Scalar singlet dark matter in nonstandard cosmologies
Abstract
We study production of dark matter (DM) in scenarios where in the early Universe the energy density was dominated, for some period of time, by a component with an effective equation of state parameter . We consider both freezeout and freezein mechanisms for producing the observed DM abundance in a model where the DM consists of scalar singlet particles coupled to the Standard Model sector via the Higgs portal. We show that a nonstandard expansion phase can lead to a significant change in the DM abundance and therefore to observational ramifications. For example, for DM freezein the required portal coupling can be much larger, whereas for DM freezeout much smaller values become allowed. We evaluate the relevant constraints and discuss prospects for direct detection of such DM.
a]Nicolás Bernal,
b]Catarina Cosme,
c]Tommi Tenkanen
d]
and Ville Vaskonen
PI/UAN2018630FT
Scalar singlet dark matter in nonstandard cosmologies

Centro de Investigaciones, Universidad Antonio Nariño,
Carrera 3 Este # 47A15, Bogotá, Colombia 
Departamento de Física e Astronomia, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade do Porto and Centro de Física do Porto, Rua do Campo Alegre 687, 4169007, Porto, Portugal

Astronomy Unit, Queen Mary University of London,
Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, United Kingdom 
NICPB, Rävala pst. 10, 10143 Tallinn, Estonia
Contents
1 Introduction
For a very long time, Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs) have been among the bestmotivated dark matter (DM) candidates. However, given that there are no observational hints of particle DM and only increasingly strong constraints on WIMP DM [1], it is natural to question the existence of WIMPs and start considering other options for the production and properties of DM.
A simple alternative to the standard WIMP paradigm is provided by relaxing the usual assumption that DM is a thermal relic, produced by the freezeout mechanism in the early Universe. Assuming instead that DM particles never entered into thermal equilibrium with the Standard Model (SM) plasma, the present DM abundance may have been produced by the socalled freezein mechanism [2, 3, 4], where the observed relic abundance results from decays and annihilations of SM particles into DM. Because of the feeble interaction strength that the mechanism requires, this kind of DM candidates are usually called Feebly Interacting Massive Particles (FIMPs).
Another simple way to evade the experimental constraints on DM is to consider nonstandard cosmological histories, for example scenarios where the Universe was effectively matterdominated at an early stage, due for example to slow reheating period after inflation or to a massive metastable particles. As there are no indispensable reasons to assume that the Universe was radiationdominated prior to Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN)^{1}^{1}1For studies on baryogenesis with a low reheating temperature or during an early matterdominated phase, see Refs. [5, 6, 7, 8] and [9], respectively. at s, studying what consequences such a nonstandard era can have on observational properties of DM is worthwhile. Indeed, production of DM in scenarios with a nonstandard expansion phase has recently gained increasing interest, see e.g. Refs. [10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24].
In this paper, we will consider production of DM in scenarios where for some period at early times the expansion of the Universe was governed by a fluid component with an effective equation of state , where is the pressure and the energy density of the fluid, and . For generality, we will consider production of DM by both the freezeout and freezein mechanisms. Therefore, we have two goals: shed light on production of DM during a nonstandard expansion phase in general, and study in detail the observational and experimental ramifications such a phase can have on the parameter space of a model where the DM consists of real singlet scalar particles coupled to the SM sector via the Higgs portal interaction , where is the SM Higgs doublet and a dimensionless coupling constant. We will then contrast our results with the earlier studies on the production of singlet scalar DM in the case of standard radiationdominated cosmological history [25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31]. We will also consider prospects for detection of such nonstandard DM, including collider and direct detection experiments – where the DM candidate is the usual thermal relic or has a nonthermal origin.
Recent studies in Refs. [21, 22], have shown that in this simple framework one can both evade the current observational constraints but expect to detect a signal in the near future. However, in order to fully understand the scenario and its observational prospects, a more detailed analysis than what was conducted in Refs. [21, 22] is needed. In this paper, we therefore conduct a numerical study, considering a broad range of DM masses and subleading corrections to the crosssections and decay rates relevant for the singlet scalar model, as well as taking into account the evolution of the effective number of SM energy density degrees of freedom. In contrast to the earlier studies, which concluded that even in the case where DM was produced by the freezein mechanism it may be possible to observe it by the means of direct detection, our results indicate that the parameter space relevant for freezein in the singlet scalar model is even in very extreme scenarios out of reach of the future direct detection experiments.
The paper is organized as follows: In Section 2 we introduce the cosmological setup and the singlet scalar DM model, discussing various constraints on the parameter space of the model. Then, in Section 3, we conduct our numerical analysis for DM production in different cases, discussing also the effects of nonvanishing DM selfinteractions, and contrast our results with the standard radiationdominated case. Finally, we present our conclusions in Section 4.
