1 Introduction
Supersymmetry (SUSY) is a promising candidate for physics beyond the Standard Model (SM). The supersymmetric extension predicts the superpartners of the SM particles, and the masses of the SUSY particles are expected to be at least TeVscale, in order to explain the origin of the electroweak (EW) scale.^{1}^{1}1See for reviews e.g. [1, 2]. In the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM), there is a supersymmetric mass parameter, what is called parameter, for higgsino that is the superpartner of Higgs bosons. In order to realize the EW scale without finetuning, parameter should be EWscale. Besides, the lightest particle in the MSSM becomes stable because of Rparity, so that higgsino becomes a good dark matter (DM) candidate if there is no lighter SUSY particle. So far, a lot of efforts are devoted to the SUSY search in the collider experiments and the dark matter observations [3]. There are no decisive signals of the SUSY particles, but higgsino is still one of the possible and attractive DM candidates that reveal the origin of the EW scale.
In the MSSM, there are a lot of parameters, so that we can consider many possibilities of the mass spectrum for the SUSY particles. The direct searches for the SUSY particles as well as the 125 GeV Higgs boson mass measurement at the LHC [4], however, constrain the parameter space strictly. It is getting very difficult to construct SUSY models, as long as the explanation of the EW scale is not discarded. One possible setup to achieve both the 125 GeV Higgs boson mass and the explanation of the EW scale is known as the NonUniversal Gaugino Masses (NUGM) scenario [5, 6]. In this scenario, a suitable ratio of the wino mass to the gluino mass achieves the EW scale and the 125 GeV Higgs boson mass. Then, the parameter is predicted to be close to the EW scale. The current status and the future prospect of the discovery of the SUSY particles at the LHC have been investigated in this scenario [7, 8, 9]. We find that the superpartners of top quark and gluon, what are called top squark and gluino, are promising particles to test this scenario. Expected reaches of these SUSY particles decaying to higgsinos are studied in Refs. [10, 11].
Note that there are some models that lead such a ratio of the gauginos. One possibility is the mirage mediation [12, 13, 14], that is a mixture of the moduli mediation [15, 16] and anomaly mediation [17, 18]. The phenomenology of the mirage mediation is discussed before the Higgs boson discovery in Refs. [19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29] and after that in Refs. [30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36]. There are some works to realize the ratio of the gauginos in the GUT models [37] and superstring models [38].
In this kind of SUSY models, higgsino is light because of the explanation of the origin of the EW scale, and the SUSY particle is expected to be discovered in experiments. There are neutral and charged components in higgsino, and the neutral component mixes with bino and wino, and the charged component mixes with wino.^{2}^{2}2Wino and bino are the superpartners of and gauge bosons, respectively. In our scenario, the gauginos are relatively heavy, so that all components of higgsino are light and almost degenerate; in fact, the mass difference is a few GeV [7, 8]. Then, higgsino is hard to be detected at the LHC due to the certainly small mass differences. On the other hand, dark matter direct detection experiments can efficiently observe higgsinos, if the neutral component of higgsino slightly mixes with the gauginos and dominates over our universe. It is also interesting that the higgsino mass should be lighter than about 1 TeV, if higgsino is thermally produced. Then, our DM mass, that mainly comes from the neutral component of higgsino, is predicted to be between the EW scale and 1 TeV.
In this paper, we study dark matter physics in the NUGM scenario. Direct detection experiments are sensitive to not only the higgsino mass itself, but also the gaugino masses, because the higgsinogaugino mixing gives the most significant contribution to the detection rate. We also discuss the constraints from the LHC experiments, based on the results in Refs. [7, 8, 9]. We explicitly show the exclusion limit and the future prospect on the plane of the higgsino and the gaugino masses. In the end, we find that this scenario can be fully covered by the future experiments, as far as the gluino mass is below 2.5 TeV in a certain parameter set.
This paper is organized as follows. The NUGM scenario is reviewed in Section 2, and we discuss dark matter physics in Section 3. The results of numerical calculations are shown in Section 4. Section 5 is devoted to conclusion.
2 NUGM scenario
2.1 Review of NUGM
The NUGM scenario is known as one of the attractive SUSY models to realize parameter near the EW scale and the 125 GeV Higgs boson mass simultaneously. The parameter is related to the EW symmetry breaking scale through the minimization condition for the Higgs potential as
(1) 
where is the Zboson mass and is the soft scalar mass squared for the uptype Higgs boson. This relation shows that and should be around the EW scale to avoid the finetuning between those parameters. The parameter is an unique SUSYpreserving parameter in the MSSM. On the other hand, all other dimensional parameters softly break SUSY and would be originated from some mediation mechanisms of SUSY breaking: i.e., the soft SUSY breaking terms would have same origin. Let us assume that the all ratios of soft SUSY breaking parameters are fixed by some mediation mechanisms and the overall scale is given by . In this assumption, Eq. (1) corresponds to the relation between and . In Ref. [39], the parameter, , to measure the sensitivity of the parameter to the EW scale is introduced:
(2) 
Since is expressed as a quadratic polynomial function of the boundary conditions, we can derive at the treelevel and is satisfied. Thus the tuning of the parameter represents the degree of tuning to realize the EW symmetry breaking in the model. From the relation Eq. (1), the tuning measure of the parameter can be written as up to radiative corrections to the condition, so that small is simply required to avoid the finetuning in this assumption. The details of this kind of discussions in the NUGM scenario are shown in Refs. [9, 40]. We proceed to study collider and dark matter phenomenology with the NUGM in this assumption.
