12

Λ8, (25)

6 We consider instant thermalization in this work. For more detailsregarding the non-instantaneous thermalization framework, weredirect the reader to Ref. [42].

5

with βd ' 4 d2. The exact expression for the rate is givenin Eq. (67) and more details regarding the derivation canbe found in the Appendices.

Once we know the production rate R(T ), the relicabundance computation is relatively straightforward.One needs to solve the integrated Boltzmann equa-tion

dnφdt

+ 3Hnφ = R(t) , (26)

where R(t) denotes the production rate of dark matter(per unit volume per unit time), or in term of tempera-ture supposing an instantaneous thermalization,

dYφdT

= − R(T )

H(T ) T 4, (27)

with Yφ ≡ nφ/T3, H(T ) =

√gTπ2

90T 2

MP, gT being the

effective number of relativistic degrees of freedom atthe temperature T . Solving the Boltzmann equationwhen

R(T ) = βT 12

Λ8, (28)

with β a given constant gives for T TRH

Y scatφ (T ) ≡ Y scat

φ =

√90

gTπ2

βMP

7Λ8T 7

RH , (29)

where Y scatφ is constant for T TRH. We assumed a

vanishing dark matter density prior to reheating. Wehave defined the reheating temperature by the conditionρΦ(TRH) = ρR(TRH), (Φ being the inflaton field) in otherwords, when radiation and inflaton densities equilibrate.Notice that different definitions of the reheating temper-ature can lead to slightly different results, but differingnever more than by factors of the order of unity as isshown for instance in [46].

The dark matter number density reaches its maximumalmost immediately after the reheating process for a tem-perature of ( 3

10 )1/7TRH and decreases at lower tempera-ture with a constant nφ/T 3 ≡ Y scat. The present relicabundance, at T = T0, is given by

Ωscatφ h2 =

nscatφ (T0)mφ

ρ0c/h

2' 1.6×108Y scat

φ

(g0

gRH

)( mφ

1 GeV

),

(30)where ρ0

c/h2 = 1.05×10−5 GeV cm−3 is the present crit-

ical density and gi is the effective number of degrees offreedom at temperature7 Ti. From Eq. (29) we can com-pute the relic abundance of the φ field produced by scat-tering processes

Ωscatφ h2 ' 2.7× 108 β

(T 7

RHMP

g3/2RHΛ8

)( mφ

1 GeV

), (31)

7 With g0 = 3.91, gRH = 106.75 for reheating temperatures largerthan the top-quark mass TRH > mt in the Standard Model.

which gives, in the case of the disformal coupling, replac-ing the value of β by βd as computed in Eq. (25)

Ωscatφ,d h

2

0.1=

(d2

0.4

)(TRH

1011

)7(1014

Λ

)8 ( mφ

1010

). (32)

All quantities with dimension of energy are expressed inGeV when units are not specified. We notice that, aswe could have expected, the large suppression factor d2

Λ8

implies to focus on heavy dark matter candidates dueto its very feeble production in the early stage of thereheating process. We can also extract an upper boundon Λ from the condition mφ . TRH for the production tobe kinematically allowed. We then obtain

Λ . 103 d14 TRH , (33)

d being by definition of the order of unity8. This condi-tion reflects the difficulty of producing φ in the earlieststage of the Universe. Planck mass couplings for instancewould not be sufficient to produce dark matter with theright abundance, the majority of the reheating modelspredicting TRH . 1012 GeV [46].

Production from inflaton decay

<latexit sha1_base64="4hbkVaChwPGhI4BRCLMTauBLLV4=">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</latexit>

SM

SM

FIG. 2: Production of dark matter through inflaton decay,induced by a loop of SM particles.

It was shown in [45] that if dark matter is produced byscattering one cannot avoid the concomitant direct pro-duction of dark matter through the loop-induced inflatondecay, as depicted in Fig. 2. The minimal way to couplethe Standard Model sector to the inflaton field Φ andto realize the reheating process is via the Higgs SU(2)Ldoublet H:

LΦ = µΦΦ|H|2 =µΦ

2Φ

4∑i=1

h2i , (34)

where hi, with i = 1, 2, 3, 4, denote the four real scalardegrees of freedom of the Higgs doublet above the elec-troweak symmetry breaking scale. The decay width

8 Much smaller (or larger) values of d can always be absorbed inthe definition of the BSM scale Λ.

6

of the inflaton into these fundamental scalars is givenby

ΓΦHH = 4ΓΦ

hihi =µ2

Φ

8πmΦ, (35)

The loop-induced decay width of the inflaton to a DMpair, whose corresponding diagram is depicted in Fig. 2,can be expressed as

ΓΦ,dφφ =

d2| 518 − iπ6 |2

8π(16π2)2

µ2Φm

7Φ

Λ8, (36)

which gives for the number density of φ

ndecφ (TRH) = BR

ρΦ(TRH)

mΦ= BR

(gRHπ

2

30

)T 4

RHmΦ

,

where we used ρΦ(TRH) = ρR(TRH) and the branchingratio is given by

BR =NφΓΦ,d

φφ

ΓΦHH

' d2(25 + 9π2)

41472π4

m8Φ

Λ8, (37)

where Nφ is the number of φ particles produced per de-cay, which is Nφ = 2 in the present case. The DM relicabundance produced from inflaton decays is thus givenby (30)

Ωdecφ h2

0.1' 6×

(BR

10−8

)(TRH

1011

)(3× 1013

mΦ

)(mφ

100

),

(38)which, for the disformal coupling, can be written

Ωdecφ,dh

2

0.1' d2

(TRH

1011

)(mΦ

3× 1013

)7(1014

Λ

)8 (mφ

100

).