2 The model and constraints
2.1 Expansion history
We assume that for some period of the early Universe, the total energy density was dominated by a component with an equation of state parameter . We assume that this component decays solely into SM radiation with a rate that, in general, is a function of time. Moreover, we assume that the SM plasma maintains internal equilibrium at all times in the early Universe.
In the early Universe the contribution of the DM energy density can be neglected, so the evolution of the energy densities and are governed by the system of coupled Boltzmann equations
(2.1)  
where is the SM energy density. The Hubble expansion rate is defined by
(2.2) 
where is the reduced Planck mass.
Consider first a constant . This describes usual particle decay and approximates well, in some cases, also the decay of a timeevolving background field, such as an inflaton field during a reheating phase [32]. The SM energy density evolves as a function of the scale factor as
(2.3) 
where describes how much the comoving SM radiation energy density increases by decay of , that is
(2.4) 
At the production from starts to dominate the evolution of , and at the dominated phase ends. The temperature of the SM plasma at is given by the total decay width as
(2.5) 
where corresponds to the effective number of SM energy density degrees of freedom, which we evaluate as given in Ref. [33]. For having successful BBN, the temperature at the end of the dominated phase has to satisfy MeV [34, 35, 36, 37].
A constant does not in all cases describe the evolution of the system well. For example, in the case where the Universe undergoes a (second) period of lowscale inflation, the system is better described by a stepfunctiontype that gets a nonzero value at the end of a second inflationary phase, see e.g. Ref. [24]. Assuming that after the second inflationary period is larger than the Hubble rate, we can approximate that decays instantaneously to SM radiation. In this case
(2.6) 
Also here equals the fraction of the comoving SM radiation energy densities much before and much after the decay of .
In both of the above cases the evolution of and can be completely described by three parameters: the equation of state parameter , the increase in the comoving SM radiation energy density, and the temperature of the SM radiation when the dominated period ends, which is determined by . In the following, we will consider three benchmark cases numerically:

and ,

and a constant ,

with instantaneous decay of at .
In the first case we have taken for simplicity because whenever , the component will eventually become energetically subdominant to radiation regardless of the value of . For previous works on a similar scenario, see e.g. Refs. [38, 39]. The second case can be motivated by the usual particle decay, and the third one for example by a period of lowscale inflation, as discussed above.
In Fig. 1, examples of the evolution of energy densities in these three cases are shown. In the case shown in the upper right panel the dominated period begins at , whereas in the upper left panel it begins at . In both cases the SM plasma temperature after the decay of is . Notice that while in the case shown in the upper right panel the temperature decreases monotonically, in the upper left panel during the dominated period, and the decay of finally increases the temperature back to . To present the maximal effect a nonstandard expansion phase can have on DM production, both here and in the following the results are shown for MeV, which is close to the BBN bound. However, the results can be easily generalized to higher values of . Note that even though all of the above cases can be motivated by scenarios considered in the literature, our analysis does not concentrate on any particular model besides the DM one, which we will discuss in the next subsection. In this sense, the results that we will present are completely general.
2.2 Scalar singlet dark matter
For DM we consider a simple model which, on top of the SM field content and the component, contains a real scalar singlet which is odd under a discrete symmetry, while all the other fields are even. This symmetry makes a viable DM candidate. The only interaction between and the SM sector is via the Higgs portal coupling , where corresponds to the SM Higgs doublet. The scalar potential containing only renormalizable terms is [40, 41]
(2.7) 
The condition , where is the vacuum expectation value of the SM Higgs field, ensures that the is not broken spontaneously at the electroweak breaking vacuum.^{2}^{2}2For the requirement that the electroweak breaking minimum is the global minimum of the potential gives a lower bound on the selfcoupling [42], which at is , leading to nonperturbative values of at large . This region is, however, not of interest because of the constraint on the Higgs boson invisible decay discussed below. Then, the Higgs doublet mass parameter, , and the Higgs doublet quartic coupling, , are fixed by the observed values of the Higgs boson mass GeV and the electroweak scale GeV.
The total parameter space in our scenario is thus sixdimensional, consisting of three particle physics parameters, , and , and three cosmological parameters, , and . We assume that does not decay into but that its relic abundance is produced by freezeout or freezein from the SM plasma. For recent works where a component similar to is allowed to decay also into scalar singlet DM, see Refs. [18, 22].
The only collider signature of the SM extension under consideration arises from the invisible decay of the Higgs boson . The corresponding branching ratio is constrained by the LHC searches to be BR at the confidence level [43]. This places an upper bound on the decay width . Using MeV for the total Higgs decay width and
(2.8) 
for the Higgs decay into two particles, the bound on translates to a bound on the portal coupling, which for is . For , this kind of constraint obviously cannot be placed.
