arxiv: v2 [hep-ph] 7 Jul 2015

Transcription

1 Beyond the Dark matter effective field theory and a simplified model approach at colliders APCTP-PRE25-4, IPMU5-84 FTUV , IFIC-5-38 KIAS P529 Seungwon Baek, P. Ko, Myeonghun Park, 2, 3, 4 Wan-Il Park, 5 and Chaehyun Yu 6 School of Physics, KIAS, Seoul 3-722, Korea 2 Asia Pacific Center for Theoretical Physics, San 3, Hyoja-dong, Nam-gu, Pohang , Republic of Korea 3 Department of Physics, Postech, Pohang , Korea 4 Kavli IPMU (WPI), The University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Chiba , Japan 5 Departament de Fisica Teorica and IFIC, Universitat de Valencia-CSIC, E-46, Burjassot, Spain 6 Institute of Physics, Academia Sinica, Nangang, Taipei 529, Taiwan arxiv: v2 [hep-ph] 7 Jul 25 Direct detection of and LHC search for the singlet fermion dark matter (SFDM) model with Higgs portal interaction are considered in a renormalizable model where the full Standard Model (SM) gauge symmetry is imposed by introducing a singlet scalar messenger. In this model, direct detection is described by an effective operator m q qq χχ as usual, but the full amplitude for monojet + E T involves two intermediate scalar propagators, which cannot be seen within the effective field theory (EFT) or in the simplified model without the full SM gauge symmetry. We derive the collider bounds from the ATLAS monojet + E T as well as the CMS t t + E T data, finding out that the bounds and the interpretation of the results are completely different from those obtained within the EFT or simplified models. It is pointed out that it is important to respect unitarity, renormalizability and local gauge invariance of the SM.. Introduction: Dark matter effective field theory (DM EFT) has been widely used for analyzing the data from DM (in)direct detections, thermal relic density and collider searches for mono X + E T (with X = g, γ, W, Z etc.) [], based on crossing symmetry which is an exact symmetry of quantum field theory. Then very soon some limitation of DM EFT has been realized, and simplified DM models were introduced where mediators between the SM particles and DM are included explicitly [2]. In this letter, we point out that it is crucial to impose the full SM gauge symmetry, renormalizability and unitarity (including gauge anomaly cancellation) of the underlying DM models in order to study collider signatures of DM and demonstrate why the usual complementarity arguments break down for DM EFT or simplified DM models without the full SM gauge symmetry. Importance of the full SM gauge invariance in the context of u d W + + E T was recently pointed out in Ref. [3]. In this paper we consider the q q χ χ which does not involve a massive weak gauge boson, and show that the full SM gauge symmetry is still important. As an explicit example, we will consider a singlet fermion DM model with Higgs portal interaction [4, 5], but we note that the arguments in this paper also work for vector DM with Higgs portal [6 9]. Then we repeat the analysis on the ATLAS monojet + E T signature [] and the CMS t t + E T [] signatures and derive the bounds on the new physics scales, which are completely different from those obtained by ATLAS and CMS Collaborations [22]. Let us consider a scalar scalar operator describing the direct detection of DM on nucleon, assuming the DM is a Dirac fermion χ with some conserved quantum number stabilizing χ: L SS Λ 2 qq χχ dd or m q qq χχ. () Assuming the complementarity among direct detection, collider search and indirect detection (or thermal relic density), the bound on the scale Λ dd of this operator has been studied extensively in literature []. However, the above operator does not respect the full SM gauge symmetry and thus is not suitable for studying phenomenology at high energy scale (say, at electroweak scale). Therefore the operator form has to be mended. Note that the SM quark bilinear part in the above operator can be written into Q L Hd R or Q L HuR, if we impose the full SM gauge symmetry. Here Q L (u L, d L ) T. Likewise, the singlet fermion χ cannot have renormalizable couplings to the SM Higgs boson, since χ is a singlet