(39)

It is remarkable that whilst at tree level, one needs tofine tune tiny dark matter couplings to the inflaton sec-tor to ensure a branching ratio BR . 10−9 to avoid over-production of dark matter, when one considers radiativeproduction, for a BSM scale Λ of the order of 1014 GeV,the disformal coupling d can easily reach unity withoutoverclosing the Universe.

Moreover, comparing Eqs. (32) and (39), we see thatthe production has the same order of suppression in Λ,although for a reheating temperature below . 1012 GeV,it is clear that the radiative decay dominates over thescattering processes. To be more precise, we can askourselves for which value of TRH the scattering rate willbegin to produce more dark matter than the radiativedecay. We obtain

TRH & T eqRH = 2× 1012 GeV. (40)

It is remarkable that this temperature does not dependeither on mφ or Λ.

Conformal production

It is relevant to compare the disformal production tothe one generated by the conformal coupling of Eq. (19).It is easy to understand that the part proportional toX = ∂µφ∂µφ will not be very different from the disfor-mal part we just discussed. We computed the produc-tion rate in appendix, Eq. (69), and obtained a value ofR(T ) = βcXT

12/M8P , with βcX ' 10 c2X , i.e. with a nu-

merical prefactor of the same order of magnitude as forβd ' 4 d2. Considering the coupling cX should then givesimilar phenomenological results as for the coupling d,when cX ∼ d(MP /Λ)4. However, the presence of a con-stant c term in Eq. (19) can affect drastically the darkmatter production. The rate will then be given by

Rc(T ) = βcT 8

M4P

, (41)

where βc ' 1.1 × 10−2c4. The exact expression is givenin Eq. (70). This is computed the in the same manneras βd, i.e taking into account all the Standard Modelspectrum in the initial state. From the production rateRc we can deduce the relic abundance after integrationon T :

Ωscatφ,c h

2

0.1' 1.6× 108 g0

g3/2RH

√10βcπ

T 3RH

M3P

,

' 4.3( c

100

)4(TRH

1011

)3 ( mφ

1010

), (42)

for the scattering processes, and

Ωdecφ,ch

2

0.1' 0.7

( c

100

)4(

mΦ

3× 1013

)3 (mφ

107

), (43)

for the decaying process, where we used

ΓΦ,cφφ =

(4 + π2)c4

512π5

µ2Φm

3Φ

M4P

. (44)

More details regarding the calculations can be found inthe appendix. We see then that for lower reheating tem-perature, TRH . 1011 GeV, the conformal couplings dom-inate the dark matter production from scattering over thedisformal source. That is understandable because the de-pendence on the production rate is lower for conformalcoupling than disformal coupling. The same can be saidconcerning the decay channel Φ → φφ which dominatesfor the disformal coupling. The possibility of having bothconformal and disformal coupling at the same time willbe discussed below.

7

FIG. 3: Parameter space allowed in the (mφ, TRH) plane,for different values of Λ for d = 1 and c = 0.

IV. ANALYSIS

Instantaneous reheating case

We show in Fig. 3 the parameter space yielding the cor-rect relic abundance for d = 1 and c = 0 in particular thedashed blue curve corresponding to observed dark matterabundance. We recognize clearly the two regimes (scat-tering and decay) from their different dependence on thereheating temperature, especially the change of regimefor TRH = T eq

RH ' 2 × 1012 GeV, as expected by our ap-proximation (40). While the scattering process gives amild dependence mφ ∝ T

1/7RH for TRH & T eq

RH, the decayprocesses implies a harder dependence, mφ ∝ T−1

RH. No-tice also that for BSM scales above GUT scale, Λ & 1016

GeV, it becomes almost impossible to generate the cor-rect amount of dark matter, neither from scattering norfrom the inflaton decay, both processes being too slow tocompete with the expansion rate driven by H(T ).

We also show in Fig. 4 the allowed region in the plane(mφ, d) assuming disformal couplings only (c = cX = 0)for different values of Λ and TRH = 1011 GeV. We observethat fairly natural values of d, of the order of loop fac-tors 1/(4π)2, make it possible to obtain dark matter insufficient quantity while avoiding overabundance. Still,larger values of Λ imposes relatively heavy dark matter,above the TeV-PeV scale to respect the cosmological ob-servations.

FIG. 4: Parameter space allowed in the (mφ, d) plane, fordifferent values of Λ for TRH = 1011GeV and c = 0.

Non-instantaneous reheating effects

Until now, we have considered a thermal Universewhere reheating took place instantaneously, i.e. theenergy available in the last oscillations of the inflatonwas instantaneously transferred to the radiative bath att ' (ΓΦ)−1, where ΓΦ is the decay width of the inflaton.However, we know that non-instantaneous perturbativephenonomena can have serious consequences on the ther-mal evolution of the Universe [43], and even more on theproduction of dark matter in its first instants if the modesof production show a large dependence on the energy ofthe processes involves [46], is the case for the disformal(conformal) scenario with a rate R(T ) ∝ T 12 (T 8) re-spectively.

More generally, the dark matter production duringthe reheating may not be negligible, especially whenR(T ) ∝ Tn+6 with n ≥ 6, due to the effects of non-instantaneous reheating [43], non-instantaneous thermal-ization in [42], and non-quadratic inflaton potentials dur-ing the reheating stage [46]. In our case the contributionsfrom the conformal and disformal coupling terms propor-tional to cX and d, respectively, correspond to n = 6,whereas the reaction rate of the conformal coupling termproportional to c corresponds to n = 2. The interferenceterm corresponds to n = 4. In this section we discussthe non-instantaneous reheating effect, while assuminginstantaneous thermalization and no preheating contri-butions.