A further constraint on the model parameters arises from the direct DM searches. The effective spinindependent cross section for elastic DM–nucleon scattering is given by
(2.9) 
where is the reduced mass of the DMnucleon system with GeV the nucleon mass, corresponds to the form factor [44, 45, 46, 47], and is the fractional DM density. Currently, the most stringent constraints on are provided by LUX [48], PandaXII [49] and Xenon1T [50]. The projected sensitivity of the next generation DM direct detection experiment DARWIN [51] will also be shown in the following results.
3 Dark matter abundance
In this section we discuss the production of DM in the early Universe during a nonstandard expansion phase, considering first freezeout and then freezein of DM. The strength of the portal coupling determines whether the particles were in thermal equilibrium with the SM radiation in the early Universe. For the freezeout mechanism the portal coupling has to be typically much larger than a threshold value , whereas for freezein . The threshold value above which the DM sector enters into thermal equilibrium with the SM can be found by requiring that the SM particles do not populate the hidden sector so that they would start to annihilate back to the SM in large amounts [52, 53, 54]. In the following, we will first consider freezeout of DM by assuming that always holds, and postpone a quantitative derivation of until Section 3.2. In all cases in Section 3.1, however, the presented results have been found to be consistent with the thermalization condition.
Before discussing DM production mechanisms in more detail, we note that the observed DM abundance cannot be obtained for all expansion histories independently of the DM model parameters, assuming that the decay of does not produce particles. If dominates the energy density of the Universe when the comoving number density freezes, then it can happen that the energy density in particles is always too small to comprise the observed DM abundance, unless the decay of brings back into thermal equilibrium in the case of freezeout or retriggers the freezein yield.^{3}^{3}3Notice that, independently on whether the abundance is determined by freezeout or freezein, the energy density in particles is necessarily smaller than that of one relativistic degree of freedom in the radiation bath when its comoving number density freezes. However, for the benchmark scenarios discussed in Section 2.1, this is never the case.
3.1 Freezeout
We begin by studying the case where the DM has reached thermal equilibrium with the SM radiation. The DM abundance is then determined by the freezeout mechanism and, in the absence of large DM selfinteractions, the relevant interaction rate is that of DM annihilate into radiation bath particles, . The contribution of the final state at is given by [27]
(3.1) 
and all other SM final states can be taken into account by using the total decay width of virtual , , as [55]
(3.2) 
so that . The evolution of the number density is then described by the Boltzmann equation
(3.3) 
which we solve numerically. The time dependence of the Hubble parameter (2.2) and the equilibrium number density are obtained by solving the coupled Boltzmann equations for and given by Eq. (2.1).
By scanning the values of and for different background evolutions, we determine the value of the portal coupling for a given mass that gives the observed DM abundance, [56]. This is shown by the black solid lines in Fig. 2. We see that a nonstandard expansion phase can lead to a significant change in the DM abundance and therefore to observational ramifications.
Compared to the standard radiation dominated case, two effects change the required value of the portal for which the observed DM abundance is obtained: the moment when the comoving DM number density freezes is shifted due to nonstandard dependence of the Hubble parameter on the SM radiation temperature, and the DM energy density becomes effectively diluted due to decay of . The effect of the former is to increase the required value of , whereas the latter decreases it.
Consider first the case (upper right panel in Fig. 2). In this scenario no dilution due to decay arises, so the freezeout temperature has to be the same as in the standard case in order to obtain the same final DM abundance. Then, if the DM freezeout happens when dominates the energy density of the Universe, the interaction rate that keeps DM in thermal equilibrium has to be higher than in the standard case, because the value of the Hubble parameter at that temperature is higher. This implies that has to be larger than in the standard radiation dominated case. Depending how the ratio evolves as a function of , this increase of is different for different masses. The upper right panel of Fig. 2 shows an example of such a scenario. In that case the ratio increases as a function of so for large masses the separation between the black solid and dashed lines is larger than for small masses.
Moreover, for the freezeout temperature has to be higher, because the decay of decreases the relative DM energy density compared to . Thus, the same final abundance is obtained by decreasing the value of so that the particles undergo freezeout earlier, which leads to the required enhancement in the comoving number density. In the lower right panel of Fig. 2, the DM freezeout happens for all masses before the dominated phase begins, so the effect from the nonstandard temperature dependence of the Hubble parameter is absent. In contrast to this, left from the red dashed line in the lower left panel the freezeout happens during the dominance, but the effect from dilution due to the decay is still the dominant one.