In this paper, we assume universal soft scalar mass and Aterm , while the gaugino masses are nonuniversal at the gauge coupling unification scale ( GeV). We assume the ratio of two Higgs vacuum expectation values (VEVs) throughout this paper. The soft mass squared at TeV relates to the boundary conditions at the unification scale as
This relation shows that the contribution from the gluino mass is dominant among the renormalization group (RG) effects, but we find that the gluino mass contribution can be canceled by the RG effects from the other gaugino masses . In particular, the term cancels the term if the ratio of satisfies 34. Similarly, the top squark mass parameters , and at TeV are related to the boundary conditions as
(4)  
(5)  
(6) 
We see that increases and decreases as the wino mass increases. Note that the latter effect is induced by the top Yukawa coupling. As a result, the ratio increases and the SMlike Higgs boson mass around 125 GeV can be achieved due to the relatively large wino.
2.2 Mass spectrum of NUGM
We see that the suitable winotogluino mass ratio reduces the parameter and also enhances the Higgs boson mass. Besides, some of sparticle masses are within reaches of the LHC experiment thanks to the sizable leftright mixing of the top squarks [7, 8].
When the wino mass is large, lefthanded sparticles become heavy due to the RG evolution. The righthanded slepton masses are determined by the bino mass, while the righthanded squark masses mainly depend on both the gluino and bino masses. The bino mass plays a crucial role in shifting the top squark mass, as well. This means that the bino mass have to be so heavy that the top squark mass is enough heavy to be consistent with the LHC results.
Another important point derived from the relatively heavy bino and wino is that the mass differences among the components of higgsino become small. The mass differences are induced by the mixing with higgsino and gauginos, so that these are suppressed by the bino and wino masses as explicitly shown in next section. The mass differences among the components of higgsino are typically 2 GeV as shown in Ref. [7]. This small mass difference makes it difficult to detect higgsino directly at the LHC, because their daughter particles are too soft to be distinguished from backgrounds and their lifetimes are too short to be recognized as charged tracks unlike the case that wino is the lightest SUSY particle (LSP) [41] ^{3}^{3}3There are recent works to study searching for charged higgsinos that exploit their relatively long lifetime [42, 43]. . This feature also indicates that we can treat all of the particles from higgsino as invisible particles at the LHC.
Let us summarize the important features of our mass spectrum discussed below:

All gauginos are TeV.

The higgsino mass is between the EW scale and 1 TeV, and the mass differences are GeV.

Righthanded top squark is relatively light.
2.3 LHC bounds
In our scenario, the top squark and the gluino are the good candidates to be detected at the LHC. The current exclusion limit and the future prospect have been studied in Refs. [7, 8, 9].
In the NUGM scenario, a top squark decays as where each branching fraction is as long as the mass difference between the top squark and each of the higgsinolike particles is significantly larger than the top quark mass. Note that the neutralinos consist of higgsino that slightly mixes with wino and bino in our scenario. The relevant top squark searches at the LHC are discussed in Ref. [44] and Ref. [45]. The former analysis aims to a pair of bottom squarks that decay as . This gives same signal as in the NUGM scenario. The latter analysis aims to hadronically decaying top squarks, . In Ref. [45], the signal regions require more than 4 jets, where 2 of these should be btagged. Such signal regions will be sensitive to events in the NUGM scenario, although this analysis is not completely optimized. This decay pattern is realized in almost half of the events with the pair produced top squarks if the mass difference between the top squark and higgsino is enough large. Thus this channel that targets to the hadronically decaying top squark is sensitive to the large mass difference region, while the former channel that targets to bottom squarks decaying to a bottom quark and a neutralino is sensitive to the mass degenerate region. Referring the analysis in Ref. [9], top squark lighter than 800 GeV is excluded if GeV is satisfied, and top squark lighter than 600 GeV is excluded in the range with GeV GeV. There is no exclusion limit for top squarks if is greater than 270 GeV.
In present scenario, a gluino decays as . Hence, the the signal from the gluino pair production is expected to have 4 btagged jets, jets/leptons coming from 24 Wbosons and large missing energies in the final state. The analysis in Ref. [46] aims to this type of signals, and we refer the exclusion limit obtained in Ref. [9]. Gluino lighter than 1.8 TeV is excluded if the parameter is less than 800 GeV. The bound is relaxed if the mass difference is smaller than about 300 GeV.
Note that there is another channel, , that is induced by the top squark loop. If the mass difference between gluino and higgsino is near or less than the top quark mass, this decay channel becomes important. We need to consider the limits based on data such as Ref. [47], but it is beyond the scope of this paper.
Let us comment on the case with light bino. If gluino is enough heavy, bino can be as light as higgsino and top squark can also decay to bino. The decay is, however, usually suppressed unless bino is significantly lighter than higgsino because the coupling of bino with top squark is much weaker than the one of higgsinos because of the top Yukawa coupling. Such a light bino is less attractive from the experimental point of view. If the bino mass is light, gluino has to be much heavier than the experimental reach in order to shift the top squark mass. Then, the light bino case would be unfavorable from the naturalness point of view. Furthermore, it is known that bino LSP tends to overclose the universe and some dilution mechanisms are necessary.
