Preprint typeset in JHEP style - HYPER VERSION arxiv:0811.1646v1 [hep-ph] 11 Nov 2008 Phenomenology of U(1) Lµ L τ charged dark matter at PAMELA and colliders Seungwon Baek Institute of Basic Science and Department of Physics, Korea University, Seoul, 136 701, Korea E-mail: sbaek@korea.ac.kr Pyungwon Ko School of Physics, KIAS, Seoul, 130 722, Korea E-mail: pko@kias.re.kr Abstract: Recent data on e + and p cosmic rays indicate that dark matter annihilate into the standard model (SM) particles through new leptophilic interaction. In this paper, we consider a standard model extension with the gauged U(1) Lµ L τ group, with a new Dirac fermion charged under this U(1) as a dark matter. We study the muon (g 2) µ, thermal relic density of the cold dark matter, and the collider signatures of this model. Z productions at the Tevatron or the LHC could be easily order of O(1) O(10 3 ) fb. Keywords: dark matter, collider.
Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Model and the muon (g 2) µ 2 3. Dark matter 4 4. Collider Signatures 5 5. Conclusions 6 6. Acknowledgements 8 1. Introduction The Standard Model (SM) should be extended in order to accommodate the nonbaryonic cold dark matter (CDM) of the universe. There are many options for cold dark matter candidates in particle physics models: axion, neutralino or gravitino LSP, LKP, and lightest particle in a hidden sector, to name a few. However, we do not have enough information on the detailed nature of CDM, except that Ω CDM h 2 = 0.106 ± 0.008 [1]. More information from direct and indirect dark matter searches and colliders are indispensable for us to diagnose the particle identity of the CDM, namely its mass and spin and other internal quantum number(s). Recently, PAMELA reported a sharp increase of positron fraction e + /(e + + e ) in the cosmic radiation for the energy range 10 GeV to 100 GeV [2], and no excess in p/p [3] from the theoretical calculations. Cirelli et al. [4] performed a model independent study of the data from PAMELA, HEAT [5], AMS-01 [6], PPB-BETS [7] and ATIC-2 [8] on e ± and p cosmic ray spectra that might be coming from DM annihilations. Their results show that there are two alternative solutions: DM should be heavier than about 10 TeV or so, and annihilate only into W,Z or h. DM with mass about 1 TeV should annihilate only into SM leptons. The first option is disfavored if the e + + e excess seen by the balloon-borne experiments like ATIC and PPB-BETS are considered seriously. The second option is probably less plausible from the view point of model building and grand unification. However it is still phenomenologically viable option, and we have to verify or falsify this class of models by comparing the predictions with the data. In this paper, we pursue the second option, by constructing an explicit model and working out the physical consequences in detail. 1
There are already many papers available studying the implications of the PAMELA data in different models and/or context [9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38]. The simplest model for the leptophilic (or hadrophobic) gauge interaction is to gauge the global U(1) Lµ L τ symmetry of the standard model (SM), which is anomaly free [39, 40, 41, 42]. Within the SM, there are four global U(1) symmetries which are anomaly free: L e L µ, L µ L τ, L τ L e, B L One of these can be implemented to a local symmetry without anomaly. The most popular is the U(1) B L, which can be easily implemented to grand unified theory. Two other symmetry involving L e are tightly constrained by low energy and collider data. On the other hand, the L µ L τ symmetry is not so tightly constrained, and detailed phenomenological study is not available yet. Only the muon (g 2) µ and the phenomenology at muon colliders have been discussed [42]. This model can be extended by introducing three right-handed neutrinos and generate the neutrino masses and mixings via seesaw mechanism [40]. Also U(1) Lµ L τ can be embedded into a horizontal SU(2) H [40] acting on three lepton generations. This may be related with some grand unification. In this paper, we extend the existing U(1) Lµ L τ model by including a complex scalar φ and a spin-1/2 Dirac fermion ψ D, with U(1) Lµ L τ charge 1. There is no anomaly regenerated in this case, since we introduced a vectorlike