CERN Accelerating science

Scheme of the DM annihilation process into SM antinuclei, with relevant distance scales for the case of producing two boosted SUEPs. Only one SUEP decay is shown for simplicity, but the other SUEP state will decay in the same manner. DM annihilation directly to dark quarks gives rise to a single SUEP, which evolves analogously.

Value of the ratio $N_{\overline{\rm{D}}}/N_{\overline{p}}$ in the SUEP model as a function of $T_{\rm SUEP}/m_{\pi_D}$ for different decay products. This plot is for $m_{\rm SUEP}=80$~TeV and $m_{\pi_D}=380$~GeV. The numbers on the vertical axis approximately correspond to the enhancement for $N_{\overline{\rm{D}}}/N_{\overline{p}}$ with respect to the standard WIMP case of Eq. \ref{eq:ratios} for which $N_{\overline{\rm{D}}}/N_{\overline{p}}\sim 10^{-4}$. Comparable rates are found for hadronic channels with up to $\mathcal{O}(1)$ differences, while a Higgs portal leads to no enhancement due to the long lifetime of an on-shell Higgs.

Comparison of the propagation function $\mathcal{G}(K/n)$ for $\overline{p}$, $\overline{\mathrm D}$ and ${}^3\overline{\mathrm{He}}$ (see Eq. \ref{eq:fluxprim}), for an NFW dark matter density profile.

Black contours: enhancements of the ratio $N_{\overline{\rm{D}}}/N_{\overline{p}}$ (left panel) and $N_{^3\overline{\rm{He}}}/N_{\overline{p}}$ (right panel) in SUEP decays for a dark meson mass $m_{\pi_D}=380$~GeV and decay portal to $t \bar t$, with respect to the standard WIMP expectation for the same antinuclei ratio, i.e.~$10^{-4}$ and $10^{-8}$ for $\overline{\rm{D}}$ and $^3\overline{\rm{He}}$ respectively. Red dashed contours show the average multiplicity of dark {\meson}s in a SUEP shower. There are slight fluctuations in the contours in the $^3\overline{\rm{He}}$ enhancement plot which are not present in the antideuteron plot; this is just an artefact of the lower $^3\overline{\rm{He}}$ statistics and interpolating function.

Comparison of the flux of antimatter from DM annihilation in two scenarios: (1) $m_{\rm DM}=80$~TeV and $T/m_{\pi_D}=0.1$ in the {\tt 1 SUEP} scenario (blue dot-dashed curves), and (2) $m_{\rm DM}=90$~TeV and $T/m_{\pi_D}=0.1$ in the {\tt 2 SUEPs} scenario (green dotted curves), together with the \textsf{GAPS} (green dashed) and \textsf{AMS-02} sensitivities (black dot-dashed) lines. We show the cases of $\overline{p}$ (top panel), $\overline{\mathrm{D}}$ (central panel) and ${}^3\overline{\mathrm{He}}$ (bottom panel). For reference, we also show the standard WIMP expectation for DM annihilating into $b\bar b$ with $m_{\rm DM}=50$~GeV and a thermal cross section (red dotted curves), and the secondary $\overline{p}$ production (orange dashed curve).

Comparison of the flux of antimatter from DM annihilation in two scenarios: (1) $m_{\rm DM}=80$~TeV and $T/m_{\pi_D}=0.1$ in the {\tt 1 SUEP} scenario (blue dot-dashed curves), and (2) $m_{\rm DM}=90$~TeV and $T/m_{\pi_D}=0.1$ in the {\tt 2 SUEPs} scenario (green dotted curves), together with the \textsf{GAPS} (green dashed) and \textsf{AMS-02} sensitivities (black dot-dashed) lines. We show the cases of $\overline{p}$ (top panel), $\overline{\mathrm{D}}$ (central panel) and ${}^3\overline{\mathrm{He}}$ (bottom panel). For reference, we also show the standard WIMP expectation for DM annihilating into $b\bar b$ with $m_{\rm DM}=50$~GeV and a thermal cross section (red dotted curves), and the secondary $\overline{p}$ production (orange dashed curve).

