Preared for submission to JHEP arxiv:1808.06639v1 [he-h] 20 Aug 2018 Correlating the anomalous results in b s decays with inert Higgs doublet dark matter and muon (g 2) Basabendu Barman, Debasish Borah, Loamudra Mukheree, Soumitra Nandi Deartment of Physics, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Assam 781039, India E-mail: bb1988@iitg.ac.in, dborah@iitg.ac.in, mukhereeloa@iitg.ac.in, soumitra.nandi@iitg.ac.in Abstract: In this article, we have considered an extension of the inert Higgs doublet model with SU(2) L singlet vector like fermions. Our model is caable of addressing some interesting anomalous results in b sl + l decays (like R(K ( ) )) and in muon (g 2). Aart from exlaining these anomalies, and being consistent with other flavour data, the model satisfies relevant constraints in the dark matter sector, while remaining within the reach of ongoing direct detection exeriments. The model also roduces signatures at the large hadron collider (LHC) with final states comrised of dileton, diet and missing energy, roviding signals to be robed at higher luminosity.
Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 IDM with Vector Like Fermions 5 3 Dark Matter Phenomenology 6 3.1 Relic abundance of DM 6 3.2 Dark matter direct search 8 4 Muon (g 2) and the leton flavour violation (LFV) decays 9 5 NP contributions in b sl + l decay (l = µ, e) 10 6 Results: DM and flavour 15 6.1 Low mass DM 17 6.1.1 Case I : M µ=ẽ < M A 0 (H ± ) < M b 17 6.1.2 Case II : M A 0 (H ± ) < M l/m b 21 6.2 High Mass DM 23 7 Collider Phenomenology 25 7.1 Simulation strategy 25 7.2 Dileton with missing energy final state 28 7.3 Diet lus E/ T final state with and without b-tagging 33 8 Renormalization Grou Equation (RGE) Running of the Coulings 34 9 Summary 36 10 Acknowledgement 37 1 Introduction The low energy observables in B decays and B q B q (q = d,s) mixings lay an imortant role in the indirect detection of new hysics (NP). In this regard, the flavour changing neutral current (FCNC) rocesses, such as b s, are unique in a sense that in the standard model (SM) they contribute at the loo level thereby keeing their contributions suressed, in general. For the last coule of years, the semiletonic decays b sl + l (l = µ, e) have got lot of attention. The observed ratios of the exclusive branching fractions such as R(K ( ) ) = B(B K ( ) µ + µ )/B(B K ( ) e + e ) have shown anomalous behaviours with the measured values deviating from their resective SM exectations. The LHCb collaboration has measured [1, 2] 1
R(K) = 0.745 +90 74 ± 36, in the bin with dileton mass squared q2 [1, 6] GeV 2, (1.1) and R(K ) = { 60 +0.110 70 ± 24, q2 [45, 1.1] GeV 2, 85 +0.113 69 ± 47, q2 [1.1, 6] GeV 2. The corresonding SM redictions are, resectively, R(K) = 004(8), and R(K ) = { 0.920 ± 07, q 2 [45, 1.1] GeV 2, 0.996 ± 02, q 2 [1.1, 6] GeV 2, (1.2) (1.3) the details of which can be found in [3, 4]. Therefore, the observed data indicate a ossible violation of leton universality. There have been lenty of analysis on the NP exlanations of the observed discreancies, which we are not going to elaborate here. In order to exlain the observed discreancies, one needs to develo a new mechanism that will generate leton universality violation (LUV) either at the tree level or via loos. Amongst the other imortant observables, anomalous magnetic moment of muon shows deviation between theory and exeriment. Particle magnetic moments are good robes of hysics beyond the SM, and the similar study could shed light on our understanding of quantum electrodynamics (QED) and the SM. The anomalous magnetic moment of muon has been measured very recisely while it has also been redicted in the SM to a great accuracy. The muon anomalous magnetic moment is defined as a µ g µ 2, (1.4) 2 which includes the quantum loo effects, and arametrizes the small calculable deviation from g µ = 2 (Lande s g factor). The SM contributions to a µ can be exressed as a SM µ = a QED µ + a EW µ + a Had µ, (1.5) where a QED µ, a EW µ and a Had µ are the contributions from QED loos, electroweak loos and hadronic loos resectively. This quantity has been measured very accurately and at resent the difference between the redicted and the measured value is given by a µ = a ex µ a SM µ = 26.8(7.6) 10 10, (1.6) which shows there is still room for NP beyond the SM (for details see [5]). In this study, we will look for a NP model which is caable of addressing simultaneously both the above mentioned excesses. On the other hand, dark matter (DM) has been understood to be resent in significant amount in the resent Universe, roughly five times the abundance of ordinary baryonic 2
matter [6]. The resent dark matter abundance, measured by the Planck [6] is often quoted as Ω DM h 2 = ρ DM ρ c h 2 = 0.1198 ± 015 (1.7) where h = H 0 /(100 kms 1 Mc 1 ), ρ DM, and ρ c = 3H2 0 8πG are, resectively, the resent day normalized Hubble exansion rate (H 0 ), DM density, and the critical density of the universe, whereas G is the universal constant of gravity. Such cosmological evidences are also comlemented by astrohysical evidences suggesting the resence of non-luminous and non-baryonic matter comonent in the universe [7 9]. In the SM, we do not have a suitable DM candidate which satisfies the requirements as given in [10]. This has led to several beyond the standard model (BSM) roosals which can successfully exlain DM in the Universe. Amongst different BSM rescritions, the aradigm with a generic weakly interacting massive article (WIMP) is well motivated. In such scenarios, the DM article has mass and interactions tyically around the electroweak ballark and can give rise to the correct dark matter relic abundance, a remarkable coincidence often referred to as the WIMP Miracle (see, for examle, [11]). Since WIMP dark matter scenarios involve additional hysics around the electroweak scale, it is temting to seculate if the same new hysics can have lausible exlanations for the observed flavour anomalies like R(K ( ) ), a µ mentioned earlier. Within such unified framework, one needs to find out the allowed NP arameter sace consistent with flavour data as well as the requirements for a DM candidate. Also, it is necessary to check that the required NP arameter saces are consistent with all the other relevant measurements which are not anomalous. There have been several attemts along this direction, some of which can be