In the usual radiationdominated case only DM masses close to and above are still allowed by observations [25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31]. This can be seen in the upper left panel of Fig. 2, where the dark blue regions are excluded by direct DM searches (LUX, PandaXII and Xenon1T), the lighter blue regions show the expected sensitivity of the DARWIN experiment, and the purple regions are excluded by the LHC constraint on the Higgs boson invisible decay. This conclusion changes in the case DM was produced during a nonstandard expansion phase. In particular, we see that in the cases shown in the lower panels, large parts of the parameter space become available. In the case shown in the upper right panel, however, the required values of are larger than in the usual radiationdominated case, which renders that scenario largely inconsistent with observations. While these conclusions may change in models which go beyond the benchmark scenarios discussed in Section 2.1, they demonstrate the fact that a nonstandard expansion history can change the requirements for producing the observed DM abundance in interesting and yet testable ways.
Finally, to conclude the discussion about the DM production via freezeout, we remark that while in the standard radiationdominated case the selfcoupling has to take nonperturbative values for the number changing selfinteractions (such as ) to determine the freezeout instead of the annihilations to SM particles [57], these processes can be relevant in nonstandard cases. If the dilution due to the decay of to after the freezeout was sufficiently strong, the processes become relevant even for . Therefore, taking the detailed effect of DM selfinteractions into account can be important for the determination of the final DM abundance, reminiscent to the Strongly Interacting Massive Particle (SIMP) or cannibal DM scenarios [58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 57, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 21, 81, 82]. A benchmark example of such a scenario was recently studied in Ref. [21], but in this paper we do not consider the detailed effect of the process. Instead, we have assumed that is always small enough not to affect DM production to highlight the effects of nonstandard expansion history.
3.2 Freezein
Next, we turn to the case where the particles interact so feebly with the SM radiation that they never entered into thermal equilibrium with it, and the relevant production mechanism is freezein. Assuming that the abundance is always negligible compared to its equilibrium abundance, the Boltzmann equation describing the production from annihilations of the SM particles and the Higgs boson decay is
(3.4) 
where the sum runs over all SM particles. The decay width is given by Eq. (2.8), and annihilation cross sections are^{4}^{4}4The factors arise from averaging over the initial states.
(3.5)  
where and () denote the SM (anti)fermions, and for quarks and for leptons. The dominant production channels are for and for .
The contribution of Higgs boson decays is partly included in the onshell part of the annihilation processes (see e.g. Ref. [83]), and thus subtracted from the decay term in Eq. (3.4) by multiplying it by
(3.6) 
Here the sum includes SM particles with mass , i.e. it does not include virtual final states. The dominant channels are then to , and , with branching ratios , and , so .
As discussed in the beginning of Section 3, the threshold value above which the DM sector enters into thermal equilibrium with the SM can be found by requiring that the SM particles do not populate the hidden sector so that they would start to annihilate back to the SM in large amounts. As the criterion for this, we require that at all times
(3.7) 
The threshold value can then be found as the smallest for which the above ratio reaches unity. For example, in the usual radiationdominated case this threshold is shown by the red dashed line in Fig. 3, which is in accord with the earlier estimate in the literature [52, 53, 54]. However, because in nonstandard cases takes a larger value than in the usual radiationdomination, also can be larger than usual without the two sectors thermalizing with each other. In the following, we check that in all cases.
Defining allows us to solve Eq. (3.4). Then, the abundance today is , where is the critical density and the comoving number density today is given by
(3.8)  
Here if the initial state particles are identical and otherwise, and is the number of degrees of freedom for particle species .^{5}^{5}5Particles and antiparticles are treated separately here. Thus, for gauge bosons , for leptons , for quarks and for the Higgs boson . The Hubble parameter (2.2) and the radiation bath temperature are again obtained as a function of the scale factor by solving the coupled Boltzmann equations (2.1).
The results are shown in Fig. 4. As in the freezeout case, also here the effects that shift the required value of are the nonstandard dependence of the Hubble parameter on the SM radiation temperature and the effective dilution of the DM energy density due to the decay of . However, both of these effects now increase the required value of . If (lower panel of Fig. 4), the DM production rate has to be higher than in the standard case because the value of the Hubble parameter at the temperature when the production ends (that is determined by the masses of the decaying/annihilating particles and ) is higher. Larger values of then imply that the relative DM energy density gets smaller due to the decay of to , so the DM production rate has to be even higher in order to obtain the same final abundance. This effect can be seen in the upper panels of Fig. 4, where , 2…15, from bottom to top.
We find that for the entire mass regime studied in this paper, 1 GeV TeV, the portal coupling which does not thermalize with the SM sector but allows it to constitute all of the observed DM abundance is always below the expected sensitivity of DARWIN (blue line in Fig. 4). Therefore, we conclude that in the singlet scalar model even very extreme scenarios, where the expansion rate of the Universe exceeds the one in usual radiationdomination by many orders of magnitude, yield no observable consequences for next generation direct detection experiments in our benchmark scenarios where DM was produced by freezein.