Comparison of the flux of antimatter from DM annihilation in two scenarios: (1) $m_{\rm DM}=80$~TeV and $T/m_{\pi_D}=0.1$ in the {\tt 1 SUEP} scenario (blue dot-dashed curves), and (2) $m_{\rm DM}=90$~TeV and $T/m_{\pi_D}=0.1$ in the {\tt 2 SUEPs} scenario (green dotted curves), together with the \textsf{GAPS} (green dashed) and \textsf{AMS-02} sensitivities (black dot-dashed) lines. We show the cases of $\overline{p}$ (top panel), $\overline{\mathrm{D}}$ (central panel) and ${}^3\overline{\mathrm{He}}$ (bottom panel). For reference, we also show the standard WIMP expectation for DM annihilating into $b\bar b$ with $m_{\rm DM}=50$~GeV and a thermal cross section (red dotted curves), and the secondary $\overline{p}$ production (orange dashed curve).

Expected event yields for the \texttt{1 SUEP} scenario, shown as a function of the DM mass $m_{\rm DM}$ and the SUEP temperature ratio $T_{\rm SUEP}/m_{\pi_D}$. The top (bottom) row refer to the \textsf{GAPS} (AMS-02) flux sensitivity. Left and middle panels show the total number of $\overline{\mathrm D}$ and $^3\overline{\mathrm{He}}$ events, respectively, while the right panels show the corresponding event ratio $N_{^3\overline{\mathrm{He}}}/N_{\overline{\mathrm D}}$. The red star indicates the benchmark point used in Fig.~\ref{fig:SUEP_fluxes}, where the propagated spectra are shown.

Expected event yields for the \texttt{1 SUEP} scenario, shown as a function of the DM mass $m_{\rm DM}$ and the SUEP temperature ratio $T_{\rm SUEP}/m_{\pi_D}$. The top (bottom) row refer to the \textsf{GAPS} (AMS-02) flux sensitivity. Left and middle panels show the total number of $\overline{\mathrm D}$ and $^3\overline{\mathrm{He}}$ events, respectively, while the right panels show the corresponding event ratio $N_{^3\overline{\mathrm{He}}}/N_{\overline{\mathrm D}}$. The red star indicates the benchmark point used in Fig.~\ref{fig:SUEP_fluxes}, where the propagated spectra are shown.

Expected event yields for the \texttt{1 SUEP} scenario, shown as a function of the DM mass $m_{\rm DM}$ and the SUEP temperature ratio $T_{\rm SUEP}/m_{\pi_D}$. The top (bottom) row refer to the \textsf{GAPS} (AMS-02) flux sensitivity. Left and middle panels show the total number of $\overline{\mathrm D}$ and $^3\overline{\mathrm{He}}$ events, respectively, while the right panels show the corresponding event ratio $N_{^3\overline{\mathrm{He}}}/N_{\overline{\mathrm D}}$. The red star indicates the benchmark point used in Fig.~\ref{fig:SUEP_fluxes}, where the propagated spectra are shown.

Expected event yields for the \texttt{1 SUEP} scenario, shown as a function of the DM mass $m_{\rm DM}$ and the SUEP temperature ratio $T_{\rm SUEP}/m_{\pi_D}$. The top (bottom) row refer to the \textsf{GAPS} (AMS-02) flux sensitivity. Left and middle panels show the total number of $\overline{\mathrm D}$ and $^3\overline{\mathrm{He}}$ events, respectively, while the right panels show the corresponding event ratio $N_{^3\overline{\mathrm{He}}}/N_{\overline{\mathrm D}}$. The red star indicates the benchmark point used in Fig.~\ref{fig:SUEP_fluxes}, where the propagated spectra are shown.

Expected event yields for the \texttt{1 SUEP} scenario, shown as a function of the DM mass $m_{\rm DM}$ and the SUEP temperature ratio $T_{\rm SUEP}/m_{\pi_D}$. The top (bottom) row refer to the \textsf{GAPS} (AMS-02) flux sensitivity. Left and middle panels show the total number of $\overline{\mathrm D}$ and $^3\overline{\mathrm{He}}$ events, respectively, while the right panels show the corresponding event ratio $N_{^3\overline{\mathrm{He}}}/N_{\overline{\mathrm D}}$. The red star indicates the benchmark point used in Fig.~\ref{fig:SUEP_fluxes}, where the propagated spectra are shown.

