Scalar Heavy WIMPs from Composite Dynamics

Transcription

1 eth zurich Scalar Heavy WIMPs from Composite Dynamics Adrián Carmona In collaboration with Mikael Chala, arxiv: JHEP 1506 (2015) 105 Supported by a Marie Sklodowska-Curie Individual Fellowship MSCA-IF-EF-2014 October 8, 2015 Slide 1/35

2 Where do we stand? We have now something that looks more & more like the SM It starts to be some rethinking on the question of naturalness (e.g. relaxation) However, we still need to deal with the observation of DM Dark Matter 26.8% Ordinary Matter 4.9% 68.3% Dark Energy

3 Composite Higgs One interesting solution to the hierarchy problem is making the Higgs composite, the remnant of some new strong dynamics [Kaplan, Georgi 84] It is particularly compelling when the Higgs is the pngb of some new strong interaction. Something like pions in QCD [Agashe, Contino, Pomarol 04] CFT They can naturally lead to a light Higgs m 2 π = m 2 h g 2 el Λ2 /16π 2

4 Composite Higgs One interesting solution to the hierarchy problem is making the Higgs composite, the remnant of some new strong dynamics [Kaplan, Georgi 84] It is particularly compelling when the Higgs is the pngb of some new strong interaction. Something like pions in QCD [Agashe, Contino, Pomarol 04] ϕ A a µ, Aāµ πâ πâ + πâ πâ They can naturally lead to a light Higgs m 2 π = m 2 h g 2 el Λ2 /16π 2

5 The CW Higgs Effective Potential The gauge contribution is aligned in the direction that preserves the gauge symmetry [Witten 83] However, the linear mixings needed to generate the fermion masses t L λ q L 1 h λ t R Γ 1 Q 1 T 1 t R will be also responsible for a viable EWSB t R t R λ t R λ t R λ t R + T 1 T 1 Q 1 λ t R λ q L t L λ q L +...

6 Light Top Partners Top quark is typically responsible for triggering the EWSB [Contino,da Rold,Pomarol, 06] V (h) = α sin 2 (h/f π ) β sin 2 (h/f π ) cos 2 (h/f π ) The Higgs mass read mh 2 = 8 fπ 2 β cos 2 (v/f π ) sin 2 (v/f π ) N c m h v 2 Nc π 2 y 2 2π 2 y 4 v 2 Nc π 2 m mq t f π Slide 5/35

7 Light Top Partners Top quark is typically responsible for triggering the EWSB [Contino,da Rold,Pomarol, 06] V (h) = α sin 2 (h/f π ) β sin 2 (h/f π ) cos 2 (h/f π ) The Higgs mass read mh 2 = 8 fπ 2 β cos 2 (v/f π ) sin 2 (v/f π ) N c m h v 2 Nc π 2 y 2 2π 2 y 4 v 2 Nc π 2 m mq t f π We have light top partners at the reach of the LHC! Slide 5/35

8 Light Top Partners at the LHC We can see e.g. the MCHM 5, [AC, Goertz, arxiv: ] min m 2/ 3 [TeV ] P m Y * q =0.7 Y * q =1.4 Y * q = m H [GeV] m min 2/ 3 [TeV ] f π = 0.8 TeV, g ψ 4.4. Y q = 0.7 is the maximum allowed Yukawa Slide 6/35

9 Light Top Partners at the LHC This leads to some tension with current top partner searches performed by ATLAS and CMS CMS 1 T(tZ) fb T(bW) (8 TeV) T(tH) Observed 95% CL T quark mass limit (GeV) BR(T Ht) ATLAS s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb Summary results: Same-Sign dil. arxiv: Zb/t + X JHEP11(2014)104 Ht+X,Wb+X comb. arxiv: BR(T Wb) Observed 95% CL mass limit [GeV] arxiv: arxiv: Slide 7/35

10 Still model dependent Light partners with f π 1 TeV can be avoided Using larger quark representations 14 [Panico, Redi, Tesi, Wulzer, arxiv: ] Enlarging the global symmetries: Composite Twin Higgs [Geller, Telem, arxiv: ] [Barbieri, Greco, Rattazzi, Wulzer, arxiv: ] [Low, Tesi, Wang, arxiv: ] Considering minimal lepton realizations [AC, Goertz, arxiv: ] min m 2/ 3 [TeV ] 3 2 P m m H [GeV] m min 2/ 3 [TeV ]

11 Violation of LFU Since L mix = λl L l ll O ll + λl R Ψ lr O lr + h.c. Λ γl L Λ γl R with Ψ R l R, Σ R, asking for Non-hierarchical (and not too small) neutrino masses And hierarchical charged lepton masses makes ɛ τr ɛ µr ɛ er, violating LFU b L s L l R 2 gρ/mρ 2 (ɛ sl ɛ bl ɛ 2 l R ) l R Slide 9/35

12 Violation of LFU Actually, we might have already proben this, since LHCb [arxiv: ] reported a 2.6σ deviation in R K = B(B+ K + µ + µ ) B(B + K + e + e ) = [1/TeV 2 ] c 1 Bs RK [AC, Goertz, arxiv:1510.xxxxx]