found in [12 15] and references therein. Aart from being consistent with all these observations, it is also imortant for such a scenario to be redictive at different exeriments like direct detection of dark matter, collider searches and so on. In a model indeendent analysis [16], by considering an effective theory framework, it has been shown that the deficit in the leton universality ratio R(K ( ) ) can be best exlained by the set of the oerators O9 l = [ bγ µ P L s][ lγ µ l] and O10 l = [ bγ µ P L s][ lγ µ γ 5 l]. Therefore, the NP models under considerations should give rise to these four-fermi interactions either via tree or loo level diagrams for the rocess b sll. Here, we consider the inert Higgs doublet model (IDM), which is a simle extension of the SM by an additional scalar field Φ 2 transforming as doublet under SU(2) L gauge symmetry and has hyercharge Y = 1. The model has been introduced in [17], and later studied extensively by several grous in the context of DM henomenology [18 27]. In this model, an additional discrete Z 2 symmetry is introduced in order to revent the couling of this scalar field to the SM fermions. Under this Z 2 symmetry, the additional scalar field transforms as Φ 2 Φ 2 whereas all SM fields are even. If the lightest comonent of Φ 2 is electromagnetically neutral, it can be stable and hence a good DM candidate. Being inert in nature, IDM will not contribute to the decay b sll. Hence, we have extended this model by considering three generations of vector like SU(2) L singlet down tye quarks and charged letons, odd under the Z 2 symmetry so that they can coule to 3
the SM quarks and letons only through the inert scalar doublet. The lightest comonent of Φ 2 remains the lightest Z 2 odd article of the model and hence the DM candidate. We have shown that aart from exlaining the DM abundance of the Universe, the model can also exlain the observed attern in R(K ( ) ). This model has family non-universal Yukawa coulings between Φ 2, vector like fermions and the SM fermions. Hence, it will contribute to b sll at one loo level. Now, if we consider a hierarchical structure between the Yukawa coulings, such as λ e << λ µ, then we can exect to get R(K ( ) ) 1. The additional vector like fermions can also contribute to the relic abundance, as well as direct detection scattering rates of DM in this model, giving us a comlementary robe of the model arameters in both DM and flavour exeriments. In the there exists two mass ranges where DM relic abundance can be satisfied: one in the low mass regime below the W boson mass threshold (M DM < M W ) and the other around 550 GeV or above. In our extended IDM, there will be additional annihilation channels of DM. Therefore, it is imortant to rescan the arameter sace for both the ure and the extended IDM. The direct detection scattering in is rimarily mediated by the SM Higgs and faces the strongest constraints from the direct detection exeriments in the low mass regime. For examle, the latest data from the LUX exeriment rules out DM-nucleon sin indeendent cross section above around 2.2 10 46 cm 2 for DM mass of around 50 GeV [28]. On the other hand, the recently released results from the XENON- 1T exeriment rules out sin indeendent WIMP-nucleon interaction cross section above 7.7 10 47 cm 2 for DM mass of 35 GeV [29]. These strong bounds reduce the allowed DM masses in the low mass regime to a very narrow region near the SM like Higgs resonance M DM m h /2. Although the direct detection limits can be somewhat relaxed in the high mass regime (M DM 550 GeV), the roduction of DM at colliders will be suressed comared to the low mass regime. In the resence of additional vector like quarks, there are additional diagrams which will contribute to the sin indeendent direct detection cross section. We in fact find that, comared to the, the resence of new vector like fermions can kee the dark matter direct detection rates closer to the exerimental uer bound for some choices of arameters. The mediators of our model coules to SM quarks and letons, therefore interesting collider signature are exected with letons and/or ets in the final state with missing energy. We study the final states containing (l + l + E/ T ), ( + E/ T ) and (l + l + + E/ T ) to unravel the model in the large hadron collider (LHC). These final states are already exlored in suersymmetry (SUSY) searches, and imortant constraints have been obtained on the arameter sace [31, 32]. In our model, we reare few benchmark scenarios by choosing oints from the new arameter saces which are allowed by flavour data and overcome bounds from the DM searches. We have redicted the kinematical distributions of our signal events and comared them with the resective SM backgrounds. We find that at the high luminosity LHC the model may be observed for a few benchmark scenarios at more than 5σ significance. We also check the erturbative unitarity of the model and find that for the chosen benchmark oints the model can remain erturbative u to an energy scale 10 6 10 8 GeV. The aer is organised as follows: in Sec. 2 we discuss the article content and ossible 4
interactions, followed by the dark matter henomenology of the model in Sec. 3; constraints from muon (g 2) and leton flavour violating decays are discussed in Sec. 4; contributions from b sl + l channels are studied in Sec. 5; results from DM and flavour analysis are discussed Sec. 6 and some benchmark oints are also chosen for further collider study; we then discuss the fate of this model at the LHC in Sec. 7, ointing out the ossibility of robing it in future higher luminosity; the RGE runnings are discussed in Sec. 8 and finally we summarize in Sec. 9. 2 IDM with Vector Like Fermions Particles SU(3) c SU(2) L U(1) Y Z 2 q L = u L d L (3, 2, 1 6 ) + u R (3, 1, 2 3 ) + d R (3, 1, 1 3 ) + l L = ν L e L (1, 2, 1 2 ) + e R (1, 1, 1) + Φ 1 (1, 2, 1 2 ) + Φ 2 (1, 2, 1 2 ) - D L,R (3, 1, 1 3 ) - l L,R (3, 1, 1) - Table 1: Particle content of the extension of IDM by vector like fermions. As mentioned earlier, the IDM is an extension of the SM by an additional global discrete Z 2 symmetry under which a newly incororated scalar doublet Φ 2 transforms as Φ 2 Φ 2, while the usual SM fields are even under Z 2. The requirement of keeing the Z 2 symmetry unbroken revents the neutral comonent of the second Higgs doublet from acquiring a non-zero vacuum exectation value (vev). Since the same discrete symmetry revents any couling of Φ 2 with the SM fermions, it automatically makes the lightest comonent of Φ 2 stable and hence a good DM candidate. The scalar otential of the model involving the SM Higgs doublet Φ 1 and the inert doublet Φ 2 can be written as V (Φ 1, Φ 2 ) = µ 2 1 Φ 1 2 + µ 2 2 Φ 2 2 + λ 1 2 Φ 1 4 + λ 2 2 Φ 2 4 + λ 3 Φ 1 2 Φ 2 2 { } + λ 4 Φ 1 Φ 2 2 λ5 + 2 (Φ 1 Φ 2) 2 + h.c.. As the electroweak symmetry has to be broken by the vev of Φ 1, we assume µ 2 1 < 0. Also, µ 2 2 > 0 is assumed so that Φ 2 does not acquire a vev. Writing the scalar fields in terms of 5