Expected event yields for the \texttt{1 SUEP} scenario, shown as a function of the DM mass $m_{\rm DM}$ and the SUEP temperature ratio $T_{\rm SUEP}/m_{\pi_D}$. The top (bottom) row refer to the \textsf{GAPS} (AMS-02) flux sensitivity. Left and middle panels show the total number of $\overline{\mathrm D}$ and $^3\overline{\mathrm{He}}$ events, respectively, while the right panels show the corresponding event ratio $N_{^3\overline{\mathrm{He}}}/N_{\overline{\mathrm D}}$. The red star indicates the benchmark point used in Fig.~\ref{fig:SUEP_fluxes}, where the propagated spectra are shown.

Expected event yields for the \texttt{2 SUEPs} scenario, shown as a function of the SUEP mass $m_{\rm SUEP}$ and the boost parameter $m_{\rm DM}/m_{\rm SUEP}$ (with $T_{\rm SUEP}/m_{\pi_D}=0.1$ fixed). Only \textsf{AMS-02} is shown, since the boosted spectra lie largely outside the low-energy window relevant for \textsf{GAPS}. Left and middle panels show the total number of $\overline{\mathrm D}$ and $^3\overline{\mathrm{He}}$ events, and the right panel shows $N_{^3\overline{\mathrm{He}}}/N_{\overline{\mathrm D}}$. The red star indicates the benchmark point used in Fig.~\ref{fig:SUEP_fluxes}.

Expected event yields for the \texttt{2 SUEPs} scenario, shown as a function of the SUEP mass $m_{\rm SUEP}$ and the boost parameter $m_{\rm DM}/m_{\rm SUEP}$ (with $T_{\rm SUEP}/m_{\pi_D}=0.1$ fixed). Only \textsf{AMS-02} is shown, since the boosted spectra lie largely outside the low-energy window relevant for \textsf{GAPS}. Left and middle panels show the total number of $\overline{\mathrm D}$ and $^3\overline{\mathrm{He}}$ events, and the right panel shows $N_{^3\overline{\mathrm{He}}}/N_{\overline{\mathrm D}}$. The red star indicates the benchmark point used in Fig.~\ref{fig:SUEP_fluxes}.

Expected event yields for the \texttt{2 SUEPs} scenario, shown as a function of the SUEP mass $m_{\rm SUEP}$ and the boost parameter $m_{\rm DM}/m_{\rm SUEP}$ (with $T_{\rm SUEP}/m_{\pi_D}=0.1$ fixed). Only \textsf{AMS-02} is shown, since the boosted spectra lie largely outside the low-energy window relevant for \textsf{GAPS}. Left and middle panels show the total number of $\overline{\mathrm D}$ and $^3\overline{\mathrm{He}}$ events, and the right panel shows $N_{^3\overline{\mathrm{He}}}/N_{\overline{\mathrm D}}$. The red star indicates the benchmark point used in Fig.~\ref{fig:SUEP_fluxes}.

Typical time scales of spatial diffusion governed by $D(\mathcal{R})$ (blue dashed), convection with velocity $V_c$ (orange solid), inelastic scatterings encoded by $\Gamma_{\rm inel}$ (red dotted), continuous energy losses ($\dot{p}$, purple dashed) and reacceleration quantified by the Alfv\'en velocity $V_A$ (green dot-dashed), for the propagation setup described in the text.

Left: Propagation function $\mathcal{G}(K)$ for antiprotons for different DM density profiles, for fixed halo height $L=4~\mathrm{kpc}$. Right: $\mathcal{G}(K/n)$ for three representative halo heights, $L=3,4,8~\mathrm{kpc}$. Each value of $L$ is associated with the corresponding best-fit diffusion normalization $D_0$ in the {\tt diff.brk} setup~\cite{DiMauro:2023jgg}.

Left: Propagation function $\mathcal{G}(K)$ for antiprotons for different DM density profiles, for fixed halo height $L=4~\mathrm{kpc}$. Right: $\mathcal{G}(K/n)$ for three representative halo heights, $L=3,4,8~\mathrm{kpc}$. Each value of $L$ is associated with the corresponding best-fit diffusion normalization $D_0$ in the {\tt diff.brk} setup~\cite{DiMauro:2023jgg}.