3 Dark matter physics
3.1 Neutralino sector
In our study, we assume that the signs of all the gaugino masses are positive and the sign of the parameter is either negative or positive. After the EW symmetry breaking, gauginos and higgsino are mixed each other. The neutralino mass matrix in a basis of is given by
(7) 
where , , and are defined and is the Weinberg angle. This matrix is diagonalized by an unitary matrix as
(8) 
The masses, , , and approach to , , , and in the limit that is vanishing, respectively. The mass eigenstate () becomes the lightest one if the parameter is positive (negative) and .
The neutralinoneutralinoHiggs coupling, , is given by
(9) 
where , and are short for , and , respectively. is a mixing angle of the Higgs boson. The mixing matrix is given by
(10)  
(11)  
(12)  
(13) 
where is assumed.
3.2 Thermal relic abundance
It is known that the thermal relic density of the purely higgsino LSP saturates the universe when the higgsino mass is about 1 TeV [48, 49]. If we assume that there is no dilution effect after the thermal production of the LSP, the higgsinolike LSP heavier than 1 TeV overcloses the universe and is cosmologically excluded unless the higgsino and another sparticle, such as a top squark, are so degenerate that coannihilation processes between them reduce the relic density.
Let us comment on possibilities that gauginos contribute to dark matter considerably. In our scenario, the wino mass should be as large as the gluino mass at the TeV scale and it hardly contributes to the dark matter. The bino mass can be as light as the higgsino mass if the gluino mass is enough large to keep the top squark mass. It was interesting that the welltempered binohiggsino LSP explains the observed abundance in the thermal scenario [50], but most of parameter space has been already excluded by the direct detections as will be discussed later ^{4}^{4}4 There are narrow regions where the thermal binohiggsino LSP explains the abundance by the Higgs or Zboson resonances without tension with the DM direct detection experiments [51]..
In our scenario, the relic DM abundance thermally produced may not be sufficient to satisfy the observed DM abundance in our universe. When we denote the relic abundance of the LSP as , we can simply consider two possibilities to saturate the observed value, [52]:

is only given by the thermal production, and is satisfied.

is always satisfied, assuming nonthermal production of LSP works.
In the case (A), what is called , the LSP may not saturate our universe, depending on the parameter region. Then, we need other dark matter candidates such as axion to achieve the observed relic abundance of DM.
In the case (B), what is called  , we simply assume that the LSP dominates our universe and satisfies . We do not explicitly calculate the relic abundance, but several mechanisms for the nonthermal productions have been proposed so far. For instance, it is known that the decays of longlived heavy particles, such as gravitino, saxion and moduli field, can significantly produce the LSP after the LSP is frozen out from the thermal bath [53, 54, 55, 56].
Note that the important difference of the two scenarios is whether is allowed or not. In our study, we estimate the thermal relic density of the LSP, and we exclude the region with ^{5}^{5}5 Note that this region is not truly excluded in the nonthermal scenario, but such region satisfies TeV that is less attractive from both the testability and the naturalness point of view.. When we estimate the direct detection rate of DM, the abundance of the LSP is important. Then we draw the exclusion limits of both cases.
3.3 direct detection
The direct detection for dark matter is a promising way to probe the neutralino sector of the MSSM. The current limits on the spinindependent and spindependent cross sections are given by the XENON100 [57, 58, 59], LUX [60, 61], PANDAXII [62, 63] and PICO [64, 65]. The XENON1T [66] and LZ [67] will cover wider range in near future.
Let us discuss spinindependent cross section of neutralino scattering with nucleons. Note that the limits on the gaugino masses from the spinindependent cross section are stronger than those from the spindependent cross section in most cases.
At treelevel, spinindependent scatterings are induced by the tchannel Higgs boson exchange and the schannel squark exchange. Since only one top squark is light in the NUGM scenario, the latter contribution is negligibly small. The mixing between gauginos and higgsino are important in the Higgs boson exchange, because the LSPLSPHiggs coupling in the mass eigenstate basis is originated from the gauginohiggsinoHiggs couplings in the gauge eigenstate basis. In the limit of , the mixing effects are suppressed by as shown in Eqs. (12) and (13).
It has been shown that there is a parameter set to lead vanishing gauginohiggsino mixing, what is called the blind spot [68]. As we see Eqs.(9), (10) and (11), the mixing is proportional to , so that the mixing vanishes when the relative signs of and are opposite, and and are satisfied. Thus the blind spot appears only in the gauginolike LSP scenario.
Note that the mixing is suppressed when the LSP is higgsinolike and signs of and are opposite, as we can see from Eqs.(12) and (13). Since the mixing is proportional to , smaller induces larger enhancement (suppression) for the same (opposite) sign. We need in order to realize the SMlike Higgs boson mass unless the sparticle masses are much heavier than 1 TeV, so that such effect is at most level. Thus we conclude that the gauginohiggsino mixing is sizable and the factor, , leads significant difference between the positive and the negative parameter cases in the DM scattering cross section.