whereas the Higgs field is a doublet. Similarly, the quark bilinear qq does not have renormalizable couplings to a singlet scalar field S. The simplest way to write down a renormalizable operator that is invariant under the full SM gauge group is to introduce a real signet scalar field S [4, 8] and induce an operator s χχ h qq m χχ qq by integrating 2 s out the real scalar s. However there is always a mixing between the SM Higgs h and the real singlet scalar s, which results in two physical neutral scalars H and with the mixing angle α. Therefore one should take into account the exchange of both H and for DM direct detection scattering [4]. Note that there is a generic cancellation between two contributions from two neutral scalars, which cannot be seen within EFT approach [4, 8]. 2. Renormalizable Model with the full SM gauge symmetry: The s-channel UV completion of the singlet

2 2 fermion DM with Higgs portal has been constructed in Ref. [4]: L = χ(i/ m χ λs)χ + 2 µs µ S 2 m2 S 2 (2) λ HS H HS 2 µ HS SH H µ 3 S µ S 3! S3 λ S 4! S4. Expanding both fields around their VEVs ( H =, S = v s ), we can derive the Lagrangian in terms of h and s. After diagonalization of the mass matrix, DM χ couples with both H and. The interaction Lagrangian of H and with the SM fields and DM χ is given by L int = (H cos α + sin α) f m f 2m ff 2 W W µ + W µ m2 Z Z µ Z µ + λ(h sin α cos α) χχ, (3) following the convention of Ref. [4]. We identify the observed 25 GeV scalar boson as H. The mixing between h and s leads to the universal suppression of the Higgs signal strengths at the LHC, independent of production and decay channels [4]. Let us start with the DM-nucleon scattering amplitude at parton level, χ(p) + q(k) χ(p ) + q(k ), the parton level amplitude of which is given by M = u(p )u(p)u(k )u(k) m [ ] q λ sin α cos α t m 2 H + im H Γ H t m 2 (4) + im H2 Γ H2 u(p )u(p)u(k )u(k) m [ q λ sin 2α 2 m 2 ] H m 2 m q Λ 3 u(p )u(p)u(k )u(k), (5) dd where t (p p) 2 is the square of the 4-momentum transfer to the nucleon, and we took the limit t in the second line, which is a good approximation to the DM-nucleon scattering. The scale of the dim-7 effective operator, m q qqχχ, describing the direct detection cross section for the DM-nucleon scattering is defined in terms of Λ dd : 2m2 H λ sin 2α ( m2 ) H m 2, (6) 2m2 H λ sin 2α, (7) where Λ dd is derived from Λ dd in the limit m H2 m H. It is important to notice that the amplitude (4) was derived from renormalizable and unitary Lagrangian with the full SM gauge symmetry, and thus can be a good starting point for addressing the issue of validity of complementarity. The amplitude for the monojet + missing E T signature at hadron colliders is connected to the amplitude (4) by crossing symmetry s t. Comparing with the corresponding amplitude from the EFT approach, we have to include the following form factor: [ m 2 H ŝ m 2 H + im H Γ H m 2 ] H ŝ m 2 + im H2 Γ H2 Λ 3 col (8) (ŝ), where ŝ m 2 χχ is the square of the invariant mass of the DM pair. Note that s 4m 2 χ in the physical region for DM pair creation, and that there is no single constant scale Λ col for an effective operator that characterizes the q q χ χ, since ŝ varies in the range of 4m 2 χ ŝ s with s being the center-of-mass (CM) energy of the collider. Also note that we have to include two scalar propagators with opposite sign in order to respect the

3 full SM gauge symmetry and renormalizability. This is in sharp contrast with other previous studies where only a single propagator is introduced to replace /Λ 2. The two propagators interfere destructively for very high ŝ or small t (direct detection), but for m H < ŝ < m H2, they interfere constructively. The /s suppressions from the s-channel resonance propagators make the amplitude unitary, in compliance with renormalizable and unitary QFT. If one can fix ŝ and m 2 ŝ, we can ignore the 2nd propagator. But at hadron colliders, ŝ is not fixed, except for the kinematic condition 4m 2 χ ŝ s (with s = 4TeV for example at the LHC@4TeV). Therefore we cannot say clearly when we can ignore ŝ compared with m 2 at hadron colliders, unless m 2 > s (not ŝ). 