Finally, we make again a remark on the effect of selfinteractions. Also in the freezein scenario the effect of selfannihilation can have important consequences on the final DM abundance after the initial yield from the SM sector has shut off. However, as noticed in Refs. [63, 57, 65, 80, 21], the effect of this process is to generically increase the final DM abundance, which means that in the case where the numberchanging selfannihilations play a role, a smaller value of than in scenarios where selfinteractions are absent is required to obtain the observed DM abundance. As the largest possible values of are below the ones that can be expected to be detected by the next generation experiments, we have again chosen to restrict our analysis to values of which are small enough not to affect the DM yield.
4 Conclusions
Despite the large amount of searches over the past decades, DM has not been found. A simple reason for this might be that the cosmological history was nonstandard at early times, affecting also DM genesis. In this paper we have considered production of DM in such a scenario, studying both the freezeout and freezein mechanisms in a model where the DM consists of scalar singlet particles.
Assuming that the DM numberchanging interactions can be neglected, we showed in three benchmark scenarios that in the case of nonstandard expansion history, two effects change the required value of the portal for which the observed DM abundance is obtained: the moment when the comoving DM number density freezes is shifted due to nonstandard dependence of the Hubble parameter on the SM radiation temperature and, assuming that the dominant energy density component decayed solely to SM radiation after DM production, the DM energy density becomes effectively diluted. The effect of the former is to increase the required in both freezeout and freezein cases, whereas the latter in the freezeout case decreases , and in the freezein case increases it.
These findings, as well as the detailed changes to the allowed part of the parameter space together with prospects for future observations, are shown in Figs. 2 and 4. While these conclusions may change in models which go beyond the benchmark scenarios discussed in this paper, the results demonstrate the fact that a nonstandard expansion history can change significantly the requirements for producing the observed DM abundance. For example, we find that in the freezeout case the direct detection constraints in the singlet scalar DM model can be avoided if the early Universe was dominated by a matterlike component for a relatively short period of time before BBN. However, our results show that the parameter space relevant for freezein in the singlet scalar model is out of reach of the next generation direct detection experiments even in very extreme scenarios.
In the future, it would be interesting to see what are the detailed consequences of nonstandard expansion history also for other models where the hidden DM sector has more structure or where the DM is not coupled to the SM via the Higgs portal but by some other means.
Acknowledgments
We thank X. Chu, C.S. Fong, T. Hambye, M. Heikinheimo, and L. Marzola for discussions. C.C. is supported by the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) grantPD/BD/114453/2016, T.T. by the U.K. Science and Technology Facilities Council grant ST/J001546/1, V.V. by the Estonian Research Council Grant No. IUT236 and ERDF Centre of Excellence Project No. TK133, and N.B. partially by Spanish MINECO under Grant FPA201784543P. This project has also received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie SkłodowskaCurie grant agreements 674896 and 690575; and from Universidad Antonio Nariño grants 2017239 and 2018204. N.B. and C.C. acknowledge the hospitality of the IFIC and the University of Helsinki, respectively.
References
 [1] G. Arcadi, M. Dutra, P. Ghosh, M. Lindner, Y. Mambrini, M. Pierre, S. Profumo, and F. S. Queiroz, The waning of the WIMP? A review of models, searches, and constraints, Eur. Phys. J. C78 (2018), no. 3 203, [arXiv:1703.07364].
 [2] J. McDonald, Thermally generated gauge singlet scalars as selfinteracting dark matter, Phys.Rev.Lett. 88 (2002) 091304, [hepph/0106249].
 [3] L. J. Hall, K. Jedamzik, J. MarchRussell, and S. M. West, FreezeIn Production of FIMP Dark Matter, JHEP 1003 (2010) 080, [arXiv:0911.1120].
 [4] N. Bernal, M. Heikinheimo, T. Tenkanen, K. Tuominen, and V. Vaskonen, The Dawn of FIMP Dark Matter: A Review of Models and Constraints, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A32 (2017), no. 27 1730023, [arXiv:1706.07442].
 [5] S. Davidson, M. Losada, and A. Riotto, A New perspective on baryogenesis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (2000) 4284–4287, [hepph/0001301].
 [6] G. F. Giudice, E. W. Kolb, and A. Riotto, Largest temperature of the radiation era and its cosmological implications, Phys. Rev. D64 (2001) 023508, [hepph/0005123].
 [7] R. Allahverdi, B. Dutta, and K. Sinha, Baryogenesis and LateDecaying Moduli, Phys. Rev. D82 (2010) 035004, [arXiv:1005.2804].