The spinindependent cross section per nucleon at the treelevel can be written as
(14) 
where is the nucleon mass and . In the decoupling limit that is a good approximation for our case, using Eqs. (12) and (13), the LSPLSPHiggs coupling is derived from Eq. (9):
(15) 
where corresponds to a sign of the parameter.
input [GeV]  (a)  (b)  (c)  (d) 

250  250  1000  1000  
10000  10000  5000  5000  
1000  1000  1500  1500  
1000  1000  1000  1000  
output [GeV]  
4223  4175  4698  4504  
2378  2325  1916  1657  
mass [GeV]  
125.0  125.0  125.0  125.0  
3349  3326  3351  3248  
1606  1636  1431  1581  
2780  2762  3582  3520  
2250  2250  3225  3223  
258.8  255.7  1016  1013  
260.5  258.3  1019  1017  
3438  3400  2239  2237  
4455  4454  3839  3682  
260.5  257.1  1018  1015  
3439  3400  3840  3682  
observables  
7.82  7.58  1.14  1.16  
1.39  1.42  0.104  0.105  
0.533  0.535  0.488  0.489  
0.436  0.435  0.408  0.407  
1.096  1.138  0.1677  0.1757  
3.499  8.505  8.918  22.37  
3.302  7.793  7.853  19.50 
We list the explicit values of masses and observables at the sample points in Table 1. We can see that the Aterm is same order as other input parameters, but the Higgs boson mass is about 125 GeV owing to the suitable winotogluino mass ratio. The top squark mass is about 1.5 TeV and the gluino mass is 23 TeV, so that they could be in the reach of the HLLHC. The bino and wino masses are between 2 TeV and 5 TeV and they are far beyond the experimental reach of the LHC experiment.
When GeV in the samples (a), (b), (c) and (d), the thermal relic abundance is . The selfannihilation rate of the neutralinos in the zerovelocity limit, denoted by , is and they are dominantly decaying to weak gauge bosons. These processes are induced by the tchannel neutralino or chargino exchange, and then the rate is determined by the higgsino mass itself. These are important for the indirect detections as discussed below.
We also show the spindependent and spinindependent LSPproton cross sections, , calculated by using micrOMEGA4.2.5 [69]. is obtained from Eqs. (14) and (15), where are taken same as the values adopted in micrOMEGA [70]. We can see the SI cross section is well described by the treelevel Higgsexchanging process, but there are small deviations from the results of micrOMEGA.
A dominant source for the deviation come from the QCD corrections to the heavy quark matrix elements [71], which enhance the cross section about 10 against the treelevel contribution. Besides, the top squarks could give contribution to the cross section, when a mass difference is small. However, it is known that the leading contribution, which is suppressed by , is proportional to the size of nontrivial mixing of the top squarks [72]. The top squark is almost righthanded in our scenario and thus such contribution can not be sizable. We take the top squark corrections derived in Ref. [72] into account, and confirm that these are about 1 against the treelevel countribution at the sample (d) and fewer for the other sample points. We have checked that our results agree with the results of micrOMEGA exhibited in Table 1 within several level after including these effects. There are potentially sizable corrections from neutralino/Zboson and chargino/Wboson mediated loop diagrams, where the neutralino and chargino are higgsinolike, but these are almost canceled out among them as shown in Ref. [73].
3.4 Indirect detection
Let us comment on indirect detections for the dark matter. A pair of neutralinos decay to or with the zerovelocity cross section: that is as shown in Table 1.
One of the most promising observables may be the neutrino flux from the sun. The capture rate of neutralino by the sun is determined by the interaction between neutralino and nucleons. Since the spindependent cross section is much larger than the spinindependent one, the observations would give significant bounds on the spindependent cross section. The weak bosons produced by the annihilation of dark matter decay to neutrinos. The observed limit of neutrinos given by the IceCube is pb when the dark matter mass is 500 GeV and they decay to Wbosons exclusively [74]. This limit is comparable to the expected limit at the XENON1T [57]. We will see that exclusion limits for the parameter space from the XENON1T are much weaker than limits from the spinindependent cross section, so that the current limit from IceCube experiment can not be important one.
Cosmic ray observations such as photons, positrons and antiprotons could be powerful tools to detect dark matter. These limits of the annihilation cross section of DM reach to and the parameter region discussed in present paper is competing with these bounds. We consider the recent experimental results obtained by the FermiLAT [75] and AMS02 [76]. The former observes gamma rays coming from the dwarf spheroidal satellite galaxies (dSphs) of the Milky Way and the latter observes antiprotons coming from dark matter annihilations in the Milky Way. We refer the exclusion limit from the AMS02 experiment obtained in the analysis [77] ^{6}^{6}6 Similar analysis is done in Ref. [78].. The FermiLAT experiment also observes gammarays coming from the galactic center and this potentially gives significant constraints on the dark matter annihilation rate. However, the results are highly dependent on dark matter density profiles [79], so that we do not discuss about this in present paper.