3. Collider Studies: To study effects of nontrivial propagators coming from two mediators (H, ), we consider following four scenarios for the interaction between standard model particles and dark matter particles, unit normalized (Log Scale) unit normalized (Log Scale) M H2 =GeV M H2 =5TeV S.M. M H2 =GeV M χχ [GeV] H.M. M H2 =TeV M H2 =5TeV S.M. M H2 =TeV M χχ [GeV] numver of events/(5gev) numver of events/(5gev) H.M. M H2 =GeV M H2 =5TeV S.M. M H2 =GeV P T (J ) [GeV] H.M. M H2 =TeV M H2 =5TeV S.M. M H2 =TeV P T (J ) [GeV] EFT : operator L int = mq qq χχ S.M.: Simplified model with a scalar mediator S ( ) mq L int = sin α s qq λs χχ cos α H.M.: A Higgs boson as a mediator ( ) mq L int = cos α h qq λh χχ sin α : Higgs portal model defined in Eq. (2) or (3). In the S.M. and H.M. cases, we can regard α as a suppression factor in interactions while in the case, it is a mixing angle between h and s. Note that the SM gauge symmetry is not fully respected within EFT, S.M. and H.M. cases. The kinematics of a signature, i.e., P T of an initial state radiation (ISR) jet and the size of /E T, depend on the scale of a hard interaction, which is proportional to the invariant mass of a dark matter pair, M χχ. With following LHC studies, we show that there are relations among EFT, S.M., H.M., and H.P: H.M., (9) m H2 S.M. EFT, m S () H.M. EFT. () Thus, an effective operator approach can not capture the feature of an actual dark matter model, here the Higgs portal as an example. We illustrate our point with the ATLAS mono-jet and the CMS t t + /E T searches [, ]. We simulate LHC 8TeV events with Madgraph, Pythia 6 and Delphes simulations [3 5]. For the ATLAS monojet search, we use MLM matching with a matching scale ) /E 2 T + 4m 2 χ. For a width of a scalar around ( 6 3 mediator, we take Γ S = m S /(8π) []. FIG. : M χχ and P T distribution of the hardest jet in the reconstruction level (after the detector simulation) for m χ = 5 GeV (upper panels) and m χ = 4 GeV (lower panels) in the ATLAS 8 TeV mono-jet+ /E T search. 3. Monojet + E T signatures: We adopt the selection cuts in ATLAS mono-jet search []. Depending on /E T, ATLAS has 9 signal regions, from /E T > 5 GeV to /E T > 7 GeV. The hardness of ISR is proportional to the energy scale of a dark matter pair M χχ, which is depending on propagator(s) of mediators. To illustrate this feature more clearly, we show distributions of M χχ and P T of a leading jet in Fig. with study points of (m S, m H2 ) { GeV, 5 TeV} when a dark matter mass is 5 GeV and (m S, m H2 ) { TeV, 5 TeV} for m χ = 4 GeV. We selected events with no isolated leptons and at least with hard jet of P T > 3 GeV at the detector level. If the poles of propagators (the mass of a mediator) are within the reach of M χχ, the kinematics are fixed at the mass scale of mediators. For an example, when m χ = 5 GeV, kinematics are localized at the mass of Higgs in the H.M. and cases. In the S.M. case with m S = GeV, due to the finite size of Γ S, M χχ distribution becomes wide compared to H.M. and cases. Thus ISR in S.M. case become slightly larger compared to H.M. and cases so that the efficiency of analyses becomes larger correspondingly. When a mediator mass m S = 5 TeV in S.M. case, the pole in a mediator s propagator is far away at s = 8 TeV so that the the kinematics become similar to the EFT case where there is no pole structure []. Similarly, when m χ = 4 GeV, In with m H2 = TeV, the propagator from the Higgs does not contribute to the kinematics since it is located below to the threshold of dark matter pair production. Thus kinematics is same as S.M. with m S = TeV. But