 [8] R. Allahverdi, P. S. B. Dev, and B. Dutta, A simple testable model of baryon number violation: Baryogenesis, dark matter, neutron–antineutron oscillation and collider signals, Phys. Lett. B779 (2018) 262–268, [arXiv:1712.02713].
 [9] N. Bernal and C. S. Fong, Hot Leptogenesis from Thermal Dark Matter, JCAP 1710 (2017), no. 10 042, [arXiv:1707.02988].
 [10] R. T. Co, F. D’Eramo, L. J. Hall, and D. Pappadopulo, FreezeIn Dark Matter with Displaced Signatures at Colliders, JCAP 1512 (2015), no. 12 024, [arXiv:1506.07532].
 [11] A. Berlin, D. Hooper, and G. Krnjaic, PeVScale Dark Matter as a Thermal Relic of a Decoupled Sector, Phys. Lett. B760 (2016) 106–111, [arXiv:1602.08490].
 [12] T. Tenkanen and V. Vaskonen, Reheating the Standard Model from a hidden sector, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016), no. 8 083516, [arXiv:1606.00192].
 [13] J. A. Dror, E. Kuflik, and W. H. Ng, Codecaying Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016), no. 21 211801, [arXiv:1607.03110].
 [14] A. Berlin, D. Hooper, and G. Krnjaic, Thermal Dark Matter From A Highly Decoupled Sector, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016), no. 9 095019, [arXiv:1609.02555].
 [15] F. D’Eramo, N. Fernandez, and S. Profumo, When the Universe Expands Too Fast: Relentless Dark Matter, JCAP 1705 (2017), no. 05 012, [arXiv:1703.04793].
 [16] S. Hamdan and J. Unwin, Dark Matter Freezeout During Matter Domination, arXiv:1710.03758.
 [17] L. Visinelli, (Non)thermal production of WIMPs during kination, arXiv:1710.11006.
 [18] M. Drees and F. Hajkarim, Dark Matter Production in an Early Matter Dominated Era, JCAP 1802 (2018), no. 02 057, [arXiv:1711.05007].
 [19] J. A. Dror, E. Kuflik, B. Melcher, and S. Watson, Concentrated Dark Matter: Enhanced Smallscale Structure from CoDecaying Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 063524, [arXiv:1711.04773].
 [20] F. D’Eramo, N. Fernandez, and S. Profumo, Dark Matter Freezein Production in FastExpanding Universes, JCAP 1802 (2018), no. 02 046, [arXiv:1712.07453].
 [21] N. Bernal, C. Cosme, and T. Tenkanen, Phenomenology of SelfInteracting Dark Matter in a MatterDominated Universe, arXiv:1803.08064.
 [22] E. Hardy, Higgs portal dark matter in nonthermal cosmologies, arXiv:1804.06783.
 [23] D. Maity and P. Saha, Reheating constraints from decaying inflaton: Minimal inflationary cosmologies, arXiv:1804.10115.
 [24] T. Hambye, A. Strumia, and D. Teresi, Supercool Dark Matter, arXiv:1805.01473.
 [25] J. M. Cline, K. Kainulainen, P. Scott, and C. Weniger, Update on scalar singlet dark matter, Phys. Rev. D88 (2013) 055025, [arXiv:1306.4710]. [Erratum: Phys. Rev.D92,no.3,039906(2015)].
 [26] J. M. No and M. RamseyMusolf, Probing the Higgs Portal at the LHC Through Resonant diHiggs Production, Phys. Rev. D89 (2014), no. 9 095031, [arXiv:1310.6035].
 [27] T. Alanne, K. Tuominen, and V. Vaskonen, Strong phase transition, dark matter and vacuum stability from simple hidden sectors, Nucl. Phys. B889 (2014) 692–711, [arXiv:1407.0688].
 [28] T. Robens and T. Stefaniak, Status of the Higgs Singlet Extension of the Standard Model after LHC Run 1, Eur. Phys. J. C75 (2015) 104, [arXiv:1501.02234].
 [29] L. Feng, S. Profumo, and L. Ubaldi, Closing in on singlet scalar dark matter: LUX, invisible Higgs decays and gammaray lines, JHEP 03 (2015) 045, [arXiv:1412.1105].
 [30] H. Han and S. Zheng, New Constraints on Higgsportal Scalar Dark Matter, JHEP 12 (2015) 044, [arXiv:1509.01765].
 [31] GAMBIT Collaboration, P. Athron et al., Status of the scalar singlet dark matter model, Eur. Phys. J. C77 (2017), no. 8 568, [arXiv:1705.07931].
 [32] A. D. Linde, Particle physics and inflationary cosmology, Contemp. Concepts Phys. 5 (1990) 1–362, [hepth/0503203].