Figure 1 shows the upper limits on the annihilation cross section from the recent results of the FermiLAT (black line) and the AMS02 (green line). The dots are predictions from the NUGM scenario and obtained by the parameter scanning to draw figures in next section. We plot the points with TeV at the unification scale. The blue dots indicate the lightest neutralino mass and the annihilation rate itself, but it is multiplied by for the red dots. Since the higgsinolike dark matter dominantly annihilate to Wbosons or Zbosons by the tchannel exchange of the higgsinolike chargino or neutralino, the annihilation rate is mostly determined by the higgsino mass itself and almost independent of other parameters. We see that the FermiLAT result excludes the neutralino lighter than about 300 GeV and the AMS02 excludes the neutralino lighter than about 800 GeV in the nonthermal scenario. On the other hand, the indirect detections do not give limits on the thermal scenario, because the annihilation rate is suppressed by the factor . Exclusion limits on the higgsino dark matter produced from some nonthermal processes at the FermiLAT and the future planned CTA experiments [80] have been discussed in Ref. [81].
4 Numerical results
Based on the above discussion, we summarize the experimental bounds and show the allowed region. As mentioned in Section 3.2, our analysis of the relic density includes two possibilities: thermal scenario and nonthermal scenario. We calculate only thermal relic density and exclude the region with . The difference of two scenarios only appear in the bound from the direct detection of DM. is possible in the thermal scenario, so that the bound is relaxed.
Figure 3 shows the allowed region for the dark matter observables, the top squark mass and exclusion limits from the collider experiments. We assume TeV, TeV at the unification scale and are chosen to realize the SMlike Higgs boson mass and the parameter at each point. We take the ratio of the Higgs VEVs as . We use softsusy3.5.1 [82] to calculate the RG effects and the mass spectrum of sparticles and Higgs bosons. Their width and branching ratios are calculated by SDECAY and HDECAY [83]. The dark matter observables are calculated by micrOmega4.2.5 [69].
The red lines represent the thermal relic density of the neutralino, where the solid (dashed) lines correspond to respectively. [52] is achieved in the red band around TeV. The thermal relic density of the dark matter exceeds the observed value, , in the light gray region, so that this region is excluded if there is no dilution effects after the freezeout of the neutralino. The gray region at GeV is excluded by the LEP experiment [84]. Although the charged and neutral components of higgsino are certainly degenerate, they can be probed by the monophoton channel. The background color represent the mass of the lightest top squark. The purple line around TeV and GeV is the expected exclusion limits for the spindependent cross section from the XENON1T experiment [57].
The spinindependent cross section exceeds the current limit given by the LUX experiment [61] in the blue band. This should be understood as the limits for the nonthermal scenario and the limit would be relaxed as the parameter decreases in the thermal scenario. Such a suppression is, however, not so significant in this region, because the thermal relic density is enhanced due to the sizable fraction of bino to the lightest neutralino. The blue shaded region covered by the solid blue lines (XENON1TN) is the expected limit from the XENON1T experiment in the nonthermal case , while the dashed blue line (XENON1TT) corresponds to the same limit in the thermal case, where the detection rate is suppressed due to the fewer neutralino relic density. Note that the cross section of the spinindependent direct detection is always larger than pb in all figures in this paper. Then, we expect that the future experiments, the XENON1T [66] and the LZ [67], could cover our parameter region in the nonthermal scenario. On the other hand, the current limit from the spindependent cross section is fully covered by the spinindependent one.
The exclusion limit from the spinindependent cross section becomes stronger as the parameter decreases in the nonthermal scenario. The reason is that the experimental limits for the cross section becomes tighter for lighter dark matter masses as long as the dark matter mass is heavier than about 40 GeV. On the other hand, this effect is erased by the smaller LSP density in the thermal scenario. The light bino mass region is easier to be excluded due to the large binohiggsino mixing, especially the welltempered region has already excluded by the current LUX limit as well known. The spinindependent cross section is significantly large for the positive parameter compared with the case of the negative parameter. This is because the cross section is proportional to as can be read from Eq. (15).
Note that the exclusion limits on the  plane are severer than the ones derived in Ref. [68]. The difference comes from the fact that wino does not decouple completely in the NUGM scenario. In order to keep the parameter smaller than 1 TeV, the wino mass at the unification scale has to be 34 times larger than the gluino mass. The higher winotogluino ratio is required for the lower typical sparticle scale which is defined as the geometric mean of the top squark masses. In this case, (, ) are about (4 TeV, 1.5 TeV) at the unification scale and it enhances the spinindependent cross section.
Figure 3 shows the allowed region for and at TeV. The different value of influences to the direct detection rate and the top squark mass. Top squark becomes the lightest SUSY particle in the dark gray region, and the top squark search at the LHC excludes the brown region. The LHC bounds are projected from the analysis in Ref. [9]. The bino mass has to be so large that top squark mass is larger than the higgsino mass.
The lighter gluino mass leads the lighter wino mass and the spinindependent cross section is enhanced by the winohiggsino mixing. We see that the XENON1T experiment covers the whole region with in the nonthermal scenario.
Figures 5 and 5 show the allowed region for and where is TeV and TeV at the unification scale, respectively. Other parameters are set to be the same as in Figures 3 and 3. The constraint from the gluino search at the LHC is also applied to these figures and it excludes the dark brown region. The gluino mass lower bound is around 800 GeV, so that there was no exclusion bounds in Figs. 3 and 3. We can see that experimental reaches from direct detections for the gluino mass can be much severer than those from the LHC experiment in the nonthermal scenario.