comonents and exanding the field Φ 1 about the non-zero vev, we have ( ) ( ) 0 H ± Φ 1 = v+h, Φ 2 = 2 H 0 +ia 0 2 (2.1) in unitary gauge. Here v is the vev of the neutral comonent of Φ 1. After electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB), the masses of the hysical scalars, at tree level, can be written as m 2 h = λ 1v 2, M 2 H ± = µ 2 2 + 1 2 λ 3v 2, M 2 H 0 = µ 2 2 + 1 2 (λ 3 + λ 4 + λ 5 )v 2 = M 2 H ± + 1 2 (λ 4 + λ 5 ) v 2, M 2 A 0 = µ 2 2 + 1 2 (λ 3 + λ 4 λ 5 )v 2 = M 2 H ± + 1 2 (λ 4 λ 5 ) v 2. (2.2) Here m h 125 GeV is the mass of the SM Higgs, M H 0, M A 0 are the masses of the CP even and CP odd scalars of the inert doublet while M H ± being the mass of the charged scalar. Without any loss of generality, we consider λ 5 < 0, λ 4 + λ 5 < 0 so that the CP even scalar is the lightest Z 2 odd article and hence a stable dark matter candidate. Aart from the Z 2 odd scalar doublet Φ 2, we consider additional vector like charged fermions too, which are odd under the same Z 2 symmetry. The article content of the model is shown in Table 1. Here D is the down-tye vector like quark and l is the exotic leton. This allows the couling of the inert doublet scalar with the SM fermions through the vector like fermion ortal. The relevant Yukawa Lagrangian can be written as L = (y u ) i Qi Φ1 u R + (y d ) i Qi Φ 1 d R + (y e ) i Li Φ 1 e R + (λ D ) i Qi Φ 2 DR + (λ l ) i Li Φ 2 lr + M D D L DR + M l l L lr + h.c. (2.3) where Φ 1,2 = iτ 2 Φ 1,2. 3 Dark Matter Phenomenology In this section we discuss the DM henomenology of this model in terms of relic density and direct search bounds. We divide the discussion into the following two subsections. 3.1 Relic abundance of DM For a single comonent DM, the relic abundance can be obtained by solving the Boltzmann equation (BEQ): dn DM dt + 3Hn DM = σv (n 2 DM (n eq DM )2 ), (3.1) where n DM is the number density of the DM article, n eq DM is the equilibrium number density and H is the Hubble exansion rate. The thermally averaged annihilation cross 6
section σv can be exanded in owers of (non-relativistic) velocity as: σv = a+bv 2 +..., where the first term corresonds to s-wave, the second terms corresonds to -wave and so on. Under this aroximation, BEQ can be solved numerically to find the resent day relic density of the DM [33, 34]: Ω DM h 2 4 10 9 x F M Pl g (a + 3b/x F ), (3.2) where x F = M DM /T F, T F is the freeze-out temerature, M DM is the mass of dark matter, g is the total number of relativistic degrees of freedom (DOF) at the time of freeze-out ( 106) and and M Pl 2.4 10 18 GeV is the reduced Planck mass. WIMPs generally freeze out at: x F {20 30}. Generically, x F can be obtained from the relation: x F = ln 38gM PlM DM < σv > g 1/2 x 1/2, (3.3) F which is derived from the equality condition of DM interaction rate Γ = n DM σv with the rate of exansion of the Universe H g 1/2 T 2 M P l (i.e, the freeze-out condition). For all ractical uroses, one can obtain the aroximate analytical solution for relic density as [35] : Ω DM h 2 3 10 27 cm 3 s 1. (3.4) σv The thermally averaged annihilation cross section σv is given by [36] 1 σv = 8m 4 T K2 2(M σ(s 4M DM/T ) DM) 2 sk 1 ( s/t )ds, (3.5) 4MDM 2 where K i s are modified Bessel functions of order i. In resence of co-annihilation, the effective cross section can be exressed as [37]: σ eff = = N σ i v r i r i, N i, σ i v g ig g 2 eff ( ) (1 + i ) 3/2 (1 + ) 3/2 x e F ( i + ), (3.6) where x F = M DM T F and i = m i M DM M DM, where the masses of the heavier comonents of the inert Higgs doublet are denoted by m i. Total number of effective DOF is given by: g eff = N g i (1 + i ) 3/2 e x F i. (3.7) i=1 Thermally averaged cross section then reads: 7
x F σ i v = 8m 2 i m2 M DMK 2 ((m i /M DM )x F )K 2 ((m /M DM )x F ) dsσ i (s 2(m 2 i + m 2 )) sk 1 ( sx F /M DM ). (m i +m ) 2 (3.8) The relic density can be again comuted by aroximate analytical solution: Ω DM h 2 = 2.4 10 10 σ eff GeV 2. (3.9) In the resent model, discussed in the revious section, we consider one of the neutral comonent of the scalar doublet Φ 2 namely H 0, as the DM candidate for our analysis. This is similar to the inert doublet model of dark matter discussed extensively in the literature [18 25]. In the low mass regime (M H 0 M DM M W ), the annihilation of DM to the SM fermions (through s-channel Higgs mediation) dominates over other channels. As ointed out in [22], the annihilation H 0 H 0 W W W f f also lays a role in the M DM M W region. Deending on the mass differences M H ± M H 0 ( M H ±), M A 0 M H 0 ( M A 0), co-annihilation of H 0, H ± and H 0, A 0 become imortant in determining the relic abundance of the DM. Tyically, when the heavier comonents of the inert scalar doublet have masses close to the DM mass, they can be thermally accessible at the eoch of DM freeze-out. Therefore, the annihilation cross section of DM in such a case gets additional contributions from co-annihilations between the DM and the heavier comonents of the scalar doublet Φ 2. 3.2 Dark matter direct search H 0 H 0 H 0 H 0 H 0 q h D D q q q q q H 0 Figure 1: The Feynman diagrams contributing to the direct search of H 0. As mentioned earlier, there are severe constraints on sin indeendent DM-nucleon scattering rates from ongoing exeriments [28, 29]. In the, the tree level DMnucleon elastic scattering can arise through the SM Higgs mediation and the current bounds on direct detection cross section can rule out some ortion of the arameter sace satisfying relic secially in the low mass regime M DM m h /2 where bounds are stronger. The elastic DM nucleon scattering in the resent model gets additional contributions from exotic quark 8