 [33] M. Drees, F. Hajkarim, and E. R. Schmitz, The Effects of QCD Equation of State on the Relic Density of WIMP Dark Matter, JCAP 1506 (2015), no. 06 025, [arXiv:1503.03513].
 [34] M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri, and N. Sugiyama, MeV scale reheating temperature and thermalization of neutrino background, Phys. Rev. D62 (2000) 023506, [astroph/0002127].
 [35] S. Hannestad, What is the lowest possible reheating temperature?, Phys. Rev. D70 (2004) 043506, [astroph/0403291].
 [36] K. Ichikawa, M. Kawasaki, and F. Takahashi, The Oscillation effects on thermalization of the neutrinos in the Universe with low reheating temperature, Phys. Rev. D72 (2005) 043522, [astroph/0505395].
 [37] F. De Bernardis, L. Pagano, and A. Melchiorri, New constraints on the reheating temperature of the universe after WMAP5, Astropart. Phys. 30 (2008) 192–195.
 [38] D. G. Figueroa and C. T. Byrnes, The Standard Model Higgs as the origin of the hot Big Bang, Phys. Lett. B767 (2017) 272–277, [arXiv:1604.03905].
 [39] K. Dimopoulos and T. Markkanen, Nonminimal gravitational reheating during kination, JCAP 1806 (2018), no. 06 021, [arXiv:1803.07399].
 [40] J. McDonald, Gauge singlet scalars as cold dark matter, Phys. Rev. D50 (1994) 3637–3649, [hepph/0702143].
 [41] C. P. Burgess, M. Pospelov, and T. ter Veldhuis, The Minimal model of nonbaryonic dark matter: A Singlet scalar, Nucl. Phys. B619 (2001) 709–728, [hepph/0011335].
 [42] V. Vaskonen, Electroweak baryogenesis and gravitational waves from a real scalar singlet, Phys. Rev. D95 (2017), no. 12 123515, [arXiv:1611.02073].
 [43] CMS Collaboration, V. Khachatryan et al., Searches for invisible decays of the Higgs boson in pp collisions at = 7, 8, and 13 TeV, JHEP 02 (2017) 135, [arXiv:1610.09218].
 [44] M. Farina, D. Pappadopulo, and A. Strumia, CDMS stands for Constrained Dark Matter Singlet, Phys. Lett. B688 (2010) 329–331, [arXiv:0912.5038].
 [45] J. Giedt, A. W. Thomas, and R. D. Young, Dark matter, the CMSSM and lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (2009) 201802, [arXiv:0907.4177].
 [46] J. M. Alarcón, J. Martin Camalich, and J. A. Oller, The chiral representation of the scattering amplitude and the pionnucleon sigma term, Phys. Rev. D85 (2012) 051503, [arXiv:1110.3797].
 [47] J. M. Alarcón, L. S. Geng, J. Martin Camalich, and J. A. Oller, The strangeness content of the nucleon from effective field theory and phenomenology, Phys. Lett. B730 (2014) 342–346, [arXiv:1209.2870].
 [48] LUX Collaboration, D. S. Akerib et al., Results from a search for dark matter in the complete LUX exposure, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017), no. 2 021303, [arXiv:1608.07648].
 [49] PandaXII Collaboration, X. Cui et al., Dark Matter Results From 54TonDay Exposure of PandaXII Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017), no. 18 181302, [arXiv:1708.06917].
 [50] E. Aprile et al., Dark Matter Search Results from a One TonneYear Exposure of XENON1T, arXiv:1805.12562.
 [51] DARWIN Collaboration, J. Aalbers et al., DARWIN: towards the ultimate dark matter detector, JCAP 1611 (2016) 017, [arXiv:1606.07001].
 [52] K. Petraki and A. Kusenko, Darkmatter sterile neutrinos in models with a gauge singlet in the Higgs sector, Phys. Rev. D77 (2008) 065014, [arXiv:0711.4646].
 [53] K. Enqvist, S. Nurmi, T. Tenkanen, and K. Tuominen, Standard Model with a real singlet scalar and inflation, JCAP 1408 (2014) 035, [arXiv:1407.0659].
 [54] F. Kahlhoefer, On the LHC sensitivity for nonthermalised hidden sectors, Phys. Lett. B779 (2018) 388–392, [arXiv:1801.07621].
 [55] J. M. Cline and K. Kainulainen, Electroweak baryogenesis and dark matter from a singlet Higgs, JCAP 1301 (2013) 012, [arXiv:1210.4196].
 [56] Planck Collaboration, P. A. R. Ade et al., Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 594 (2016) A13, [arXiv:1502.01589].
 [57] N. Bernal and X. Chu, SIMP Dark Matter, JCAP 1601 (2016) 006, [arXiv:1510.08527].
 [58] A. D. Dolgov, On Concentration of Relic Theta Particles. (in russian), Yad. Fiz. 31 (1980) 1522–1528.