The winohiggsino mixing is reduced as gluino becomes heavy. The mixing, however, is not vanishing in our modeldependent analysis. We see that the gauginohiggsino mixing predicts the spinindependent cross section larger than pb everywhere in all of the four figures. Thus the parameter region is on the neutrino floor [85] and the region in our analysis would be fully covered by the future planned observations such as the XENONnT, LZD, PandaX4T and so on.
5 Conclusion
In this paper, we study the dark matter physics in the NonUniversal Gaugino Mass scenario. The NUGM scenario is one of the possible setups of the MSSM to achieve the 125 GeV Higgs boson mass and the parameter below 1 TeV, that naturally explain the origin of the EW scale. Since one top squark is relatively light in our scenario, the authors in Refs. [7, 8] study the current status and the future prospect on the direct search for top squark and gluino at the LHC.
Although the higgsino mass is the most important from the naturalness point of view, higgsino can not be probed by the LHC due to their suitable mass difference GeV. On the other hand, the higgsino mass is critically important for dark matter physics and can be tested by the dark matter observations. The higgsino mass can not be larger than 1 TeV in order not to overclose the universe if we assume that there is no dilution effect after the LSP is frozen out.
Direct detections for dark matter are powerful tool to probe the neutralino sector of the MSSM. Even the bino and the wino masses are 34 TeV, the spinindependent cross section between higgsino and nucleon is in the observational reach. Therefore, the wider parameter space can be covered by the direct detection than the gluino search at the LHC, when the winotogluino mass ratio is fixed to realize the small parameter and the higgsinolike LSP dominates the relic density of dark matter.
If the neutralino density is determined by the standard thermal process, the direct detection is sensitive to the parameter region where the higgsino mass is around 1 TeV, while the top squark and the gluino searches at the LHC are generally sensitive to lighter higgsino. Thus the direct detection complement the direct search at the LHC.
The universal gaugino masses are clearly disfavored by the recent dark matter observations. The LSP is either bino or higgsino in this case, but the bino LSP easily overclose the universe. Even if the higgsino LSP is realized in some ways such as considered in Refs. [86, 87], light bino and wino are severely constrained by the direct detections. The direct detection constraints push up the gluino mass far above the experimental reach and such a heavy gluino indicates all other sparticles are also hopeless to be discovered except in some special cases. Thus the nonuniversal gaugino masses with relatively heavy bino and wino masses seems to be more interesting than the universal gaugino masses.
Acknowledgments
The work of J. K. was supported by GrantinAid for Research Fellow of Japan Society for the Promotion of Science No. 16J04215.
References
 [1] S. P. Martin, In *Kane, G.L. (ed.): Perspectives on supersymmetry II* 1153 [hepph/9709356].
 [2] D. J. H. Chung, L. L. Everett, G. L. Kane, S. F. King, J. D. Lykken and L. T. Wang, Phys. Rept. 407, 1 (2005) [hepph/0312378].
 [3] G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski and K. Griest, Phys. Rept. 267 (1996) 195 [hepph/9506380].
 [4] G. Aad et al. [ATLAS and CMS Collaborations], Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 191803 [arXiv:1503.07589 [hepex]].
 [5] H. Abe, T. Kobayashi and Y. Omura, Phys. Rev. D 76, 015002 (2007) [hepph/0703044 [HEPPH]].
 [6] H. Abe, J. Kawamura and H. Otsuka, PTEP 2013, 013B02 (2013) [arXiv:1208.5328 [hepph]].
 [7] H. Abe, J. Kawamura and Y. Omura, JHEP 1508, 089 (2015) [arXiv:1505.03729 [hepph]].
 [8] J. Kawamura and Y. Omura, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) no.5, 055019 [arXiv:1601.03484 [hepph]].
 [9] J.Kawamura, PhD thesis.
 [10] H. Baer, V. Barger, N. Nagata and M. Savoy, arXiv:1611.08511 [hepph]; H. Baer, V. Barger, N. Nagata and S. Michael, Phys. Rev. D 95, no. 5, 055012 (2017).
 [11] H. Baer, V. Barger, J. S. Gainer, P. Huang, M. Savoy, D. Sengupta and X. Tata, arXiv:1612.00795 [hepph].
 [12] K. Choi, A. Falkowski, H. P. Nilles, M. Olechowski and S. Pokorski, JHEP 0411, 076 (2004) [hepth/0411066].
 [13] K. Choi, A. Falkowski, H. P. Nilles and M. Olechowski, Nucl. Phys. B 718, 113 (2005) [hepth/0503216].
 [14] K. Choi, K. S. Jeong and K. i. Okumura, JHEP 0509, 039 (2005) [hepph/0504037].
 [15] A. Brignole, L. E. Ibanez, C. Munoz and C. Scheich, Z. Phys. C 74, 157 (1997) [hepph/9508258].
 [16] A. Brignole, L. E. Ibanez and C. Munoz, In *Kane, G.L. (ed.): Perspectives on supersymmetry II* 244268 [hepph/9707209].
 [17] L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Nucl. Phys. B 557 (1999) 79 [hepth/9810155];
 [18] G. F. Giudice, M. A. Luty, H. Murayama and R. Rattazzi, JHEP 9812 (1998) 027 [hepph/9810442].