D, as deicted in Fig. 1 where the first diagram corresonds to the usual SM Higgs mediated one. The additional contributions will come from the rest of the two diagrams. There is another ossible diagram mediated by Z-boson, even in the, but that has already been excluded by recent direct search data. Therefore, in order to forbid the Z-mediated channel, the mass of A 0 has to be ket higher than that of H 0 by a non-zero value, higher than tyical kinetic energy (O(100 kev)) of a DM article so that H 0 can not scatter inelastically into A 0. The chosen mass slitting in our analysis satisfy this bound as well as the ones from LEP II data [30]. Hence, in this model we have three direct search grahs corresonding to t-channel Higgs and exotic quark mediation and another s-channel diagram mediated by the vector like quark. Due to these additional diagrams, the direct detection rates of the extended IDM can be more romising comare to the, as we will discuss later. In the limit of very large exotic quark masses or very small coulings of exotic quarks to DM, the direct detection rates will converge towards the ones known for. 4 Muon (g 2) and the leton flavour violation (LFV) decays The effective vertex of hoton with any charged article is given by: ū( )eγ µ u() = ū( ) [eγ µ F 1 (q 2 ) + ieσ µνq ν ] F 2 (q 2 ) +... u(). (4.1) 2m f The factor g µ 2(F 1 (0) + F 2 (0)), and the anomalous magnetic moment is given as a µ F 2 (0) 0 (since F 1 (0) = 1 at all order). Similarly, the amlitude for the LFV decays l i l γ can be written as: M γ = ū l ( ) [ A L q 2 γ µ P L + ia R m li σ µν q ν P R ] uli (). (4.2) The associated branching fraction can be exressed as: where τ li B(l i l γ) = ατ l i 4 m5 l i A 2 R, (4.3) is the life time of the leton l i and α = 1/137 is the fine structure constant. µ l i H 0 /A 0 l γ H 0 /A 0 l γ l l µ l Figure 2: Feynman diagrams contributing to muon anomalous magnetic moment a µ (left) and leton flavour violating decays (right). Here, l (= τ/ µ/ẽ) is the vector like leton. In our model, the leading contributions in a µ and the LFV decays like τ µγ, µ eγ and τ eγ are obtained from the diagrams in Fig. 2. In the loo, we have either H 0 or 9
A 0 and the vector like leton l (which could be either of τ, µ or ẽ). The diagram on the left hand side will contribute to a µ, which is given by a µ = λ µ lλ µ l m2 µ 16π 2 [ 1 M 2 H 0 ( ξ 1 (r l ) ) + ξ 2 (r ) + 1 ( l MA 2 0 ξ 1 (r A0 l )] ) + ξ 2 (r A0 ) l, (4.4) with r X l = m 2 l/m 2 X (X = or A 0 ). The functions ξ 1 and ξ 2 are given by: ξ 1 (r) = ξ 2 (r) = 3 + 4r r2 2(1 r) 3 ln r (1 r) 3 1 6(1 r) 4 [ 11 + 18r 9r2 + 2r 3 6 ln r]. (4.5) The contributions to the decay l i l γ will be obtained from the RHS diagram of Fig. 2, which is given as: A R = λ li lλ l lm li 16π 2 [ 1 MH 2 (ξ 1 (r ) + ξ l 2 (r ) + 1 l 0 MA 2 (ξ 1 (r A0 l 0 ] ) + ξ 2 (r A0 ) l. (4.6) In this section we have only shown the analytical exressions of various contributions in a µ and B(l i l γ), the numerical results are resented in section 6. 5 NP contributions in b sl + l decay (l = µ, e) As mentioned earlier, the FCNC transitions such as b s are imortant robes of flavour hysics and are highly sensitive to NP contributions. The effective Hamiltonian for the b s transitions at low energy can be written as [40, 41]: H eff = 4G F 2 V tb V ts i=1...6 C i O i + i=7,8,9,10,s,p (C i O i + C io i) + h.c. (5.1) where O i and O i s are the dimension six effective oerators which are given as below, 10
O 1 = ( s α c β ) V A ( c β b α ) V A, O 2 = ( sc) V A ( cb) V A, O 3 = ( sb) V A ( qq) V A, O 4 = ( s α b β ) V A ( q β q α ) V A, O 5 = ( sb) V A ( qq) V +A, O 7 = e g 2 m b( sσ µν P R b)f µν, q q O 6 = ( s α b β ) V A ( q β q α ) V +A, O 7 = e g 2 m b( sσ µν P L b)f µν, O 8 = 1 g m b( sσ µν T a P R b)g µν, O 8 = 1 g m b( sσ µν T a P L b)g µν, O 9 = e2 g 2 ( sγ µp L b)( lγ µ l), O 10 = e2 g 2 ( sγ µp L b)( lγ µ γ 5 l), O S = O P = O 9 = e2 g 2 ( sγ µp R b)( lγ µ l), O 10 = e2 g 2 ( sγ µp R b)( lγ µ γ 5 l), e2 16π 2 ( sp Lb)( ll), O S = e2 16π 2 ( sp Rb)( ll), e2 16π 2 ( sp Lb)( lγ 5 l), O P = e2 16π 2 ( sp Rb)( lγ 5 l), (5.2) where α and β denote the color indices and the labels (V ± A) refer to γ µ (1 ± γ 5 ), and P L,R = ( 1 γ 5 ) 2. The oerators O1 to O 10 aear in the SM effective theory, as well as in secific BSM scenarios, while the rest will aear only in NP models. The Wilson coefficients (C i s) corresonding to the SM effective oerators can be found in [42]. The oerators relevant for the decay b sl + l are given by O ( ) 9,10. However, only O 9,10 can exlain the observed attern in R(K ( ) ) [16]. The exression for the decay rate corresonding to the oerator basis given in Eq. 5.2 are taken from [40]. Another b sµ + µ transition that lays a maor role in constraining the NP arameter saces is the rare decay B s µ + µ. In the SM, this decay occurs via the enguin and the box diagrams, and is helicity suressed. In the oerator basis mentioned in Eq. 5.2, only O 10 contributes to this rocess within SM. Corresonding exression for the branching fraction is given by: B(B s l + l ) SM G 2 F = τ α2 Bs 16π 3 V tbvts m Bs m 2 µ 1 4m2 µ m 2 fb 2 s C 10 2. B s (5.3) The SM rediction [43] and the measured value [44] of the branching fraction for this articular rare decay are resectively given by: q q B(B s µ + µ ) SM = (3.65 ± 3) 10 9, (5.4) B(B s µ + µ ) Ext = (3.0 ± +0.3 ) 10 9. (5.5) We note that the measured value and the SM rediction are consistent with each other. This, in turn, will constrain new hysics arameters. 11
b X l b X/X s b k l b γ/z s X b b s s l l b b b s l X/X γ/z γ/z X/X l l l l Figure 3: Feynman diagrams contributing to b sll rocess. Here X/X can be either H 0 or A 0. The box diagrams with X = X = H 0 /A 0 will also contribute to b sll rocesses. In the BSM framework, there are several dimension six effective oerators which may contribute to the rocess B s µ + µ. In the oerator basis of Eq. 5.2, the exression for the branching fraction will then be modified to: B(B s µ + µ ) BSM = τ Bs fb 2 s m 3 G 2 F α2 B s 64π 3 V tbvts 1 4m2 µ Here, C ( ) S and ) C( P + m 2 B s [ m 2 Bs m 2 b m Bs m b (C P C P ) + 2 m µ ( ) CS 1 4m2 µ m 2 C S B s (C 10 C m 10) Bs 2 2 ]. (5.6) are the Wilson coefficients associated with the scalar and seudoscalar oerators. It has been shown that these oerators are tightly constrained by the data on B(B s µ + µ ). Therefore, the contributions from the scalar and seudoscalar oerators can not exlain the observed anomalous results in R(K ( ) ) [45, 46]. In our model, the diagrams that will contribute