Comparison of the fluxes of antiprotons (left), antideuterons (middle), and antihelium-3 (right) predicted in our SUEP benchmark scenarios (blue dot–dashed curves) for DM masses between 10 and 150 TeV. For reference, we also show the standard WIMP expectation for DM annihilating into $b\bar b$ with $m_{\rm DM}=50$ GeV and a thermal cross section (red dotted curves). The \textsf{AMS-02} sensitivity is shown as black dot–dashed lines, while the \textsf{GAPS} sensitivity is shown as green dashed lines (for the antinuclei panels). The \textsf{AMS-02} antiproton data are overlaid in the left panels.For antiprotons, we also display the secondary contribution taken from Ref.~\cite{DiMauro:2023jgg} (grey line) and the total flux obtained by summing secondary and DM components (orange curve). The yellow band denotes the $\sim20\%$ theoretical uncertainty associated with antiproton production cross sections.

Comparison of the fluxes of antiprotons (left), antideuterons (middle), and antihelium-3 (right) predicted in our SUEP benchmark scenarios (blue dot–dashed curves) for DM masses between 10 and 150 TeV. For reference, we also show the standard WIMP expectation for DM annihilating into $b\bar b$ with $m_{\rm DM}=50$ GeV and a thermal cross section (red dotted curves). The \textsf{AMS-02} sensitivity is shown as black dot–dashed lines, while the \textsf{GAPS} sensitivity is shown as green dashed lines (for the antinuclei panels). The \textsf{AMS-02} antiproton data are overlaid in the left panels.For antiprotons, we also display the secondary contribution taken from Ref.~\cite{DiMauro:2023jgg} (grey line) and the total flux obtained by summing secondary and DM components (orange curve). The yellow band denotes the $\sim20\%$ theoretical uncertainty associated with antiproton production cross sections.

Comparison of the fluxes of antiprotons (left), antideuterons (middle), and antihelium-3 (right) predicted in our SUEP benchmark scenarios (blue dot–dashed curves) for DM masses between 10 and 150 TeV. For reference, we also show the standard WIMP expectation for DM annihilating into $b\bar b$ with $m_{\rm DM}=50$ GeV and a thermal cross section (red dotted curves). The \textsf{AMS-02} sensitivity is shown as black dot–dashed lines, while the \textsf{GAPS} sensitivity is shown as green dashed lines (for the antinuclei panels). The \textsf{AMS-02} antiproton data are overlaid in the left panels.For antiprotons, we also display the secondary contribution taken from Ref.~\cite{DiMauro:2023jgg} (grey line) and the total flux obtained by summing secondary and DM components (orange curve). The yellow band denotes the $\sim20\%$ theoretical uncertainty associated with antiproton production cross sections.

Comparison of the fluxes of antiprotons (left), antideuterons (middle), and antihelium-3 (right) predicted in our SUEP benchmark scenarios (blue dot–dashed curves) for DM masses between 10 and 150 TeV. For reference, we also show the standard WIMP expectation for DM annihilating into $b\bar b$ with $m_{\rm DM}=50$ GeV and a thermal cross section (red dotted curves). The \textsf{AMS-02} sensitivity is shown as black dot–dashed lines, while the \textsf{GAPS} sensitivity is shown as green dashed lines (for the antinuclei panels). The \textsf{AMS-02} antiproton data are overlaid in the left panels.For antiprotons, we also display the secondary contribution taken from Ref.~\cite{DiMauro:2023jgg} (grey line) and the total flux obtained by summing secondary and DM components (orange curve). The yellow band denotes the $\sim20\%$ theoretical uncertainty associated with antiproton production cross sections.

Comparison of the fluxes of antiprotons (left), antideuterons (middle), and antihelium-3 (right) predicted in our SUEP benchmark scenarios (blue dot–dashed curves) for DM masses between 10 and 150 TeV. For reference, we also show the standard WIMP expectation for DM annihilating into $b\bar b$ with $m_{\rm DM}=50$ GeV and a thermal cross section (red dotted curves). The \textsf{AMS-02} sensitivity is shown as black dot–dashed lines, while the \textsf{GAPS} sensitivity is shown as green dashed lines (for the antinuclei panels). The \textsf{AMS-02} antiproton data are overlaid in the left panels.For antiprotons, we also display the secondary contribution taken from Ref.~\cite{DiMauro:2023jgg} (grey line) and the total flux obtained by summing secondary and DM components (orange curve). The yellow band denotes the $\sim20\%$ theoretical uncertainty associated with antiproton production cross sections.