 [19] K. Choi, K. S. Jeong, T. Kobayashi and K. i. Okumura, Phys. Lett. B 633, 355 (2006) [hepph/0508029]; K. Choi, K. S. Jeong, T. Kobayashi and K. i. Okumura, Phys. Rev. D 75, 095012 (2007) [hepph/0612258].
 [20] R. Kitano and Y. Nomura, Phys. Lett. B 631 (2005) 58 [hepph/0509039].
 [21] K. Choi, K. Y. Lee, Y. Shimizu, Y. G. Kim and K. i. Okumura, JCAP 0612, 017 (2006) [hepph/0609132].
 [22] W. S. Cho, Y. G. Kim, K. Y. Lee, C. B. Park and Y. Shimizu, JHEP 0704, 054 (2007) [hepph/0703163 [HEPPH]].
 [23] M. Nagai and K. Nakayama, Phys. Rev. D 76, 123501 (2007) [arXiv:0709.3918 [hepph]].
 [24] S. Nakamura, K. i. Okumura and M. Yamaguchi, Phys. Rev. D 77, 115027 (2008) [arXiv:0803.3725 [hepph]].
 [25] K. Choi, K. S. Jeong, S. Nakamura, K. I. Okumura and M. Yamaguchi, JHEP 0904, 107 (2009) [arXiv:0901.0052 [hepph]].
 [26] M. Holmes and B. D. Nelson, JCAP 0907, 019 (2009) [arXiv:0905.0674 [hepph]].
 [27] B. Altunkaynak, B. D. Nelson, L. L. Everett, I. W. Kim and Y. Rao, JHEP 1005, 054 (2010) [arXiv:1001.5261 [hepph]].
 [28] L. L. Everett, I. W. Kim, P. Ouyang and K. M. Zurek, JHEP 0808, 102 (2008) [arXiv:0806.2330 [hepph]].
 [29] L. L. Everett, I. W. Kim, P. Ouyang and K. M. Zurek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 101803 (2008) [arXiv:0804.0592 [hepph]].
 [30] M. Asano and T. Higaki, Phys. Rev. D 86, 035020 (2012) [arXiv:1204.0508 [hepph]].
 [31] T. Kobayashi, H. Makino, K. i. Okumura, T. Shimomura and T. Takahashi, JHEP 1301, 081 (2013) [arXiv:1204.3561 [hepph]].
 [32] H. Abe and J. Kawamura, JHEP 1407 (2014) 077 [arXiv:1405.0779 [hepph]].
 [33] K. Hagimoto, T. Kobayashi, H. Makino, K. i. Okumura and T. Shimomura, JHEP 1602, 089 (2016) [arXiv:1509.05327 [hepph]].
 [34] L. L. Everett, T. Garon, B. L. Kaufman and B. D. Nelson, Phys. Rev. D 93, no. 5, 055031 (2016) [arXiv:1510.05692 [hepph]].
 [35] V. Barger, L. L. Everett and T. S. Garon, Phys. Rev. D 93, no. 7, 075024 (2016) [arXiv:1512.05011 [hepph]].
 [36] H. Baer, V. Barger, H. Serce and X. Tata, Phys. Rev. D 94, no. 11, 115017 (2016) [arXiv:1610.06205 [hepph]].
 [37] J. E. Younkin and S. P. Martin, Phys. Rev. D 85, 055028 (2012) [arXiv:1201.2989 [hepph]].
 [38] R. Blumenhagen, B. Kors, D. Lust and S. Stieberger, Phys. Rept. 445, 1 (2007) [hepth/0610327].
 [39] R. Barbieri and G. F. Giudice, Nucl. Phys. B 306 (1988) 63.
 [40] J. Kawamura and Y. Omura, in preparation.
 [41] M. Ibe, T. Moroi and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B 644, 355 (2007) [hepph/0610277].
 [42] R. Mahbubani, P. Schwaller and J. Zurita, arXiv:1703.05327 [hepph].
 [43] H. Fukuda, N. Nagata, H. Otono and S. Shirai, arXiv:1703.09675 [hepph].
 [44] The ATLAS collaboration, ATLASCONF2015066.
 [45] The ATLAS collaboration, ATLASCONF2016077
 [46] The ATLAS collaboration, ATLASCONF2016052.
 [47] The ATLAS collaboration, ATLASCONF2016078
 [48] M. Cirelli, N. Fornengo and A. Strumia, Nucl. Phys. B 753, 178 (2006) [hepph/0512090].
 [49] M. Cirelli, A. Strumia and M. Tamburini, Nucl. Phys. B 787, 152 (2007) [arXiv:0706.4071 [hepph]].
 [50] N. ArkaniHamed, A. Delgado and G. F. Giudice, Nucl. Phys. B 741, 108 (2006) [hepph/0601041].
 [51] K. Hamaguchi and K. Ishikawa, Phys. Rev. D 93 (2016) no.5, 055009 [arXiv:1510.05378 [hepph]].
 [52] P. A. R. Ade et al. [Planck Collaboration], Astron. Astrophys. 594, A13 (2016) [arXiv:1502.01589 [astroph.CO]].
 [53] K. Kohri, M. Yamaguchi and J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D 72, 083510 (2005) [hepph/0502211].