to the rocess b sll are shown in Fig. 3, where X/X can be either of H 0 or A 0. As one can see from Eq. 2.3, the new coulings carry the generation indices of the SM fields as well as that of the vector like fermions. Therefore, deending on the tye of vector like fermion in the loo, there will be several contributions to the decay amlitude. This will be function of the new Yukawa coulings and the masses of the new articles. However, for the simlicity of the analysis, we have followed the hierarchy: λ i << λ ii (i, = 1, 2 and 3), i.e, the off diagonal Yukawas are suressed with resect to the diagonal terms. Also, since one of our goals is to exlain the R(K ( ) ) anomaly, which requires leton universality violation, we have further assumed λ 33 >> λ 22 >> λ 11. Here, for simlicity, we assume the three generations of the downtye vector like fermion D to be mass degenerate (M d = M s = M b). In this simlified icture, the box diagram with b and µ (in the loo) will have the dominant contribution 12
to the rocess b sµ + µ. In general, the contributions from the enguin diagrams are dominant over that of the box diagrams. However, the enguin diagrams alone can not exlain R(K ( ) ) anomaly, as they contribute equally to the decay rates of B K ( ) µµ and B K ( ) ee. Perhas it is ossible to exlain the observed data by considering contributions from the new box diagrams alone. In such cases, the interference of the SM Wilson coefficients (WC) with that obtained from the box diagrams will lay the leading role in exlaining the observed attern in R(K ( ) ) data. If we add the contributions from the enguin diagrams, then there will be interference of the WC obtained from the box and the enguin diagrams. Hence, deending on the size of the individual contributions, the interference of the new box and enguin diagrams could also lay an imortant role in the exlanation of the observed data. For comleteness, in our analysis we have considered the contributions from all tyes of diagrams which are shown in Fig. 3. The most general exression for the box diagram with two scalars X and X is given by : im Box = iπ2 λ b b λ s b λ µ µ λ µ µ (2π) 4 A O eff, (5.7) where, l = e, µ and the loo factor is [ M 4 ( X A = M 2 ) (MX 2 M 2 )(M 2 b M 2 )(M 2 l M 2 ) ln X M 2 X X X X M 4 b ( ) M 2 b + (M 2 b M 2 l )(M 2 b M 2 )(M 2 b M 2 X X )ln MX 2 M 4 l ( )] M 2 l + (M 2 l M 2 b )(M 2 l M 2 )(M 2 l M 2 X X )ln. M 2 X (5.8) The effective oerator is given by O eff = [ bγ µ (1 γ 5 )s][ lγ µ (1 γ 5 )l] = [ bγ µ (1 γ 5 )s][ lγ µ l] [ bγ µ (1 γ 5 )s][ lγ µ γ 5 l] = O 9 O 10. (5.9) From now on, we will rewrite the coulings λ b b = λ b, λ s b = λ s, and λ µ µ = λ µ. Thus Eq. 5.7 can be written as where, im Box i[c NP 9 O 9 + C NP 10 O 10 ], (5.10) ( C9 NP = C10 NP λ s λ 2 ) µa = 32π 2, (5.11) 13
( 2 ) which has to be normalized with a factor N = 4G F Vtb 4π Vts α so that the oerators are at ar with those given in Eq. 5.2. The amlitude of the hoton exchanged enguin diagrams can be written as M γ = [ b(a L q 2 γ µ P L + ia R m τ σ µν q ν P R )s] e2 q 2 [ lγ µ l], (5.12) where q is the hoton momentum. The form-factors A L and A R are induced by flavour changing λ s λ b coulings. Therefore, the contribution to C 9 will come only from A L, whose aroximate form is given by: A L = λ s λ b 32π 2 M 2 X ( ) ξ(r q ) 3, (5.13) with ξ(r q ) = 1 6(1 r q ) 4 [ 11 + 18r q 9r 2 q + 2r 3 q 6 ln r q ]. (5.14) and r q = M 2 q /M 2 X ( ). The Z-mediated enguin amlitude for the rocess b sll can be written as where a f L = M Z = [ bf L γ µ P L s] From the diagrams of Fig. 3 we obtain F L = 1 M 2 Z [ lγ µ (a l LP L + a l RP R )l], (5.15) g (t f 3 cos θ Q f sin 2 θ W ), a f R = g ( Q f sin 2 θ W ). (5.16) W cos θ W The finite arts of C b, ξ 0 and B are given by g λ s λ [ ( ) ] b 1 a b cos θ W 32π 2 R 2 2C b + a b L r bξ 0 (r b) + a s LB. (5.17) C b = 1 2 ξ 0 (r q ) = B = 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 dx(1 x) ln[xm 2 X ( ) + (1 x)m 2 b ], 1 x dx x + (1 x)r q 0 dxx ln[xm 2 X ( ) + (1 x)m 2 b ]. (5.18) The Z-mediated enguin diagrams will contribute to both C 9 and C 10. Therefore, the total contributions to C 9 and C 10 can be extracted from The numerical analysis are done the next section (6). M = M Box + M Z + M γ. (5.19) 14
6 Results: DM and flavour In this section we discuss the results obtained from the analysis of the DM and flavour sector of our model. We scan the NP arameter sace using the constraints from flavour data, relic density and direct detection bounds. In the context of our model, the free arameters are: {λ b, λ s, λ µ, λ τ (= λ τ τ ), M H 0, M A 0, M H ±, M τ, Mẽ = M µ, M b}. Amongst them, we have fixed few of the coulings, such as λ s = 1 and λ τ 1. Also, we choose λ b < 1 and λ µ < 1. With these choices of the coulings, we can easily overcome the resent constraints on flavour changing b s rocesses, like B s B s mixing, B(B X s γ), B(B K ( ) νν), etc. The rest of the free arameters are constrained from the R(K ( ) ) data. 10 ΔM = 60 GeV, ~ Mτ = 250 GeV, Mμ~ = 150 GeV, Mb~ = 200 GeV Pure IDM λμ =, = λμ =, = λμ =, = 0.5 λμ =, = 0.5 0.30 5 0 λ μ =, λ b = λ μ =, λ b = λ μ =, λ b = ΔM = 2 GeV, M b ~ = M l ~ = 850 GeV 1 λ μ =, λ b = 0.5 0.15 λ μ =, λ b = 0.5 λ μ =, λ b = 0.5 Ωh 2 0.10 Ωh 2 0.10 1 Current bound on Relic Abundance 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 M H 0 (GeV) Current bound on Relic Abundance 5 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 MH 0(GeV) (a) (b) Figure 4: Variations of relic abundance with the DM mass M H 0 for different values of the coulings in the (a) low mass and (b) high mass regions of the DM. The lots show that as we switch on the letonic and/or quark ortal coulings, new annihilation channels oen u, lowering the relic abundance for a fixed DM mass. First, we will discuss the effects of different arameters of our model on DM relic abundance. As mentioned earlier, in, there exists two distinct regions of DM mass which satisfy the relic abundance criterion. In Fig. 4 we have shown the variations of DM relic abundance with M H 0 for two different DM mass regions (low and high). In Fig. 4a, we have ket M = 60 GeV and varied M H 0 between 50 GeV and 100 GeV, while in Fig. 4b, M = 2 GeV and M H 0 > 500 GeV. Here, we kee the same mass slitting between different comonents of the inert scalar doublet namely, M = M H ± M H 0 = M A 0 M H 0. We note that the allowed values of M H 0 are sensitive to the new coulings and masses of the exotic vector like fermions. In the low mass region, with the variation of our new arameters, the allowed values of M H 0 do not change significantly from that obtained in case. However, in the high DM mass region, the deviation from scenario is significant. As exected, for the fixed values of the masses of the vector like fermions, the new coulings and the associated allowed values of M H 0 are ositively correlated. For the scenario, in the low mass region, the allowed values of M H 0 is not strongly correlated with the choice of M, while in the high mass region the relic abundance is 15