As a specific example, we consider the Starobinskymodel for inflation [57] where the inflaton oscillation isdescribed by V (Φ) = 1

2m2ΦΦ2 after the end of inflation.

8

Then, we may use the result for the enhancement of theDM production discussed in Ref. [8]. Solving the com-plete set of combined equations for the inflaton densityρφ, the radiation density ρR and the dark matter has beencarried out and analyzed in [43] for any kind of dark mat-ter production cross section and more recently in [46] forany type of inflationary potential. To summarize theseworks, we just need to understand that the reheatingprocess being non-instantaneous, the temperature of theprimordial plasma evolves from a null temperature to amaximum value Tmax before decreasing until the radia-tion density ρR catches the inflaton density ρφ, definingthe thermal era, happening at the reheating temperatureTRH. The evolution between Tmax and TRH is rathercomplex, but the main point is that the production ofdark matter for cross-sections with a large temperaturedependence, of the order Tn+6 with n ≥ 6, is largely af-fected by the maximal temperature as most of the darkmatter is produced at this instant. In comparison withan instantaneous treatment, there is a boost factor whichis a function of Tmax/TRH. We summarize the results inthe following paragraph.

The maximal temperature Tmax and TRH are obtainedas

Tmax =

(45

32

31/10

24/5

y2mΦMP ρ1/2end

g∗(Tmax)π3

)1/4

(45)

' 1.6× 1013 GeV ×(

106.75

g∗(Tmax)

)1/4

×( µΦ

1010 GeV

)1/2(

ρend

0.175m2ΦM

2P

)1/8

,

TRH =

(9

40

y4m2ΦM

2P

gRHπ4

)1/4

(46)

' 1.9× 1011 GeV ×(

106.75

gRH

)1/4

×( µΦ

1010 GeV

)(3× 1013 GeV

mΦ

)1/2

where again TRH is defined by ρΦ(TRH) = ρR(TRH), andwe assume g∗(Tmax) = g∗(TRH) = gRH in the followinganalysis. We have used the inflaton decay width ΓΦ

HH ≡y2mΦ/8π with y ≡ µΦ/mΦ from Eq. (35), where m2

Φ '24π2AS∗M2

P /N2∗ with ln(1010AS∗) = 3.044 [28, 58] and

N∗ ' 55 + 0.33 ln y [8]. Then, for n = 6, we obtainthe boost factor Bscatt ≡ nnon−inst

φ (TRH)/nφ(TRH) givenby

Bscat = f56

3log

Tmax

TRH, (47)

where f ' 1.2 to match the numerical results. Noticethat for n = 2, which is the case of d = cX = 0 withc 6= 0, we do not have such an enhancement, since the

DM production is dominated at TRH.

Figure 5 shows the contours of Ωscatφ h2 + Ωdec

φ h2 = 0.1where only the disformal coupling contributes, namelyc = cX = 0 and d 6= 0, and we take d = 1, taking into ac-count the effect of non-instantaneous reheating just dis-cussed above. Notice that in the bottom-right corner ofthe figure, the dark matter mass is in excess of TRH, andthus the scattering contributions get further suppressed,which is however irrelevant for smaller Λ (. 1015 GeV),since the decay contribution dominates in that parameterspace, the domination occuring from Eqs.(40) and (46)for µΦ ' 3 × 10−3 mΦ. It would be interesting, in thisframework, to compare, the disformal to the conformalproduction of dark matter.

10−5 10−3 10−1 101 103 105 107 109 1011

mφ/GeV

10−5

10−4

10−3

10−2

10−1

100

µΦ/m

Φ

Disformal Only (d=1)

Λ = 10 14 GeV

Λ = 10 15 GeV

Λ = 10 16 GeV

Λ = 10 17 GeV

mφ

=T R

H

FIG. 5: Parameter space allowed in the (mφ, µΦ/mΦ)plane, for different values of Λ for d = 1 and c = cX = 0.

Combining conformal and disformal coupling

The conformal and disformal couplings may coex-ist. For instance, we can take both d and c beingnonzero, while cX = 0. Incorporating nonzero contri-bution from the c coupling, we obtain the scattering re-action rate

R(T ) = βcT 8

M4P

+ βcdT 10

Λ4M2P

+ βdT 12

Λ8(48)

where βc ' 1.1 × 10−2 c4 is given in Eq. (70) and βd '4 d2 is given in Eq. (67). The quantity βcd, arising frominterferences between conformal and disformal, couplingsis given by

βcd = −c2 d 24ζ(5)2

π5' −8.4× 10−2 c2 d . (49)

9

FIG. 6: Parameter space allowed by cosmological constraintin the plane (c, d) for different dark matter masses mφ and

TRH = 1011 GeV and Λ = 1014 GeV.