4 when m H2 is large enough compared to the threshold of dark matter pair production (m H2 5 TeV), the major effect of propagators is from the Higgs propagator. This feature also appears in the H.M. case. It is evident that for m χ = 5 GeV, the EFT and the S.M. with m S = 5 TeV show similar distributions while H.M and H.P also do. For m χ = 4 GeV, the same features are shown between the EFT and S.M. with m S = 5 TeV, between H.M. and with m H2 = 5 TeV, and between S.M. with m S = TeV and with m H2 = TeV, respectively. Final search results will also depend on the production cross section which depends on propagators of mediators. We illustrate combined results for ATLAS search in Fig. 2. It clearly shows that the Higgs portal model cannot be described by either the EFT or the S.M at all. Also in the limit that m H2 (m S ) is much larger than the typical scale in the process, the S.M approaches the EFT, whereas the does the H.M., respectively. 2 SR7 [fb] 2 S sin 2 3 m 5 GeV 4 GeV S.M. -3 H.M. m = 5GeV -6-9 H.M. m = 4GeV m H2 [GeV] m = 4GeV m = 5GeV FIG. 2: Rescaled cross section for the mono-jet+ /E T in the signal region SR7 ( /E T > 5 GeV) at ATLAS []. The diagonal pink lines correspond to the EFT. 3.2 t t + E T signatures A (effective) scalar operator in Eq. () from the Higgs portal case is proportional to the mass of quarks. Thus dark matter creations with top quark pair will have better sensitivities compared to the usual mono-jet search [6, 7]. Following the analysis of CMS t t + /E T search [], we find similar features in the mono-jet search in the previous section. The detail of this analysis will be presented in the future publication [8], but we will show the resulting bound on M in Fig. 3 (the lower plot) in the following subsection. 3.3 Relation between a mediator and an effective operator approach: By direct comparison between scattering matrix element from an effective operator and from a simple scalar mediator in Eq. (5), we can have similar relation as Eq. (7) between the effective mass M and a mediator mass m S, ( ) M 3 2vH = m 2 λ sin 2α S. (2) With this relation, the ATLAS collaboration showed that the validity of the effective operator when m S > 5 TeV []. However as shown in Eq. (), this validity holds only for the S.M which does not respect the full SM gauge symmetry, while the with the full SM gauge symmetry does not approach the EFT result. In Fig. 3, we demonstrate why an effective operator approach and a simplified model approach can not describe the actual physics (). To estimate relations M [GeV] M [GeV] 5 m 5 GeV 4 GeV m = 5GeV S.M. dd m = 5GeV 5 m = 4GeV m = 4GeV dd m H2 [GeV] 4 m = 5GeV dd 3 m 5 GeV 4 GeV S.M. 2 m = 5GeV m = 4GeV m = 4GeV dd m H2 [GeV] FIG. 3: Observed exclusion limits in terms of m χ and M with 9% CL. from mono-jet+ /E T search (upper) and t t + /E T search (lower). between an effective operator and corresponding model, we use the following relations, M = Λ dd for H.M., (3) M = Λ dd for, (4) though the exact relation can not be made due to the dependency of collision scale Λ col on the ŝ as Eq. (8). It is apparent that as the mediator mass m H2 becomes large, LHC analyses on becomes similar to H.M. as in Eq. (9). This feature clearly shows that the Higgs portal model cannot be described by contact interaction even in the limit that the mass of the extra scalar boson become large enough. The main reason is that even in that case, there exists the SM Higgs boson exchange arising from the mixing between two scalar bosons, which cannot be described by contact interaction at the LHC. 4. Conclusion: In this letter, we discussed the DM

5 5 search at LHC within a renormalizable theory for singlet Dirac fermion DM with Higgs portal and the full SM gauge symmetry, and demonstrated how and why the EFT approach or DM simplified models without the full SM gauge symmetry can break down for collider searches, and why the complementarity based on crossing symmetry of quantum field theory can be misleading. We also reanalyzed the ATLAS monojet data and the CMS t t + E T and derived new bounds on the new physics scale M, which are completely different from the bounds presented by ATLAS and CMS Collaboration [23]. The origin of this difference is the full SM gauge symmetry imposed on the UV completions, which a very important for DM model building and phenomenology therein [24]. NOTE ADDED Preliminary results of this paper have been reported at a number of workshops [2] by one of the authors (PK), emphasizing the roles of SM gauge symmetry and the form factor with two scalar propagators, Eq. (8). While we are finishing this paper, there appeared a