Comparison of the fluxes of antiprotons (left), antideuterons (middle), and antihelium-3 (right) predicted in our SUEP benchmark scenarios (blue dot–dashed curves) for DM masses between 10 and 150 TeV. For reference, we also show the standard WIMP expectation for DM annihilating into $b\bar b$ with $m_{\rm DM}=50$ GeV and a thermal cross section (red dotted curves). The \textsf{AMS-02} sensitivity is shown as black dot–dashed lines, while the \textsf{GAPS} sensitivity is shown as green dashed lines (for the antinuclei panels). The \textsf{AMS-02} antiproton data are overlaid in the left panels.For antiprotons, we also display the secondary contribution taken from Ref.~\cite{DiMauro:2023jgg} (grey line) and the total flux obtained by summing secondary and DM components (orange curve). The yellow band denotes the $\sim20\%$ theoretical uncertainty associated with antiproton production cross sections.

Comparison of the fluxes of antiprotons (left), antideuterons (middle), and antihelium-3 (right) predicted in our SUEP benchmark scenarios (blue dot–dashed curves) for DM masses between 10 and 150 TeV. For reference, we also show the standard WIMP expectation for DM annihilating into $b\bar b$ with $m_{\rm DM}=50$ GeV and a thermal cross section (red dotted curves). The \textsf{AMS-02} sensitivity is shown as black dot–dashed lines, while the \textsf{GAPS} sensitivity is shown as green dashed lines (for the antinuclei panels). The \textsf{AMS-02} antiproton data are overlaid in the left panels.For antiprotons, we also display the secondary contribution taken from Ref.~\cite{DiMauro:2023jgg} (grey line) and the total flux obtained by summing secondary and DM components (orange curve). The yellow band denotes the $\sim20\%$ theoretical uncertainty associated with antiproton production cross sections.

Comparison of the fluxes of antiprotons (left), antideuterons (middle), and antihelium-3 (right) predicted in our SUEP benchmark scenarios (blue dot–dashed curves) for DM masses between 10 and 150 TeV. For reference, we also show the standard WIMP expectation for DM annihilating into $b\bar b$ with $m_{\rm DM}=50$ GeV and a thermal cross section (red dotted curves). The \textsf{AMS-02} sensitivity is shown as black dot–dashed lines, while the \textsf{GAPS} sensitivity is shown as green dashed lines (for the antinuclei panels). The \textsf{AMS-02} antiproton data are overlaid in the left panels.For antiprotons, we also display the secondary contribution taken from Ref.~\cite{DiMauro:2023jgg} (grey line) and the total flux obtained by summing secondary and DM components (orange curve). The yellow band denotes the $\sim20\%$ theoretical uncertainty associated with antiproton production cross sections.

Comparison of the fluxes of antiprotons (left), antideuterons (middle), and antihelium-3 (right) predicted in our SUEP benchmark scenarios (blue dot–dashed curves) for DM masses between 10 and 150 TeV. For reference, we also show the standard WIMP expectation for DM annihilating into $b\bar b$ with $m_{\rm DM}=50$ GeV and a thermal cross section (red dotted curves). The \textsf{AMS-02} sensitivity is shown as black dot–dashed lines, while the \textsf{GAPS} sensitivity is shown as green dashed lines (for the antinuclei panels). The \textsf{AMS-02} antiproton data are overlaid in the left panels.For antiprotons, we also display the secondary contribution taken from Ref.~\cite{DiMauro:2023jgg} (grey line) and the total flux obtained by summing secondary and DM components (orange curve). The yellow band denotes the $\sim20\%$ theoretical uncertainty associated with antiproton production cross sections.

Comparison of the fluxes of antiprotons (left), antideuterons (middle), and antihelium-3 (right) predicted in our SUEP benchmark scenarios (blue dot–dashed curves) for DM masses between 10 and 150 TeV. For reference, we also show the standard WIMP expectation for DM annihilating into $b\bar b$ with $m_{\rm DM}=50$ GeV and a thermal cross section (red dotted curves). The \textsf{AMS-02} sensitivity is shown as black dot–dashed lines, while the \textsf{GAPS} sensitivity is shown as green dashed lines (for the antinuclei panels). The \textsf{AMS-02} antiproton data are overlaid in the left panels.For antiprotons, we also display the secondary contribution taken from Ref.~\cite{DiMauro:2023jgg} (grey line) and the total flux obtained by summing secondary and DM components (orange curve). The yellow band denotes the $\sim20\%$ theoretical uncertainty associated with antiproton production cross sections.