The radiative inflaton decay is also affected by the con-formal coupling contributions, and thus we obtain

ΓΦφφ =

d2µ2Φm

7Φ

512π5Λ8

[(5

36+

2c2Λ4

dm2ΦM

2P

)2

+π2

(1

12+

c2Λ4

dm2ΦM

2P

)2], (50)

giving a branching ratio to a DM pair of

BR =d2m8

Φ

32π4Λ8

[(5

36+

2c2Λ4

dm2ΦM

2P

)2

+π2

(1

12+

c2Λ4

dm2ΦM

2P

)2]. (51)

Combining the relic abundance produced by scatteringintegrating Eq. (26) 9 with the rate (48), combined withthe boost factor due to non-instantaneous thermaliza-tion (47) and adding the decay process (50) we ob-tain

Ωtotφ h2

0.1=

9.1× 10−10d2

(TRH

1011

)3[

5.9 ln

(Tmax

TRH

)(TRH

1011

)4(1014

Λ

)8

+

(c

100√d

)4

− 1.2× 10−4 c2

d

(TRH

1011

)2(1014

Λ

)4]( mφ

GeV

)+4.6× 10−3d2

(TRH

1011

)(1014

Λ

)8(mΦ

3× 1013

)7[(

1 +72

5

c2Λ4

dm2ΦM

2P

)2

+ π2

(3

5+

36

5

c2Λ4

dm2ΦM

2P

)2]( mφ

GeV

), (53)

where we used the following results (see, for instance, Ref. [46])

nscatφ (TRH)

T 3RH

'√

90

gRHπ2

[2

3βcT 3

RH

M3P

+4

3βcd

T 5RH

MPΛ4+

1

7Bscatβd

MPT7RH

Λ8

], and

ndecφ (TRH)

T 3RH

' gRHπ2

18BR

TRH

mΦ, (54)

which is the main result of our work. Eq. (53) gives thetotal amount of dark matter produced in a model with acombination of disformal (d) and conformal (c) couplings,taking into account production through scattering fromthe thermal bath and radiative decay of the inflaton, to-gether with instantaneous effects due its the finite width.We illustrate our results in Fig. 6 where we plot the re-gion of the parameter space allowed in the plane (c, d)

9 By taking the non-instantaneous reheating into account, one ob-tains

d

dT(nφT

−8) = −8

3

R(T )

HT 9(52)

with H(T ) = (2/5)ΓΦHH(T/TRH)4, instead of Eq. (27).

for different dark matter masses mφ, fixing TRH = 1011

GeV and Λ = 1014 GeV. We clearly distinguish the tworegimes, and for which values of c the conformal couplingsbegin to dominate over the disformal one. For our choiceof parameters, the decay rate dominates the productionof φ in Eq. (53). It is interesting to notice that for anydark matter mass, there exists a point in the parameterspace, with reasonable value of c and d, respecting thecosmological constraint despite the large suppression dueto high BSM physics scales.

If one looks into more details at the zone of influenceof the disformal coupling versus the conformal one, we

10

find that for

Λ ' 1015 GeV

(104d

c2

)1/4(TRH

4× 1012

)1/2(Bscatt

74

)1/8

,

(55)both processes gives a similar contribution to the relicabundance, smaller values of Λ favouring of course thedisformal production. We illustrate this situation in Fig.7 where we take c = 100 and d = 1. For Λ below ∼ 1015

GeV we recognize the characteristic of disformal produc-tion observed in Fig.(5) whereas for Λ & 1015 GeV, theproduction begins to be independent of Λ, which is aclear signature of a conformal production of dark mat-ter.

10−5 10−3 10−1 101 103 105 107 109

mφ/GeV

10−5

10−4

10−3

10−2

10−1

100

µΦ/m

Φ

(c,d)=(100,1)

Λ = 10 14 GeV

Λ = 10 15 GeV

Λ = 10 15.5 GeV

Λ=

10 16GeV

FIG. 7: Parameter space allowed in the (mφ, µΦ/mΦ)plane, for different values of Λ for c = 100 and d = 1.

V. CONCLUSIONS

We have shown that in models where the geometricalmetric governing gravitational physics is different fromthe dynamical metric felt by the standard model parti-cles via a scalar field φ, this scalar φ can play the roleof dark matter. In this scenario, dark matter is pro-duced via freeze-in and it is possible to respect cosmo-logical constraints on the relic abundance of dark matter.Moreover, this can happen even though the suppressionscale of the coupling between the scalar field and mat-ter particles could be almost as large as the Planck scale.

The number density of scalar dark matter particles wouldthen be produced in the early stages of the Universe, by afreeze-in mechanism due to its very feeble coupling to theStandard Model sector, i.e. due to the large suppressionscale. In such a disformal dark matter scenario wherethe dark matter field would be disformally coupled to thestandard model fields, the low production rate of φ wouldbe counterbalanced by a large mass mφ, making disfor-mally coupled scalars perfect candidates for experimentslooking for superheavy dark components like ANITA orIceCube [48].

Acknowledgments: The authors want to thank es-pecially E. Babichev, C. Charmousis, E. Dudas andMarcos A. G. Garcia for very insightful discussions.This work was supported in part by the France-USPICS MicroDark. The work of MP was supported bythe Spanish Agencia Estatal de Investigación throughthe grants FPA2015-65929-P (MINECO/FEDER, UE),PGC2018-095161-B-I00, IFT Centro de ExcelenciaSevero Ochoa SEV-2016-0597, and Red Consolider Mul-tiDark FPA2017-90566-REDC. This project has receivedfunding/support from the European Unions Horizon 2020research and innovation programme under the MarieSkodowska-Curie grant agreements Elusives ITN No.674896 and InvisiblesPlus RISE No. 690575. Thework of KK was supported by a KIAS Individual Grant(Grant No. PG080301) at Korea Institute for AdvancedStudy.