 [59] E. D. Carlson, M. E. Machacek, and L. J. Hall, Selfinteracting dark matter, Astrophys. J. 398 (1992) 43–52.
 [60] Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, T. Volansky, and J. G. Wacker, Mechanism for Thermal Relic Dark Matter of Strongly Interacting Massive Particles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (2014) 171301, [arXiv:1402.5143].
 [61] N. Bernal, C. GarciaCely, and R. Rosenfeld, WIMP and SIMP Dark Matter from the Spontaneous Breaking of a Global Group, JCAP 1504 (2015), no. 04 012, [arXiv:1501.01973].
 [62] N. Bernal, C. GarciaCely, and R. Rosenfeld, WIMP and SIMP Dark Matter from a Global Breaking, Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc. 267269 (2015) 353–355.
 [63] N. Bernal, X. Chu, C. GarciaCely, T. Hambye, and B. Zaldivar, Production Regimes for SelfInteracting Dark Matter, JCAP 1603 (2016), no. 03 018, [arXiv:1510.08063].
 [64] D. Pappadopulo, J. T. Ruderman, and G. Trevisan, Dark matter freezeout in a nonrelativistic sector, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016), no. 3 035005, [arXiv:1602.04219].
 [65] M. Heikinheimo, T. Tenkanen, K. Tuominen, and V. Vaskonen, Observational Constraints on Decoupled Hidden Sectors, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016), no. 6 063506, [arXiv:1604.02401]. [Erratum: Phys. Rev.D96,no.10,109902(2017)].
 [66] M. Farina, D. Pappadopulo, J. T. Ruderman, and G. Trevisan, Phases of Cannibal Dark Matter, JHEP 12 (2016) 039, [arXiv:1607.03108].
 [67] X. Chu, C. GarciaCely, and T. Hambye, Can the relic density of selfinteracting dark matter be due to annihilations into Standard Model particles?, JHEP 11 (2016) 048, [arXiv:1609.00399].
 [68] U. K. Dey, T. N. Maity, and T. S. Ray, Light Dark Matter through Assisted Annihilation, JCAP 1703 (2017), no. 03 045, [arXiv:1612.09074].
 [69] N. Bernal, X. Chu, and J. Pradler, Simply split strongly interacting massive particles, Phys. Rev. D95 (2017), no. 11 115023, [arXiv:1702.04906].
 [70] S.M. Choi, H. M. Lee, and M.S. Seo, Cosmic abundances of SIMP dark matter, JHEP 04 (2017) 154, [arXiv:1702.07860].
 [71] M. Heikinheimo, T. Tenkanen, and K. Tuominen, WIMP miracle of the second kind, Phys. Rev. D96 (2017), no. 2 023001, [arXiv:1704.05359].
 [72] S.Y. Ho, T. Toma, and K. Tsumura, A Radiative Neutrino Mass Model with SIMP Dark Matter, JHEP 07 (2017) 101, [arXiv:1705.00592].
 [73] A. D. Dolgov, New Old Mechanism of Dark Matter Burning, arXiv:1705.03689.
 [74] C. GarciaCely and X. Chu, Selfinteracting dark matter as a solution to the problems in smallscale structures, in Proceedings, 52 Rencontres de Moriond on Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories: La Thuile, Italy, March 1825, 2017, pp. 307–314, 2017. arXiv:1705.06221.
 [75] R. S. L. Hansen and S. Vogl, Thermalizing sterile neutrino dark matter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017), no. 25 251305, [arXiv:1706.02707].
 [76] X. Chu and C. GarciaCely, Selfinteracting Spin2 Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D96 (2017), no. 10 103519, [arXiv:1708.06764].
 [77] M. Duch, B. Grzadkowski, and D. Huang, Strongly selfinteracting vector dark matter via freezein, JHEP 01 (2018) 020, [arXiv:1710.00320].
 [78] B. Chauhan, SubMeV Self Interacting Dark Matter, arXiv:1711.02970.
 [79] J. Herms, A. Ibarra, and T. Toma, A new mechanism of sterile neutrino dark matter production, arXiv:1802.02973.
 [80] M. Heikinheimo, K. Tuominen, and K. Langæble, Hidden strongly interacting massive particles, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018), no. 9 095040, [arXiv:1803.07518].
 [81] Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, and H. Murayama, Twin SIMPs, arXiv:1805.09345.
 [82] Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, R. McGehee, H. Murayama, and K. Schutz, SIMPs through the axion portal, arXiv:1806.10139.
 [83] M. Frigerio, T. Hambye, and E. Masso, SubGeV dark matter as pseudoGoldstone from the seesaw scale, Phys. Rev. X1 (2011) 021026, [arXiv:1107.4564].