Comparison of the fluxes of antiprotons (left), antideuterons (middle), and antihelium-3 (right) predicted in our SUEP benchmark scenarios (blue dot–dashed curves) for DM masses between 10 and 150 TeV. For reference, we also show the standard WIMP expectation for DM annihilating into $b\bar b$ with $m_{\rm DM}=50$ GeV and a thermal cross section (red dotted curves). The \textsf{AMS-02} sensitivity is shown as black dot–dashed lines, while the \textsf{GAPS} sensitivity is shown as green dashed lines (for the antinuclei panels). The \textsf{AMS-02} antiproton data are overlaid in the left panels.For antiprotons, we also display the secondary contribution taken from Ref.~\cite{DiMauro:2023jgg} (grey line) and the total flux obtained by summing secondary and DM components (orange curve). The yellow band denotes the $\sim20\%$ theoretical uncertainty associated with antiproton production cross sections.

Comparison of the fluxes of antiprotons (left), antideuterons (middle), and antihelium-3 (right) predicted in our SUEP benchmark scenarios (blue dot–dashed curves) for DM masses between 10 and 150 TeV. For reference, we also show the standard WIMP expectation for DM annihilating into $b\bar b$ with $m_{\rm DM}=50$ GeV and a thermal cross section (red dotted curves). The \textsf{AMS-02} sensitivity is shown as black dot–dashed lines, while the \textsf{GAPS} sensitivity is shown as green dashed lines (for the antinuclei panels). The \textsf{AMS-02} antiproton data are overlaid in the left panels.For antiprotons, we also display the secondary contribution taken from Ref.~\cite{DiMauro:2023jgg} (grey line) and the total flux obtained by summing secondary and DM components (orange curve). The yellow band denotes the $\sim20\%$ theoretical uncertainty associated with antiproton production cross sections.

Comparison of the fluxes of antiprotons (left), antideuterons (middle), and antihelium-3 (right) predicted in our SUEP benchmark scenarios (blue dot–dashed curves) for DM masses between 10 and 150 TeV. For reference, we also show the standard WIMP expectation for DM annihilating into $b\bar b$ with $m_{\rm DM}=50$ GeV and a thermal cross section (red dotted curves). The \textsf{AMS-02} sensitivity is shown as black dot–dashed lines, while the \textsf{GAPS} sensitivity is shown as green dashed lines (for the antinuclei panels). The \textsf{AMS-02} antiproton data are overlaid in the left panels.For antiprotons, we also display the secondary contribution taken from Ref.~\cite{DiMauro:2023jgg} (grey line) and the total flux obtained by summing secondary and DM components (orange curve). The yellow band denotes the $\sim20\%$ theoretical uncertainty associated with antiproton production cross sections.

Comparison of the fluxes of antiprotons (left), antideuterons (middle), and antihelium-3 (right) predicted in our SUEP benchmark scenarios (blue dot–dashed curves) for DM masses between 10 and 150 TeV. For reference, we also show the standard WIMP expectation for DM annihilating into $b\bar b$ with $m_{\rm DM}=50$ GeV and a thermal cross section (red dotted curves). The \textsf{AMS-02} sensitivity is shown as black dot–dashed lines, while the \textsf{GAPS} sensitivity is shown as green dashed lines (for the antinuclei panels). The \textsf{AMS-02} antiproton data are overlaid in the left panels.For antiprotons, we also display the secondary contribution taken from Ref.~\cite{DiMauro:2023jgg} (grey line) and the total flux obtained by summing secondary and DM components (orange curve). The yellow band denotes the $\sim20\%$ theoretical uncertainty associated with antiproton production cross sections.

Comparison of the fluxes of antiprotons (left), antideuterons (middle), and antihelium-3 (right) predicted in our SUEP benchmark scenarios (blue dot–dashed curves) for DM masses between 10 and 150 TeV. For reference, we also show the standard WIMP expectation for DM annihilating into $b\bar b$ with $m_{\rm DM}=50$ GeV and a thermal cross section (red dotted curves). The \textsf{AMS-02} sensitivity is shown as black dot–dashed lines, while the \textsf{GAPS} sensitivity is shown as green dashed lines (for the antinuclei panels). The \textsf{AMS-02} antiproton data are overlaid in the left panels.For antiprotons, we also display the secondary contribution taken from Ref.~\cite{DiMauro:2023jgg} (grey line) and the total flux obtained by summing secondary and DM components (orange curve). The yellow band denotes the $\sim20\%$ theoretical uncertainty associated with antiproton production cross sections.