APPENDIX

A. PRODUCTION RATE: DEFINITIONS

Assuming that DM is predominantly produced by 2→2 annihilations of SM particles, the Boltzmann equationfor the DM number density can be written as

dnDM

dt+ 3HnDM = R(T ) , (56)

where the quantity on the right-hand-side R(T ) repre-sents the temperature-dependent DM production rateper unit of volume and time. The rate can be expressed asa sum of the contribution of SM species of spin i to

R(T ) =∑

i=0,1/2,1

NiRi = 4R0 + 45R1/2 + 12R1 , (57)

where Ni is the number of the SM species of spin i. Thepartial rate Ri can be expressed as

Ri(T ) =1

1024π6

∫fi(E1)fi(E2)E1 dE1E2 dE2 d cos θ12

∫|Mi|2 dΩ13 , (58)

11

with pj(Ej) is the 4-momentum (energy) of particlesj = 1, 2, 3, 4 for processes 1 + 2 → 3 + 4 with 1, 2 be-ing particles of the SM and 3, 4 dark matter states. firepresent the Bose-Einstein (i = 0, 1) and Fermi-Dirac(i = 1/2) statistics distribution functions. θ13 and θ12 arethe angle formed by momenta of 1,3 and 1,2 respectively.The differential solid angle can be expressed as dΩ13 =2π d cos θ13. These kinematics quantities are related tothe Mandelstam variables in the ultra-relativistic limitt = (s/2)(cos θ13 − 1) and s = 2E1E2(1− cos θ12). Moredetails can be found in the Appendices of Ref. [8].

B. PRODUCTION RATE: SCATTERING

Rate for a generic amplitude

Assuming an amplitude squared for the process i+i→DM+DM, where i denotes one SM particle of spin i, ofthe form10.

|Mi|2 =∑n,k=0

cinksntk

Λ2(n+k), (59)

the integrated amplitude squared reads∫dΩ13|Mi|2 =

∑n,k=0

cink(−1)k4π

k + 1

sn+k

Λ2(n+k). (60)

Taking the integral expression of Eq. (58), the contribu-tion of a particle of spin i to the rate is

Ri(T ) =∑n,k=0

cink(−1)k22(n+k)Γ2(n+ k + 2)ζ2(n+ k + 2)T 2(n+k+2)

128π5(k + 1)(n+ k + 1)Λ2(n+k)×

1 , (i = 0, 1) ,(1− 2−(1+n+k)

)2, (i = 1/2) ,

(61)

and the corresponding contribution to the relic density is given by

ΩiDMh2 '

∑n,k

cink(−1)k135√

10MPmDM

256π8g3/2∗

22(n+k)Γ2(n+ k + 2)ζ2(n+ k + 2)T2(n+k)−1RH

(k + 1)(n+ k + 1)(2(n+ k)− 1)Λ2(n+k)

s0h2

ρ0c

×

1 ,(1− 2−(1+n+k)

)2,

(62)

with mDM being the dark matter mass, where the firstand second cases correspond respectively to the Bose-Einstein (i = 0, 1) and the Fermi-Dirac (i = 1/2) statis-tics for the initial state particles. We used the expressionof the Hubble rate in terms of the SM temperature in theradiation domination era H(T ) = (g∗π

2/90)1/2T 2/MP

and considered constant relativistic degrees of freedomfor simplicity g∗ = gRH. s0 and ρ0

c are the entropy den-sity and critical density of the present time. Assumingthat for each SM particle of spin i, the DM productionamplitude squared is given by Eq. (59), the total relicdensity can be expressed as

ΩDMh2 = 4 Ω0

DMh2 + 45 Ω

1/2DMh

2 + 12 Ω1DMh

2 . (63)

Rate for disformal couplings

The amplitudes |Mi|2 for the processes i + i →DM+DM, where i denotes one SM particle of spin i, are

10 As s + t + u = 0 in the ultrarelativistic limit, our expressioncontains all the possible processes.

given by

|M0|2 = d2 t2(s+ t)2

8Λ8, (64)

|M1/2|2 = −d2 t(s+ t)(s+ 2t)2

16Λ8, (65)

|M1|2 = d2 t2(s+ t)2

4Λ8. (66)

The total rate is given by

Rd(T ) = d2 100589π7

76204800

T 12

Λ8≡ βd

T 12

Λ8, (67)

with βd ' 4d2.

Rate for conformal couplings

As previously mentioned, in this case only the scalarparticles contribute to the rate. The amplitude is givenby

12

|M0|2 =s2

8M4P

(cX

s

M2P

− 2c2)2

, (68)

For the case c = 0, the total rate is given by

RcX (T ) = c2X64π7

19845

T 12

M8P

≡ βcXT 12

M8P

, (69)

with βcX ' 9.74c2X . For the case cX = 0, the total rateis given by

Rc(T ) = c4π3

2700

T 8

M4P

≡ βcT 8

M4P

, (70)

with βc ' 1.1× 10−2c4.