M H 0 = 70 GeV, ~ Mτ = 250 GeV, Mμ~ = 150 GeV, = M H 0 = 70 GeV, ~ Mb = 300 GeV, λμ = 0 0 0.15 0.15 Ωh 2 0.10 Ωh 2 0.10 Current bound on Relic Abundance 5 Current bound on Relic Abundance λμ = 5 = = 0.7 λμ = = λμ = = 0.5 λμ = 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 ΔM (GeV) = 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 ΔM (GeV) (a) (b) M H 0 = 70 GeV, ΔM = 110 GeV, ~ Mμ = 150 GeV, λμ = 0.5 M H 0 = 600 GeV, ~ Mμ = 650 GeV, Mτ~ = 2 TeV, = 0 0.150 0.125 0.15 0.100 Ωh 2 0.10 Ωh 2 75 5 Current bound on Relic Abundance M τ ~ = 200 GeV, λ b = M τ ~ = 250 GeV, λ b = M τ ~ = 300 GeV, λ b = M τ ~ = 200 GeV, λ b = 0.5 M τ ~ = 250 GeV, λ b = 0.5 M τ ~ = 300 GeV, λ b = 0.5 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 ΔM (GeV) (c) 50 λμ = λμ = λμ = 0 2 4 6 8 10 ΔM(GeV) (d) Figure 5: The lots in the to anel (5a,5b) and the bottom left lot (5c) shows the variations of relic abundance with the mass slitting M = M H ± M H 0 = M A 0 M H 0 for the DM mass MH 0 = 70 GeV. Here, different benchmark oints are chosen for the other new arameters. The similar correlations in the high DM mass region is shown in the bottom right lot (5d). only satisfied when M is very small, or in other words when the inert scalars are nearly degenerate. For simlicity, in the low DM mass region, we have fixed M H 0 at 70 GeV for the rest of our analysis. In Fig. 5, we have shown the variations of the relic abundance with the mass slitting M for different benchmark values of the new coulings and masses. From Fig. 5a, 5b and 5c we note that, as the new arameters are switched on, the relic abundance decreases comared to scenario due to the increase in annihilation cross section for fixed values of the masses (M τ and/or M b). However, the nature of variations of relic abundance with M remains unchanged. The sensitivity of the relic abundance to the mass slitting in the high mass region is shown in Fig. 5d. With the increase in λ µ, the mass degeneracies are becoming tighter comared to scenario. Similar trend is also exected with the variation of λ b as well. Here we divide our analysis into two arts: in one art, we choose M H 0 = 70 GeV (low 16
80 60 ~ Mμ = 110 GeV ~ Mμ = 130 GeV ~ Mμ = 150 GeV ~ Mμ = 250 GeV M H 0 = 70 GeV, ΔM = 110 GeV 8 6 Mμ ~ = 110 GeV Mμ ~ = 130 GeV Mμ ~ = 150 GeV Mμ ~ = 250 GeV M H 0 = 70 GeV, ΔM = 110 GeV Δaμ 10 10 40 Γτ μγ 10 8 4 20 2 0 0 λμ λ μ (a) (b) Figure 6: The left lot shows the variations of a µ (muon (g 2)) with the couling λ µ for different values of M µ. In these lots M H 0 has been taken as 70 GeV. The red dashed and dotted lines reresent the 1σ and 3σ bands of the a µ, resectively. The right lot shows that with the same benchmark values of the NP arameters the decay width for τ µγ is well below the resent exerimental limit [5]. DM mass), and in the other we have considered M H 0 = 600 GeV (high DM mass). These will be discussed in the following sections. 6.1 Low mass DM Here, deending on the values of the vector like fermion masses, we divide our analysis into two cases. This will become imortant for collider search of this articular model, which we will discuss in Sec. 7. 6.1.1 Case I : M µ=ẽ < M A 0 (H ± ) < M b In this case, we consider only the first and second generation vector-like letons to be lighter than the inert scalars (A 0, H ± ), while the third generation is required to be heavier in order to satisfy the correct relic abundance. This is due to the fact that we have considered λ τ 1. The mass of the third generation vector like leton M τ is fixed at 250 GeV, while M b is varied in between 200 and 500 GeV. In section 4, we have discussed various diagrams and their contributions to muon (g 2) and LFV decays l i l γ. There will be contributions from enguin diagrams with vector like letons τ, µ or ẽ in the loo. Since we are assuming a hierarchical structure for the coulings: λ τ µ λ µ τ << λ µ < λ τ, therefore, the contributions in a µ from all these diagrams will not be imortant. The dominant contribution will come from the enguin diagram with µ in the loo. The variations of a µ with the new couling λ µ for different values of M µ are shown in Fig. 6a. We note that for 100 GeV M µ 300 GeV, the excess in muon (g 2) allows the values of λ µ to vary in between 0.3 and. Esecially, higher masses refer higher values of the couling λ µ. On the other hand, the contribution from all the vector like fermions will be relevant for the LFV decays. However, since in 17
0 MH = 70 GeV, ΔM = 110 GeV 0 MH = 70 GeV, ΔM = 110 GeV λμ λμ Mμ ~ = 110 GeV Mμ ~ = 130 GeV Mμ ~ = 150 GeV (a) Mμ ~ = 110 GeV Mμ ~ = 130 GeV Mμ ~ = 150 GeV (b) Figure 7: The left and right lots show the correlations between λ µ and λ b allowed by flavour and constraints from relic abundance and direct search resectively, for M H 0 = 70 GeV, M = 110 GeV, and three different values of M τ while M b has been varied between 200 GeV and 500 GeV. our framework the off-diagonal elements are small comared to the diagonal elements, the contribution to the branching fraction will not be significantly large. As an examle, we have chosen λ τ µ = λ µ τ 1. With this choice, the branching fraction τ µγ will be much below the current exerimental limit, even if we choose λ µ or λ τ roughly O(1) (Fig. 6b). Here, we have not discussed the LFV τ µ µ + µ decay. In our model, the leading diagram for this decay is same as τ µγ, with a virtual hoton converting into a muon air 1. It is exected that for the same set of NP arameters the branching fraction B(τ µ µ + µ ) will be small comared to B(τ µγ); as an examle see [47]. Therefore, our NP arameters will be safe with resect to resent limit B(τ µµµ)( O(10 8 )) [5]. The LFV decays and a µ are insensitive to the couling λ b. However, observables like R(K ( ) ) and DM relic