paper where these points were discussed to some extent [2]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are grateful to R. Allahverdi, H. Baer, O. Buchmueller, J. B. Dent, B. Dutta, Sunghoon Jung, M. Kakizaki, T. Kamon, A. Kotwal, Jungil Lee, S. Matsumoto, T. J. Weiler and Hai-Bo Yu for discussions on the topics in this paper and the related issues. This work is supported in part by National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) Research Grant NRF- 25RA2AA5869, and by the NRF grant funded by the Korea government (MSIP) (No ) through Korea Neutrino Research Center at Seoul National University (PK). MP is supported by the Korea Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning, Gyeongsangbuk-Do and Pohang City for Independent Junior Research Groups at the Asia Pacific Center for Theoretical Physics. MP is also supported by World Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI Initiative), MEXT, Japan. WIP acknowledges support from the MEC and FEDER (EC) Grants FPA and the Generalitat Valenciana under grant PROME- TEOII/23/7. The work of CY was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) of Taiwan under grant number -22-M--5-MY3. [] J. Goodman, M. Ibe, A. Rajaraman, W. Shepherd, T. M. P. Tait and H. B. Yu, Phys. Rev. D 82, 6 (2) [arxiv:8.783 [hep-ph]]; P. J. Fox, R. Harnik, J. Kopp and Y. Tsai, Phys. Rev. D 85 (22) 56 [arxiv: [hep-ph]]; Y. Bai and T. M. P. Tait, Phys. Lett. B 723 (23) 384 [arxiv: [hep-ph]]; L. M. Carpenter, A. Nelson, C. Shimmin, T. M. P. Tait and D. Whiteson, Phys. Rev. D 87 (23) 7, 745 [arxiv: ]; S. Chang, R. Edezhath, J. Hutchinson and M. Luty, Phys. Rev. D 89, no., 5 (24) [arxiv:37.82 [hep-ph]]. [2] O. Buchmueller, M. J. Dolan and C. McCabe, JHEP 4 (24) 25 [arxiv: [hep-ph], arxiv: ]. G. Busoni, A. De Simone, J. Gramling, E. Morgante and A. Riotto, JCAP 46, 6 (24) [arxiv: [hep-ph]]; M. Papucci, A. Vichi and K. M. Zurek, JHEP 4, 24 (24) [arxiv: [hep-ph]]. [3] N. F. Bell, Y. Cai, J. B. Dent, R. K. Leane and T. J. Weiler, arxiv: [hep-ph]. [4] S. Baek, P. Ko and W. I. Park, JHEP 22, 47 (22) [arxiv:2.847 [hep-ph]]. [5] S. Baek, P. Ko, W. I. Park and E. Senaha, JHEP 2, 6 (22) [arxiv: [hep-ph]]. [6] T. Hambye, JHEP 9, 28 (29) [arxiv:8.72 [hep-ph]]. [7] Y. Farzan and A. R. Akbarieh, JCAP 2, 26 (22) [arxiv: [hep-ph]]. [8] S. Baek, P. Ko, W. I. Park and E. Senaha, JHEP 35, 36 (23) [arxiv:22.23 [hep-ph]]. [9] S. Baek, P. Ko and W. I. Park, JCAP 4, no., 67 (24) [arxiv:3.35 [hep-ph]]. [] G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], arxiv:52.58 [hep-ex]. [] V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS Collaboration], arxiv: [hep-ex]. [2] S. Baek, P. Ko and W. I. Park, Phys. Rev. D 9, no. 5, 554 (24) [arxiv: [hep-ph]]. [3] J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer and T. Stelzer, JHEP 6, 28 (2) [arxiv:6.522 [hep-ph]]. [4] T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna and P. Z. Skands, JHEP 65, 26 (26) [hep-ph/6375]. [5] J. de Favereau et al. [DELPHES 3 Collaboration], JHEP 42, 57 (24) [arxiv: [hep-ex]]. [6] T. Lin, E. W. Kolb and L. T. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 88, no. 6, 635 (23) [arxiv: [hep-ph]]. [7] U. Haisch and E. Re, arxiv:53.69 [hep-ph]. [8] S. Baek, P. Ko, M. Park, W. Park, and C. Yu, work in preparation [9] A. Freitas, S. Westhoff and J. Zupan, arxiv: [hep-ph]. [2] Invited talks by P. Ko at Mitchell Workshop on Collider and Dark Matter Physics, May 2-5 (25), Texas A&M, USA ( ; The 6th LHC monthly workshop, June -2 (25), KIAS, Seoul, Korea, ( CosKASI Dark Matter Workshop 25, June 9- (25), KASI, Daejon, Korea ( [2] J. Abdallah, H. Araujo, A. Arbey, A. Ashkenazi, A. Belyaev, J. Berger, C. Boehm and A. Boveia et al., arxiv:56.36 [hep-ph]. [22] See Ref. [2] for the invisible branching ratios of the Higgs boson vs. direct detection cross sections within the EFTs

6 6 and the UV completions of Higgs portal DM. [23] See Ref. [9] for the production of the 2nd scalar at the LHC, which is complementary to the E T signatures we considered in this paper. [24] Unitarity is also important, as noticed in Ref. [8] in the context of massive VDM with Higgs portal.