∗ philippe.brax@ipht.fr† kkaneta@kias.re.kr‡ yann.mambrini@ijclab.in2p3.fr§ mathias.pierre@uam.es

[1] C. G. Callan, Jr., R. C. Myers and M. J. Perry,Nucl. Phys. B 311 (1989), 673-698 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(89)90172-7

[2] H. Pagels and J. R. Primack, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 223(1982); D. V. Nanopoulos, K. A. Olive and M. Sred-nicki, Phys. Lett. B 127, 30 (1983); M. Y. Khlopovand A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B 138, 265 (1984);K. A. Olive, D. N. Schramm and M. Srednicki, Nucl.Phys. B 255, 495 (1985); J. R. Ellis, K. A. Olive, Y. San-toso and V. C. Spanos, Phys. Lett. B 588, 7 (2004) [hep-ph/0312262]; J. L. Feng, S. f. Su and F. Takayama, Phys.Rev. D 70, 063514 (2004) [hep-ph/0404198]; J. L. Feng,S. Su and F. Takayama, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 075019[arXiv:hep-ph/0404231]; F. D. Steffen, JCAP 0609,001 (2006) [hep-ph/0605306]; W. Buchmuller, L. Covi,K. Hamaguchi, A. Ibarra and T. Yanagida, JHEP 0703,037 (2007) [hep-ph/0702184 [HEP-PH]]; W. Buchmuller,AIP Conf. Proc. 1200, 155 (2010) [arXiv:0910.1870[hep-ph]]; S. Bailly, K. Y. Choi, K. Jedamzik andL. Roszkowski, JHEP 0905, 103 (2009) [arXiv:0903.3974[hep-ph]]; L. Covi, J. Hasenkamp, S. Pokorski andJ. Roberts, JHEP 0911, 003 (2009) [arXiv:0908.3399[hep-ph]].

[3] G. Nordstrom, Ann. Phys. 42 533 (1913).[4] C. Brans and R.H. Dicke, Phys. Rev. D15, 1458 (1977);

R.H. Dicke, Phys. Rev. 125, 2163 (1962).[5] P.A.M dirac, Proc. Roy. Soc. London A333, 403 (1973)[6] E. Kiritsis, EPJ Web Conf. 71, 00068 (2014)

[arXiv:1408.3541 [hep-ph]]; P. Betzios, E. Kiritsis,V. Niarchos “Emergent gravity from hidden sectors andTT deformations” work in progress; P. Anastasopoulos,P. Betzios, M. Bianchi, D. Consoli and E. Kiritsis, JHEP1910, 113 (2019), 1811.05940[hep-ph]; P. Betzios, E. Kir-itsis, V. Niarchos and O. Papadoulaki, [arXiv:2006.01840[hep-ph]].

[7] P. Betzios, E. Kiritsis and V. Niarchos, [arXiv:2010.04729[hep-th]]; P. Anastasopoulos, M. Bianchi, D. Consoli andE. Kiritsis, [arXiv:2010.07320 [hep-ph]].

[8] P. Anastasopoulos, K. Kaneta, Y. Mambrini andM. Pierre, [arXiv:2007.06534 [hep-ph]].

[9] D. Chowdhury, E. Dudas, M. Dutra and Y. Mambrini,Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) no.9, 095028 [arXiv:1811.01947[hep-ph]].

[10] K. Benakli, Y. Chen, E. Dudas and Y. Mam-brini, Phys. Rev. D 95, no. 9, 095002 (2017)doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.095002 [arXiv:1701.06574[hep-ph]]; E. Dudas, Y. Mambrini and K. Olive, Phys.Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) no.5, 051801 [arXiv:1704.03008[hep-ph]]; E. Dudas, T. Gherghetta, Y. Mambrini andK. A. Olive, Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) no.11, 115032[arXiv:1710.07341 [hep-ph]]; E. Dudas, T. Gherghetta,K. Kaneta, Y. Mambrini and K. A. Olive, Phys. Rev.D 98, no. 1, 015030 (2018) [arXiv:1805.07342 [hep-ph]].S. A. R. Ellis, T. Gherghetta, K. Kaneta and K. A. Olive,Phys. Rev. D 98, no. 5, 055009 (2018) [arXiv:1807.06488[hep-ph]].

[11] D. V. Volkov and V. P. Akulov, Phys. Lett. B 46 (1973)109; E. A. Ivanov and A. A. Kapustnikov, J. Phys. A 11(1978) 2375.

[12] J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 48 (1993), 3641-3647doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.48.3641 [arXiv:gr-qc/9211017[gr-qc]].

[13] J. D. Bekenstein, in “The Sixth Marcel Grossmann Meet-ing on General Relativity,” ed. H. Sato (World Publish-ing, Singapore, 1992).

[14] M. Zumalacarregui, T. S. Koivisto, D. F. Motaand P. Ruiz-Lapuente, JCAP 05 (2010), 038doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2010/05/038 [arXiv:1004.2684[astro-ph.CO]].

[15] K. Karwan, D. F. Mota and S. Jaksri, [arXiv:1606.04465[gr-qc]].

[16] P. Brax and C. Burrage, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014)no.10, 104009 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.104009[arXiv:1407.1861 [astro-ph.CO]].

[17] P. Brax, C. Burrage and C. Englert, Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) no.4, 044036 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.044036[arXiv:1506.04057 [hep-ph]].

[18] P. Brax, C. Burrage, C. Englert and M. Span-nowsky, Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) no.8, 084054doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.084054 [arXiv:1604.04299[hep-ph]].

[19] P. Brax, A. C. Davis and A. Kuntz, Phys. Rev. D 99(2019) no.12, 124034 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.124034[arXiv:1903.03842 [gr-qc]].

[20] A. Dusoye, A. de la Cruz-Dombriz, P. Dunsby andN. J. Nunes, [arXiv:2006.16962 [gr-qc]].

[21] T. Anson, E. Babichev, C. Charmousis and M. Hassaine,[arXiv:2006.06461 [gr-qc]].

[22] S. Trojanowski, P. Brax and C. van deBruck, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) no.2, 023035doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.023035 [arXiv:2006.01149[hep-ph]]. S. Trojanowski, P. Brax and C. vande Bruck, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) no.2, 023035doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.023035 [arXiv:2006.01149[hep-ph]].

