Erratum: PPPC 4 DM ID: a poor particle physicist cookbook for dark matter indirect detection

We correct a few mistakes of the original version of this work (notably related to the computations of extragalactic gamma rays), while at the same time improving and upgrading other aspects (notably as a consequence of the discovery of the higgs boson at the LHC). A brief list of the main changes is: - We include a higgs boson channel hh with mass mh = 125 GeV. All previous channels hmhm are removed. - We correct the formulæ for the computation of extragalactic gamma rays (fixing in particular the redshift dependence) as well as the numerical computations (also including a corrected impact of absorption). - We provide a new version of the Optical Depth function, employing updated models of Extragalactic Background Light (EBL) and fixing the redshift dependence. All these corrections and updates are reflected on the numerical ingredients provided on the website; they correspond to Release 2.0.


JCAP10(2012)E01
Erratum to: JCAP03(2011)051 Abstract. We correct a few mistakes of the original version of this work (notably related to the computations of extragalactic gamma rays), while at the same time improving and upgrading other aspects (notably as a consequence of the discovery of the higgs boson at the LHC). A brief list of the main changes is: -We include a higgs boson channel hh with mass m h = 125 GeV. All previous channels h m h m are removed.
-We correct the formulae for the computation of extragalactic gamma rays (fixing in particular the redshift dependence) as well as the numerical computations (also including a corrected impact of absorption).
-We provide a new version of the Optical Depth function, employing updated models of Extragalactic Background Light (EBL) and fixing the redshift dependence.
All these corrections and updates are reflected on the numerical ingredients provided on the website; 2 they correspond to Release 2.0.

Fluxes at production
We here detail the changes which concern the fluxes at production (section 3 of our original paper). Now that a particle consistent with the SM Higgs boson has been discovered [1], we need more than ever to include the corresponding channel in the list of possible annihilations (or decays), and indeed we do so. The list of primary channels for which we compute the spectra at production, replacing eq. (2) in the original paper, now reads: On the other hand, the detailed properties of such a particle are obviously still under very active investigation, so that we have to make some guesses/assumptions. For its mass, we assume m h = 125 GeV. For its branching ratios, we take those predicted by the Standard Model and embedded in the MonteCarlo codes we use (Herwig and Pythia, which actually employ slightly different values, see the discussion in the original paper). Beyond the Standard Model, the Higgs decay fractions will clearly be different. Should the investigations at the LHC expose a non-SM behavior of the h particle, these assumptions will clearly have to be revised.
Concerning the spectra at production for the other channels, we here improve the interpolation in several respects and correct a numerical mistake affecting in particular the normalization of channels featuring a peak at x ∼ 1, notably γγ.    Figure 2. Energy distribution between the final states particles: e ± , hadrons (p + d), γ and ν, for a set of characteristic annihilation channels. The inner (outer) pie refers to a DM mass of 200 GeV (5 TeV). For each pie chart, the first caption gives the energy fraction going into γ and e ± (E γ+e ) with respect to the total. The second caption gives the energy fraction into hadronic final states (E p+d ) with respect to γ and e ± .

Extragalactic gamma rays
We here detail the changes which concern the fluxes of extragalactic gamma rays (section 7 of our original paper).
Eq. (7.1) in the original paper, the differential flux of extragalactic gamma rays perceived at a certain redshift z, is to be replaced with the following one: (Eγ ,z,z ) . (2.1) In turn eq. (7.2), the flux at z = 0, is to be replaced by: Eq. (7.4), the emissivity j prompt EGγ , is to be replaced by Finally, eq. (7.6) and (7.7) of the original paper should be replaced by the following ones, which hold for the ICS part only: j IC EGγ (E γ , z ) = B(z )(1 + z ) 6 j IC EGγ (E γ , 0) for the case of annihilating DM and by j IC EGγ (E γ , z ) = (1 + z ) 3 j IC EGγ (E γ , 0) for the case of decaying DM. We have also updated the modelizations of the Photon Background Radiation (PBR). We introduce a model named 'maximal UV', which assumes the UV background as given by 'minimal UV' multiplied with a factor 1.5. It can be considered as an upper limit of possible systematic errors of the model given by [2]. The model 'minimal UV' is essentially a renaming and an updating of the 'realistic UV' model of the original paper.
As a consequence of these and other minor changes, the numerical computation of the fluxes of extragalactic gamma rays is modified. Figure 3