13 What about DM? Contrary to SUSY, there is no inmediate way of getting a DM candidate. However, larger cosets can provide them [Frigerio, Pomarol, Riva, Urbano, arxiv: ] [Gripaios, Pomarol, Riva, Serra, arxiv: ] [Chala, arxiv: ] [Barnard, Gherghetta, Ray, Spray, arxiv: ] Some of them use the fact that for a symmetric coset, i.e., where [X i, X j ] = if ijk T k there is a Z 2 symmetry πâ πâ of L π = f 2 2 Tr(d µd µ ), with ω µ = iu D µ U = d a µx a + E a µt a, not respected in general by partial compositeness. Slide 11/35

14 A very simple idea If we forget naturalness for the moment see also e.g. [Kilic, Okui, Sundrum 10] [Antipin, Redi, Strumia 14] The Higgs can be also made elementary We no longer need partial compositeness to generate the Yukawa couplings The pngbs will not get a vev Slide 12/35

15 A very simple idea If we forget naturalness for the moment see also e.g. [Kilic, Okui, Sundrum 10] [Antipin, Redi, Strumia 14] The Higgs can be also made elementary We no longer need partial compositeness to generate the Yukawa couplings The pngbs will not get a vev If we assumme the theory to be anomaly-free, the lightest pngb will be stable and thus a DM candidate! Slide 12/35

16 Composite Dark Sectors If we assume G/H with G EW H, the two (viable) smallest cosets are [SU(2) 2 U(1)]/[SU(2) U(1)] SU(3)/[SU(2) U(1)] which provide an additional scalar triplet and doublet, respectively, = ( π + + π, i π+ π ) T, π 0 φ = 2 2 (π +, π0 + ia 0 ) T 2 We could also have e.g. SO(5)/SO(4),... Slide 13/35

17 Some general comments The phenomenology is dictated by the symmetries and only two free parameters, namely f D and g D, with 1 g D 4π We will have vector resonances with masses m ρ f D g D few TeV, according to current constraints The pngbs π are naturally expected to live around (or slightly below) the TeV Non-derivative scalar interactions are generated at the quantum level and thus expected to be subdominant with respect to gauge ones As neutral and charged pngb come in complete irreps of the EW group, its mass splitting can only be v Slide 14/35

18 Minimal Case Let s consider for concreteness the coset [SU(2) 2 U(1)]/[SU(2) U(1)] [ L π = g 2 (π 0 ) 2 W µ + W µ + igw µ + (π 0 µ π ) 1 ] 2 g 2 W µ + W + µ π π + h.c. + g 2 W + µ W µ π + π + g 2 c 2 W (s 2 W 1) 2 Z µz µ π + π + ig(1 s2 W ) c W Z µ (π + µ π ) + e 2 A µa µ π + π + iea µ (π + µ π ) + 2eg (sw 2 1)A µz µ π + π c W + [ega µπ 0 W µ + π + g ] 2 (sw 2 1)W µ + Z µ π 0 π + h.c. c W +... The potential V = V (h, π i ) + V SM (h) and the relevant couplings of the resonances Z, γ, W, G will be computed through AdS/CFT.

19 Holographic DM In order to estimate the strongly-coupled effects we work in a 5D holographic description UV brane IR brane All SM matter content (including the Higgs) is confined on the UV brane. Only gauge bosons will propagate into the bulk Slide 16/35

20 Scalar Potential V (h, π i ) [ λ 0 + λ 2 ( h f D ) 2 + λ 4 { π + π } ( ) ] 4 ( ) h tan2 ˆθW sin 2 ΠfD Π 2 f D Slide 17/35

21 Masses Scalar (dashed) and vector resonance (solid) masses and splittings 10 5 gd = 1.5 gd = 2.5 gd = gd = 1.5 gd = 2.5 gd = 3.5 m [GeV] m [GeV] f D [TeV] f D [TeV] Slide 18/35

22 Constraints Direct Detection Ω obs h 2 pp j E T pp π + π Constraints pp ρµ EWPT Slide 19/35

23 Relic Abundance Freeze-out mechanism π 0 SM π 0 SM Slide 20/35

24 Relic Abundance Freeze-out mechanism π 0 W /Z π 0 W /Z σ g 4 m 2 π 0 Slide 20/35

25 Relic Abundance We consider a region in the g D f D plane, parametrized by g D [1.5, 4] and f D [1, 10] TeV Excluded by relic density gd f D [TeV] Slide 21/35

26 Direct Detection π 0 π 0 h π 0 A 0 Z q, g q, g q q Most important channel Negligible if m A 0 m 0 π 0.1 MeV Direct detection experiments are not sensitive to small values of the trilinear coupling hπ 0 π 0, specially for large DM masses Our small loop-induced couplings are out of the reach of any of these experiments Slide 22/35

27 Monojets A priori, monojets searches could be sensitive to processes like π +, pi 0, A 0 π + q h, γ, Z, Z d W, W q π, pi 0, A 0 u π 0, A 0 q j u j We have explicitly checked that this is not the case MadGraph v5 + Pythia v6 + MadAnalysis v5 + CMS analysis E T > 450 GeV σ ɛ 7.8 fb, upper bound stated by CMS [arxiv: ] Slide 23/35