[23] E. Aprile et al. [XENON Collaboration], Phys. Rev.Lett. 121 (2018) no.11, 111302 [arXiv:1805.12562 [astro-ph.CO]].

[24] D. S. Akerib et al. [LUX Collaboration], Phys. Rev.

13

Lett. 118 (2017) no.2, 021303 [arXiv:1608.07648 [astro-ph.CO]].

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

[26] J. A. Casas, D. G. Cerdeño, J. M. Moreno and J. Quilis,JHEP 1705 (2017) 036 [arXiv:1701.08134 [hep-ph]].A. Djouadi, O. Lebedev, Y. Mambrini and J. Quevillon,Phys. Lett. B 709 (2012) 65 [arXiv:1112.3299 [hep-ph]];A. Djouadi, A. Falkowski, Y. Mambrini and J. Quevillon,Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013) no.6, 2455 [arXiv:1205.3169[hep-ph]]; O. Lebedev, H. M. Lee and Y. Mambrini,Phys. Lett. B 707 (2012) 570 [arXiv:1111.4482 [hep-ph]]; Y. Mambrini, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 115017[arXiv:1108.0671 [hep-ph]].

[27] J. Ellis, A. Fowlie, L. Marzola and M. Raidal, Phys.Rev. D 97, no.11, 115014 (2018) [arXiv:1711.09912 [hep-ph]]; G. Arcadi, Y. Mambrini and F. Richard, JCAP1503 (2015) 018 [arXiv:1411.2985 [hep-ph]]; J. Kear-ney, N. Orlofsky and A. Pierce, Phys. Rev. D 95, no.3,035020 (2017) [arXiv:1611.05048 [hep-ph]]; M. Escudero,A. Berlin, D. Hooper and M. X. Lin, JCAP 1612 (2016)029 [arXiv:1609.09079 [hep-ph]].

[28] P. A. R. Ade et al. [Planck Collaboration], Astron.Astrophys. 594, A13 (2016) [arXiv:1502.01589 [astro-ph.CO]]; N. Aghanim et al. [Planck Collaboration],arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO].

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

[30] J. Aalbers et al. [DARWIN], JCAP 11 (2016), 017doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/11/017 [arXiv:1606.07001[astro-ph.IM]].

[31] C. van de Bruck, J. Mifsud, J. P. Mimoso andN. J. Nunes, JCAP 11 (2016), 031 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/11/031 [arXiv:1605.03834 [gr-qc]].

[32] P. Brax and P. Valageas, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017)no.4, 043515 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.043515[arXiv:1611.08279 [astro-ph.CO]].

[33] L. J. Hall, K. Jedamzik, J. March-Russell and S. M. West,JHEP 1003 (2010) 080 [arXiv:0911.1120 [hep-ph]];X. Chu, T. Hambye and M. H. G. Tytgat, JCAP 1205(2012) 034 [arXiv:1112.0493 [hep-ph]]; X. Chu, Y. Mam-brini, J. Quevillon and B. Zaldivar, JCAP 1401 (2014)034 [arXiv:1306.4677 [hep-ph]]; A. Biswas, D. Borah andA. Dasgupta, Phys. Rev. D 99, no.1, 015033 (2019)[arXiv:1805.06903 [hep-ph]].

[34] N. Bernal, M. Heikinheimo, T. Tenkanen, K. Tuominenand V. Vaskonen, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 32 (2017) no.27,1730023 [arXiv:1706.07442 [hep-ph]].

[35] G. Bhattacharyya, M. Dutra, Y. Mambrini andM. Pierre, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) no.3, 035038[arXiv:1806.00016 [hep-ph]]; A. Banerjee, G. Bhat-tacharyya, D. Chowdhury and Y. Mambrini, JCAP12 (2019), 009 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/12/009[arXiv:1905.11407 [hep-ph]].

[36] Y. Mambrini, K. A. Olive, J. Quevillon and B. Zal-divar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) no.24, 241306[arXiv:1302.4438 [hep-ph]]; N. Nagata, K. A. Olive andJ. Zheng, JHEP 1510, 193 (2015) [arXiv:1509.00809[hep-ph]]; Y. Mambrini, N. Nagata, K. A. Olive andJ. Zheng, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) no.11, 111703[arXiv:1602.05583 [hep-ph]]; X. Chu, Y. Mambrini,

J. Quevillon and B. Zaldivar, JCAP 1401 (2014) 034[arXiv:1306.4677 [hep-ph]]; Y. Mambrini, N. Nagata,K. A. Olive, J. Quevillon and J. Zheng, Phys. Rev. D 91(2015) no.9, 095010 [arXiv:1502.06929 [hep-ph]]; N. Na-gata, K. A. Olive and J. Zheng, JCAP 1702, no. 02, 016(2017) [arXiv:1611.04693 [hep-ph]].

[37] N. Bernal, M. Dutra, Y. Mambrini, K. Olive, M. Pelosoand M. Pierre, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) no.11, 115020[arXiv:1803.01866 [hep-ph]].

[38] L. Heurtier and F. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019)no.4, 043507 [arXiv:1905.05191 [hep-ph]]; A. Berlin,D. Hooper and G. Krnjaic, Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016)no.9, 095019 [arXiv:1609.02555 [hep-ph]]; A. Berlin,D. Hooper and G. Krnjaic, Phys. Lett. B 760 (2016) 106[arXiv:1602.08490 [hep-ph]]; M. Heikinheimo, T. Tenka-nen, K. Tuominen and V. Vaskonen, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) no.6, 063506 Erratum: [Phys. Rev. D 96(2017) no.10, 109902] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.109902,10.1103/PhysRevD.94.063506 [arXiv:1604.02401 [astro-ph.CO]].