abundance are sensitive to all the relevant coulings and masses of the model. In Fig. 7, we have shown the correlation between the arameters λ µ and λ b, which are allowed by R(K ( ) ) (left lot), relic abundance and direct search (right lot). These lots are generated for three values of M µ, while the mass of M b has been varied between 200 and 500 GeV, keeing the mass slitting M = 110 GeV. As we can see from Fig. 7, a common arameter sace satisfied by flavour data, relic density and direct search together will occur mostly for high λ µ and λ b. Also, lower values of λ b refer the higher values of λ µ. From R(K ( ) ), there are small changes in the maximum allowed values of λ µ (Fig. 7a) due to small variations in M µ. Higher values of the coulings are required for higher values of M µ in order to satisfy bounds from relic density and direct detection. Therefore, if we decrease M µ, the arameter sace satisfying relic data shrinks and moves towards lower values of λ µ. Here, for simlicity, we are assuming Mẽ = M µ. In Fig. 8, we have shown the correlation between λ µ and λ b for different values of 1 There will be one additional box diagram, the contribution of which will be suressed comared to that of the enguin diagram. 18
M H 0 = 70 GeV, M A 0 = ± MH = 130 GeV, Mμ~ = 110 GeV, Mτ~ = 200 GeV M H 0 = 70 GeV, M A 0 = ± MH = 150 GeV, Mμ~ = 110 GeV, Mτ~ = 200 GeV λμ λμ (a) (b) M H 0 = 70 GeV, M A 0 = ± MH = 130 GeV, Mμ~ = 110 GeV, Mτ~ = 250 GeV M H 0 = 70 GeV, M A 0 = ± MH = 180 GeV, Mμ~ = 110 GeV, Mτ~ = 250 GeV λμ λμ (c) (d) M H 0 = 70 GeV, M A 0 = ± MH = 180 GeV, Mμ~ = 130 GeV, Mτ~ = 250 GeV M H 0 = 70 GeV, M A 0 = ± MH = 180 GeV, Mμ~ = 150 GeV, Mτ~ = 250 GeV λμ λμ (e) (f) Figure 8: The correlations between λ µ and λ b allowed by the data for different values of mass slitting M, and the mass of vector like leton M τ. For all these lots, the mass of the vector like quark has been varied as (200 M b 500) GeV. The green regions are the values that can exlain the exerimental R(K ( ) ) data and the red regions are the ones satisfying relic and DD constraints. (This color code is followed for all cases). mass slitting M and mass of the vector like leton M µ. Also, in these lots we have overlaid the correlations obtained from flavour data with those obtained from relic density 19
M H 0 = 70 GeV, M A 0 = M H ± = 180 GeV, ~ Mμ = 110 GeV, Mτ~ = 250 GeV M H 0 = 70 GeV, M A 0 = M H ± = 180 GeV, ~ Mμ = 130 GeV, Mτ~ = 250 GeV 250 300 350 400 450 500 Mb ~(GeV) 250 300 350 400 450 500 Mb ~(GeV) M H 0 = 70 GeV, M A 0 = M H ± = 180 GeV, ~ Mμ = 150 GeV, Mτ~ = 250 GeV 250 300 350 400 450 500 Mb ~(GeV) Figure 9: The correlations between the λ b and M b (mass of the vector like quark). The inuts are same as in Fig. 8. and direct search. For a fixed value of M µ, the effect of increasing the mass slitting on the arameter saces is reflected in Fig. 8a and Fig. 8b. We see that the allowed regions get more and more disoint as we increase M for fixed values of M l. Next, by fixing M at 60 GeV and increasing the value of M τ from 200 to 250 GeV we get back the common arameter sace λ µ λ b lane, as shown in Fig. 8c. Further, to investigate the effect of the masses of µ/ẽ, we have generated the arameter sace for different values of M µ/ẽ while keeing M and M τ fixed at 110 and 250 GeV resectively, as illustrated in Fig. 8d, 8e, 8f. These correlations are shown for three values of M µ : (i) 110 GeV, (ii) 130 GeV, and (iii) 150 GeV. We note that M µ = 150 GeV and M = 110 GeV rovides the maximum overlaing arameter saces. We also show the correlation between λ b and M b (vector like quark) in Fig. 9 for M = 110 GeV, which reveals the fact that higher values of λ b are required for higher values of M b to kee the annihilation cross-sections in the correct ballark for achieving the desired relic abundance. As mentioned earlier, the branching fraction for the rare decay B s µ + µ is consistent with its SM rediction within 1σ confidence level. Therefore, the data on B(B s µ + µ ) is exected to ut tighter constraints on the arameters of any NP model in the decay b sµµ. Here, for comleteness, we check whether our allowed arameter sace is consistent with the data from B(B s µ + µ ). The variation of the branching fraction with the couling λ b for different values of λ µ, M µ and M b are shown in Fig. 10a. The chosen benchmark oints are taken from the allowed arameter saces given in Fig. 8 and 9. We 20
7 λμ = 0.7, Mμ ~= 110 GeV, Mb~ = 300 GeV 7 λμ = 0.7, Mμ ~= 250 GeV, Mb~ = 350 GeV Branching Fraction of Bs -> μ + μ - ( 10 9 ) 6 5 4 3 2 1 λμ = 0.7, Mμ ~= 150 GeV, Mb~ = 300 GeV λμ = 0.9, Mμ ~= 110 GeV, Mb~ = 300 GeV Branching Fraction of Bs -> μ + μ - ( 10 9 ) 6 5 4 3 2 1 λμ = 0.7, Mμ ~= 350 GeV, Mb~ = 350 GeV λμ = 0.9, Mμ ~= 250 GeV, Mb~ = 350 GeV 0 (a) 0 (b) Figure 10: The variations of B(B s µ + µ ) with λ b for few benchmark values of λ µ, M µ and M b. The chosen benchmark values for the arameters are allowed by the data on R(K ( ) ), relic abundance and direct detection searches of the DM. The green dashed and dot-dashed lines reresent the 1σ and 3σ bands of the exerimentally observed branching fraction of B s µ + µ, resectively. The solid curves reresent the variation of the central value of the SM branching fraction with λ b while the dotted bands are within 3σ C.L. note that the overlaing arameter saces are allowed by the current exerimental bound on the branching fraction. In, the electroweak recision observables (EWPO) like S and T, lay an imortant role in constraining the mass slitting M between the inert scalars [19]. We have already taken care of this constraint while scanning the new arameter saces. Our model contains singlet vector fermions which do not mix. Hence, there will not be any additional significant contributions in S, T and U arameters, although there will be diagrams that contribute to Z µ µ and Z b b decays at one loo level. However, we have checked that within our chosen model arameters those contributions are highly suressed. Therefore, the EWPO will not ut any stringent constraint on our model arameters. 6.1.2 Case II : M A 0 (H ± ) < M l/m b We reeat a similar analysis as in Case I keeing the DM mass fixed at 70 GeV and M at 110 GeV. But now we scan the arameter sace by maintaining M A 0 (H ± ) < M l/m b. In this case, for simlicity, we assume that all generations of the vector-like letons have the same mass. Unlike the revious case, here we allow the mass to vary in the range 200 M l 500 GeV, instead of keeing them fixed. Various correlations in this case are shown in Fig. 11. We find that relic abundance and direct search bounds are satisfied for almost all values in the λ b λ µ lane. However, flavour data continue to rovide tight constraints even in this case. In Fig. 10b, we have shown that the arameter sace allowed by R(K ( ) ) data, relic density and direct detection of DM are also comatible with B(B s µ + µ ). As mentioned earlier, since we have chosen λ s 1, the allowed NP arameters are safe from other flavour data like the radiative decays B(B X s γ), B s B s mixing etc. From the allowed arameter sace we have chosen four oints in Case-I and two oints in Case-II as our Benchmark Points (BP) for analysis at the LHC. The BPs are resented in Table. 2 21