28 EWPT Normally, for elementary fermions and a composite Higgs, ˆT [ˆα 2 ˆβ + ˆγ], Ŝ [ ˆβ + ˆγ], W = Y ˆγ where ˆα and L, 1/ L, ˆβ L gd /g. Thus, ˆγ ˆT L, Ŝ 1, W = Y 1/L Slide 24/35

29 EWPT Now the situation is pretty different, as for an elementary Higgs, ˆα ˆβ ˆγ all these coefficients become the same ˆα = ˆβ = ˆγ and ˆT [ˆα 2 ˆβ + ˆγ] = 0, Ŝ [ ˆβ + ˆγ] = 0, W = Y ˆγ 1/L Since W = Y (g/g D ) 4 (v/f D ) 2, W = Y may become relevant for g D 1 and f D 1 TeV Slide 25/35

30 EWPT We have performed an up-to-date EW precision fit to W = Y Excluded by relic density 3.0 gd f D [TeV] Slide 26/35

31 LHC constraints on new heavy resonances The new vector resonances G, Z, γ and W can mediate decays into dijets [CMS, arxiv: ] t t [CMS, arxiv: ] l + l [CMS, arxiv: ] Excluded by relic density gd Slide 27/35 f D [TeV]

32 LHC constraints on long-lived charged particles The small splitting between the neutral and the charged states in the triplet case makes π ± long-lived. It mainly decays through an off-shell W W ± π ± π 0 Γ g 4 α 48π 3 m 5 m 4 W This is OK for cosmological scales but large enough to scape LHC detectors The trace of π ± can be still observed for they give rise to anomalous energy loss [CMS, arxiv: ] Slide 28/35

33 Everything Together Besides the relic abundance constraint, Ωh , the strongest bounds come from searches on long-lived charged particles gd f D [TeV] Slide 29/35

34 The doublet model The SU(3)/[SU(2) U(1)] case is very similar, but... In principle, π 0 and A 0 are degenerated in mass since the operator that could be responsible for the splitting, λ [ (H φ) 2 + h.c. ] does not arises at the quantum level The reason is that the pngb sector respects a U(1) symmetry Z 2 This would be lethal from the point of view of direct detection However, it can always be assumed that this symmetry is broken at a higher scale Slide 30/35

35 The doublet model The SU(3)/[SU(2) U(1)] case is very similar, but... In principle, π 0 and A 0 are degenerated in mass since the operator that could be responsible for the splitting, λ [ (H φ) 2 + h.c. ] does not arises at the quantum level The reason is that the pngb sector respects a U(1) symmetry Z 2 This would be lethal from the point of view of direct detection However, it can always be assumed that this symmetry is broken at a higher scale Provided the splitting is small (as expected if the U(1) is broken at a high scale) we don t need to worry about it! Slide 30/35

36 The doublet model We can realize another interesting difference looking at the CW potential V (h, πâ) [ ) ( ) h 2 ] ( ) λ 0 (7 + 2 sec 2 ˆθ W λ 2 sin 2 + f D ΠfD 1 [ ( ) tan 2 ˆθ W λ 0 8 ) ( ) h 2 ] ) + (38 20 sec 2 ˆθW + 12 sec 4 ˆθW λ 2 sin (2 2 ΠfD f D ( ) h 2 ( (π + 2 tan 2 0 ) 2 + (A 0 ) 2) 2 (π + π ) 2 ˆθW λ 2 sin 2 f D Π 4 (2 ΠfD ), Slide 31/35

37 The doublet model We can realize another interesting difference looking at the CW potential V (h, πâ) [ ) ( ) h 2 ] ( ) λ 0 (7 + 2 sec 2 ˆθ W λ 2 sin 2 + f D ΠfD 1 [ ( ) tan 2 ˆθ W λ 0 8 ) ( ) h 2 ] ) + (38 20 sec 2 ˆθW + 12 sec 4 ˆθW λ 2 sin (2 2 ΠfD f D ( ) h 2 ( (π + 2 tan 2 0 ) 2 + (A 0 ) 2) 2 (π + π ) 2 ˆθW λ 2 sin 2 f D Π 4 (2 ΠfD ), The mass splitting between the charged and the neutral pngbs arises at order v 2 /f 2 D Slide 31/35

38 The doublet model 10 5 gd = 1.5 gd = gd = 1.5 gd = 2.5 gd = gd = 3.5 m [GeV] m [GeV] f D [TeV] f D [TeV] Slide 32/35

39 The doublet model 10 5 gd = 1.5 gd = gd = 1.5 gd = 2.5 gd = gd = 3.5 m [GeV] m [GeV] f D [TeV] f D [TeV] Now m is big enough to make the charged pngbs decay within the detector Slide 32/35

40 The doublet model gd f D [TeV] Slide 33/35

41 Conclusions We have presented dynamical realizations of the ITM and the IDM Arising from composite dark sectors Very predictive (only two free parameters) With relevant constraints from relic abundance and collider searches Slide 34/35

42 Thanks! Slide 35/35