[39] N. Bernal, A. Donini, M. G. Folgado and N. Rius,[arXiv:2004.14403 [hep-ph]].

[40] J. Ben Achour, D. Langlois and K. Noui, Phys. Rev. D 93(2016) no.12, 124005 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.124005[arXiv:1602.08398 [gr-qc]].

[41] G. F. Giudice, E. W. Kolb and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev.D 64 (2001) 023508 [hep-ph/0005123]; D. J. H. Chung,E. W. Kolb and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 063504[hep-ph/9809453].

[42] M. A. G. Garcia and M. A. Amin, Phys. Rev. D 98, no.10, 103504 (2018) [arXiv:1806.01865 [hep-ph]]; K. Hari-gaya, K. Mukaida and M. Yamada, JHEP 07 (2019), 059doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2019)059 [arXiv:1901.11027 [hep-ph]]; K. Harigaya, M. Kawasaki, K. Mukaida andM. Yamada, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) no.8, 083532[arXiv:1402.2846 [hep-ph]].

[43] M. A. G. Garcia, Y. Mambrini, K. A. Olive andM. Peloso, Phys. Rev. D 96, no.10, 103510 (2017)doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.103510 [arXiv:1709.01549[hep-ph]].

[44] F. Elahi, C. Kolda and J. Unwin, JHEP 03 (2015),048 doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2015)048 [arXiv:1410.6157[hep-ph]]; N. Bernal, J. Rubio and H. Veermäe,[arXiv:2004.13706 [hep-ph]]; N. Bernal, F. Elahi,C. Maldonado and J. Unwin, JCAP 11 (2019), 026doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/11/026 [arXiv:1909.07992[hep-ph]]; A. Di Marco, G. De Gasperis, G. Pradisi andP. Cabella, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) no.12, 123532doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.123532 [arXiv:1907.06084[astro-ph.CO]]; A. Di Marco, G. Pradisi and P. Ca-bella, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) no.12, 123511doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.123511 [arXiv:1807.05916[astro-ph.CO]].

[45] K. Kaneta, Y. Mambrini and K. A. Olive, Phys. Rev. D99 (2019) no.6, 063508 [arXiv:1901.04449 [hep-ph]].

[46] M. A. Garcia, K. Kaneta, Y. Mambrini andK. A. Olive, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) no.12, 123507[arXiv:2004.08404 [hep-ph]].

[47] N. Bernal, F. Elahi, C. Maldonado and J. Unwin, JCAP11 (2019), 026 [arXiv:1909.07992 [hep-ph]]; N. Bernal,[arXiv:2005.08988 [hep-ph]]; N. Bernal, J. Rubio andH. Veermäe, [arXiv:2006.02442 [hep-ph]].

[48] L. Heurtier, Y. Mambrini and M. Pierre, Phys. Rev. D 99(2019) no.9, 095014 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.095014

14

[arXiv:1902.04584 [hep-ph]]; E. Dudas, L. Heurtier,Y. Mambrini, K. A. Olive and M. Pierre,Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) no.11, 115029doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.115029 [arXiv:2003.02846[hep-ph]].

[49] E. Kiritsis, “String theory in a nutshell,”[50] P. Betzios, E. Kiritsis, V. Niarchos “Emergent grav-

ity from hidden sectors and TT deformations” work inprogress.

[51] P. Anastasopoulos, P. Betzios, M. Bianchi, D. Consoliand E. Kiritsis, JHEP 1910, 113 (2019), 1811.05940[hep-ph].

[52] P. Betzios, E. Kiritsis, V. Niarchos and O. Papadoulaki,[arXiv:2006.01840 [hep-ph]].

[53] C. de Rham, J. T. Deskins, A. J. Tolley andS. Y. Zhou, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, no.2, 025004 (2017)doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.89.025004 [arXiv:1606.08462[astro-ph.CO]].

[54] P. Anastasopoulos, M. Bianchi, D. Consoli and E. Kirit-sis, “Graviphotons and dark photons in string theory and

QFT,” to appear.[55] G. F. Giudice, R. Rattazzi and J. D. Wells, Nucl. Phys.

B 544 (1999), 3-38 doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(99)00044-9[arXiv:hep-ph/9811291 [hep-ph]].

[56] J. Ellis, M. A. G. Garcia, D. V. Nanopoulos andK. A. Olive, JCAP 07, 050 (2015) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/07/050 [arXiv:1505.06986 [hep-ph]].

[57] A. A. Starobinsky, Adv. Ser. Astrophys. Cosmol. 3, 130-133 (1987) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(80)90670-X

[58] Y. Akrami et al. [Planck], [arXiv:1807.06211 [astro-ph.CO]].

[59] J. Martin and C. Ringeval, Phys. Rev. D 82,023511 (2010) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.82.023511[arXiv:1004.5525 [astro-ph.CO]].

[60] A. R. Liddle and S. M. Leach, Phys. Rev. D 68, 103503(2003) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.68.103503 [arXiv:astro-ph/0305263 [astro-ph]].

[61] J. Ellis, M. A. G. Garcia, D. V. Nanopoulos, K. A. Oliveand M. Peloso, JCAP 03, 008 (2016) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/03/008 [arXiv:1512.05701 [astro-ph.CO]].