M H 0 = 70 GeV, M A 0 = + MH = 180 GeV M H 0 = 70 GeV, M A 0 = + MH = 180 GeV λμ 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Mb ~(GeV) M H 0 = 70 GeV, M A 0 = + MH = 180 GeV 500 450 400 Mτ ~(GeV) 350 300 250 200 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Mb ~(GeV) Figure 11: Correlation between different NP arameters for Case II of Low Mass DM at M H 0 = 70 GeV. BP M A 0 (GeV) M H ± (GeV) M b (GeV) M τ (GeV) M µ (GeV) λ µ λ b Ωh 2 σ DD (cm) 2 1. 180 180 350 250 150 0.9 7 0.1205 65 10 47 2. 180 180 350 250 130 7 0.1176 65 10 47 3. 180 180 300 250 110 0.7 7 0.1188 2.72 10 47 4. 130 130 280 250 110 0.70 0.1178 5.04 10 47 Table 2: Benchmark oints for low mass Case I along with the corresonding relic abundance and DD cross-section is shown. and Table. 3, the associated values of relic abundance and direct detection cross section are also mentioned in the tables. Before moving on to the collider analysis, we show, for illustrative urose, the variation of sin-indeendent direct search cross section (er nucleon) with the DM mass in Fig. 12 for the chosen BPs in Table. 2 and Table. 3. For a comarison, the similar correlation for is resented in the same figure. The solid red line is the exclusion limit from recent XENON-1T data [29]. The black dots on each black line refer to articular oint corresonding to a fixed M H 0, satisfying constraints from relic density, direct search 22
BP M A 0 (GeV) M H ± (GeV) M b (GeV) M l (GeV) λ µ λ b Ωh 2 σ DD (cm) 2 1. 180 180 300 250 0.9 5 0.1179 4.602 10 47 2. 180 180 350 350 0.9 5 0.1224 1.699 10 47 Table 3: Similar to Table 2 for low mass Case II. 10-44 Case I xenon1t BP1 BP2 10-44 Case II xenon1t BP1 BP2 BP3 BP4 σdd (cm 2 ) 10-46 σdd (cm 2 ) 10-46 10-48 10-48 10-50 20 40 60 80 100 M H 0(GeV) 10-50 20 40 60 80 100 M H 0(GeV) Figure 12: Left: The lot shows the variation direct detection cross section with DM mass in direct search lane for case-i. The black lines corresond to different BPs, where the DM mass has been varied, while the dots corresond to secific choices of the DM mass (see text for details), the red line is the exclusion limit from recent XENON-1T data and the blue line is the direct search limit from case. Right: same for case-ii. (as they lie below the exerimental exclusion limit) and flavour bounds (which we have discussed in Sec. 4 and Sec. 5). As ointed out earlier, and can now be seen from these lots, the resence of exotic quarks increases the direct detection rates comared to the keeing it more romising for observing at ongoing direct search exeriments. 6.2 High Mass DM We analyze the high DM mass region of the IDM in context of our extended framework. As discussed earlier, we need to consider degenerate masses for the IDM scalars (as we need to resort on co-annihilation channels in order to satisfy relic density) and also tune λ L to an aroriate value. So the masses of vector-like letons ( l) and the vector-like bottom artner ( b) will have to be greater than the masses of A 0 or H ± to maintain the stability of the DM. We consider a mass slitting of 2 GeV between the inert scalars and set λ L to 001. The arameter sace which are allowed by flavour data are shown in Fig. 13a and Fig. 13b. We have ket the value of the DM mass fixed at M H 0 = 600 GeV. It is interesting to note that, in this case, we will be able to exlain the R(K ( ) ) anomaly only for higher values of λ µ ( 3 or 4). However, for the same masses, such high values of λ µ will not allow us to achieve right relic abundance (see Fig. 13c). Hence, it is not ossible to obtain a common arameter sace that satisfies both relic abundance and flavour constraints 23
0 ~ Mμ = Me~ = 0.7 TeV ~ Mμ = Me~ = 0.7 TeV ~ Mμ = Me~ = 1 TeV ~ Mμ = Me~ = 1 TeV 0.95 0.90 ~ Mμ = Me~ = 2 TeV 0.9 ~ Mμ = Me~ = 2 TeV RK 5 RK * 0 0.75 0.7 0.70 λ b = 0.5, M b ~= 650 GeV, 5 M H 0 = 600 GeV, M A 0 = M H ± = 602 GeV 0 1 2 3 4 λμ (a) λ b = 0.5, M b ~= 650 GeV M H 0 = 600 GeV, M A 0 = M H ± = 602 GeV 0 1 2 3 4 λμ (b) 0.16 0.14 ~ Mμ = Me~ = 0.7 TeV ~ Mμ = Me~ = 1 TeV ~ Mμ = Me~ = 2 TeV 0.12 0.10 Ωh 2 8 6 4 2 λ b = 0.5, M b ~ = 650 GeV, M τ ~ = 2 TeV M H 0 = 600 GeV, M A 0 = M H ± = 602 GeV 0 1 2 3 4 λμ (c) Pure IDM ΔM = 2 GeV, λμ = 0.5, = 0.5, ~ Mμ = 850 GeV, Mb~ = 850 GeV 0.30 =, λμ = λτ = 1.5, ~ Mμ = Mτ~ = 2 TeV 0 Mτ ~ = 1 TeV ~ Mτ = 1.5 TeV Mτ ~ = 2 TeV 5 =, λμ = λτ = 1.5, ~ Mμ = Mτ~ = 4 TeV =, λμ = λτ = 2, ~ Mμ = Mτ~ = 2 TeV =, λμ = λτ = 2, ~ Mμ = Mτ~ = 4 TeV =, ~ Mb = 1.5 TeV, λμ = λτ = 1.5, Mμ~ = Mτ~ = 4 TeV 0.15 0 =, ~ Mb = 1.5 TeV, λμ = λτ = 2, Mμ~ = Mτ~ = 4 TeV Ωh 2 Ωh 2 0.15 0.10 0.10 5 5 Current bound on Relic Abundance 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 M H 0 (GeV) (d) Current bound on Relic Abundance 0 500 600 700 800 900 1000 M H 0(GeV) (e) Figure 13: To Left (13a): Variation of R(K) with λ µ for fixed values of DM mass and λ b, for three different values of M µ. The yellow band shows the 1σ exerimental range of R(K). To Right (13b): Same for 1σ exerimental range of R(K ( ) ). Middle (13c): Variation relic abundance with λ µ for the same chosen arameters as in 13a and 13b, the orange band shows the Planck-observed relic density bound. Bottom Left (13d): Variation of relic abundance with DM mass for three different values of M τ, keeing all other arameters fixed. Bottom Right (13e): Same as 13d, for different choices of coulings and masses (see text for details). simultaneously. When we add new interactions, new annihilation channels oen u and they make the DM under-abundant. So in order to make the effects of NP minimal, we 24