 [54] H. Baer, A. Lessa and W. Sreethawong, JCAP 1201, 036 (2012) [arXiv:1110.2491 [hepph]].
 [55] H. Baer, K. Y. Choi, J. E. Kim and L. Roszkowski, Phys. Rept. 555, 1 (2015) [arXiv:1407.0017 [hepph]].
 [56] R. Allahverdi, M. Cicoli, B. Dutta and K. Sinha, Phys. Rev. D 88, no. 9, 095015 (2013) [arXiv:1307.5086 [hepph]].
 [57] M. Garny, A. Ibarra, M. Pato and S. Vogl, Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) no.5, 056002 [arXiv:1211.4573 [hepph]].
 [58] E. Aprile et al. [XENON100 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 181301 (2012) [arXiv:1207.5988 [astroph.CO]].
 [59] E. Aprile et al. [XENON100 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, no. 2, 021301 (2013) [arXiv:1301.6620 [astroph.CO]].
 [60] D. S. Akerib et al. [LUX Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, no. 16, 161301 (2016) [arXiv:1512.03506 [astroph.CO]].
 [61] D. S. Akerib et al., arXiv:1608.07648 [astroph.CO].
 [62] A. Tan et al. [PandaXII Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, no. 12, 121303 (2016) [arXiv:1607.07400 [hepex]].
 [63] C. Fu et al. [PandaXII Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, no. 7, 071301 (2017) [arXiv:1611.06553 [hepex]].
 [64] C. Amole et al. [PICO Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 93, no. 5, 052014 (2016) [arXiv:1510.07754 [hepex]].
 [65] C. Amole et al. [PICO Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 93, no. 6, 061101 (2016) [arXiv:1601.03729 [astroph.CO]].
 [66] E. Aprile et al. [XENON Collaboration], JCAP 1604, no. 04, 027 (2016) [arXiv:1512.07501 [physics.insdet]].
 [67] D. S. Akerib et al. [LZ Collaboration], arXiv:1509.02910 [physics.insdet].
 [68] C. Cheung, L. J. Hall, D. Pinner and J. T. Ruderman, JHEP 1305 (2013) 100 [arXiv:1211.4873 [hepph]].
 [69] G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov and A. Semenov, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 960 (2014) [arXiv:1305.0237 [hepph]]; G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov and A. Semenov, Comput. Phys. Commun. 174, 577 (2006) [hepph/0405253]; G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov and A. Semenov, Comput. Phys. Commun. 149, 103 (2002) [hepph/0112278].
 [70] G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov and A. Semenov, Comput. Phys. Commun. 192, 322 (2015) [arXiv:1407.6129 [hepph]].
 [71] G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov and A. Semenov, Comput. Phys. Commun. 180 (2009) 747 [arXiv:0803.2360 [hepph]].
 [72] M. Drees and M. Nojiri, Phys. Rev. D 48, 3483 (1993) [hepph/9307208].
 [73] J. Hisano, K. Ishiwata, N. Nagata and T. Takesako, JHEP 1107, 005 (2011) [arXiv:1104.0228 [hepph]].
 [74] M. G. Aartsen et al. [IceCube Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C 77, no. 3, 146 (2017) [arXiv:1612.05949 [astroph.HE]].
 [75] M. Ackermann et al. [FermiLAT Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, no. 23, 231301 (2015) [arXiv:1503.02641 [astroph.HE]].
 [76] M. Aguilar et al. [AMS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, no. 9, 091103 (2016).
 [77] A. Cuoco, M. Krämer and M. Korsmeier, arXiv:1610.03071 [astroph.HE].
 [78] M. Y. Cui, Q. Yuan, Y. L. S. Tsai and Y. Z. Fan, arXiv:1610.03840 [astroph.HE].
 [79] G. A. GomezVargas et al., JCAP 1310, 029 (2013) [arXiv:1308.3515 [astroph.HE]].
 [80] J. Carr et al. [CTA Collaboration], PoS ICRC 2015, 1203 (2016) [arXiv:1508.06128 [astroph.HE]].
 [81] L. Aparicio, M. Cicoli, B. Dutta, F. Muia and F. Quevedo, JHEP 1611, 038 (2016) [arXiv:1607.00004 [hepph]].
 [82] B. C. Allanach, Comput. Phys. Commun. 143, 305 (2002) [hepph/0104145].
 [83] A. Djouadi, M. M. Muhlleitner and M. Spira, Acta Phys. Polon. B 38, 635 (2007) [hepph/0609292]; M. Muhlleitner, A. Djouadi and Y. Mambrini, Comput. Phys. Commun. 168, 46 (2005) [hepph/0311167]; A. Djouadi, J. Kalinowski and M. Spira, Comput. Phys. Commun. 108, 56 (1998) [hepph/9704448].
 [84] K. Jakobs, hepex/0107084.
 [85] J. Billard, L. Strigari and E. FigueroaFeliciano, Phys. Rev. D 89, no. 2, 023524 (2014) [arXiv:1307.5458 [hepph]].
 [86] J. L. Feng and D. Sanford, Phys. Rev. D 86, 055015 (2012) [arXiv:1205.2372 [hepph]].
 [87] H. Baer, V. Barger, P. Huang, A. Mustafayev and X. Tata, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 161802 (2012) [arXiv:1207.3343 [hepph]].