fermion. The complex scalar φ gives a mass to the extra Z by ordinary Higgs mechanism. And the Dirac fermion ψ D plays a role of the dark matter, whose pair annihilation into µ or τ explains the excess of e + and no p excess as reported by PAMELA [2, 3]. Then we study the phenomenology of the U(1) Lµ L τ model with Dirac fermion dark matter in detail. In Sec. 2, we define the model and discuss the muon (g 2) µ in our model. In Sec. 3, we calculate the thermal relic density of the CDM ψ D, and identify the parameter region that is consistent with the data from cosmological observations. In Sec. 4, we study the collider signatures of the model at various colliders (Tevatron, B factories, LEP(2), the Z 0 pole and LHC), including production and decay of Z and Higgs phenomenology. Then our results are summarized in Sec. 5. We note that this model was discussed briefly in Ref. [4] in the context of the muon (g 2) µ and the relic density. In this paper, we present the quantitative analysis on these subjects in detail, as well as study the collider signatures at colliders. 2. Model and the muon (g 2) µ The new gauge symmetry U(1) Lµ L τ affects only the 2nd and the 3rd generations of leptons. We assume l i=2(3) L, l i=2(3) R (i: the generation index) carry Y = 1( 1). We further introduce a complex scalar φ with (1,1,0)(1) and a Dirac fermion ψ D with (1,1,0)(1), where the first and the second parentheses show the SM and the U(1) Lµ L τ quantum numbers of φ and ψ D, respectively. The covariant derivative is defined as e D µ = µ + ieqa µ + i (I 3 s 2 W s W c Q)Z µ + ig Y Z µ (2.1) S 2
The model lagrangian is given by L Model = L SM + L New (2.2) L New = 1 4 Z µν Z µν + ψ D id γψ D + D µ φ D µ φ (2.3) λ φ (φ φ) 2 µ 2 φ φ φ λ Hφ φ φh H. In general, we have to include renormalizable kinetic mixing term for U(1) Y and U(1) Lµ L τ gauge fields, which will lead to the mixing between Z and Z. Then the dark matter pair can annihilate into quarks through Z Z mixing in our case, and the p flux will be somewhat enhanced, depending on the size the Z Z mixing. However, electroweak precision data and collider experiments give a strong constraint on the possible mixing parameter, since the mixing induces the Z coupling to the quark sector. Furthermore, if one assumes that the new U(1) Lµ L τ is embedded into a nonabelian gauge group such as SU(2) H or SU(3) H, then the kinetic mixing term is forbidden by this nonabelian gauge symmetry [40]. In this paper, we will assume that the kinetic mixing is zero to simplify the discussion and to maximize the contrast between the positron and the antiproton fluxes from the dark matter annihilations. In this model, there are two phases for the extra U(1) Lµ L τ gauge symmetry depending on the sign of µ 2 φ : Unbroken phase: exact with φ = 0, µ 2 φ > 0 and M Z = 0, Spontaneously broken phase: by µ 2 φ < 0, nonzero φ v φ 0, and M Z 0 In the unbroken phase, the massless Z contribute to the muon (g 2) µ as in QED up to the overall coupling: a µ = α 2π. (2.4) Currently there is about 3.4σ difference between the BNL data [43] and the SM predictions [44] in (g 2) µ : a µ = a exp µ a SM µ = (302 ± 88) 10 11. (2.5) The a µ in (2.4) can explain this discrepancy, if α 2 10 8. However, this coupling is too small for the thermal relic density to satisfy the WMAP data. The resulting relic density is too high by a several orders of magnitude. Also the collider signatures will be highly suppressed. Therefore we do not consider this possibility any more, and consider the massive Z case (broken phase) in the following. In the broken phase, it is straightforward to calculate the Z contribution to a µ. We use the result obtained in Ref. [42]: a µ = α 2π 1 0 2m 2 µ dx x2 (1 x) x 2 m 2 µ + (1 x)m2 Z α 2m 2 µ 2π 3M 2 (2.6) Z The second approximate formula holds for m µ M Z. In Fig. 1, shown in the blue band is the allowed region of M Z and α which is consistent with the BNL data on the muon (g 2) µ within 3 σ range. There is an ample parameter space where the discrepancy between the BNL data and the SM prediction can be explained within the model. 3
1 2 1fb log 10 Α 3 10fb 100fb M ΨD 1000GeV 4 M ΨD 100GeV 5 1fb 10fb 6 M ΨD 10GeV 0 1 2 3 4 log 10 M Z GeV Figure 1: The relic density of CDM (black), the muon (g 2) µ (blue band), the production cross section at B factories (1 fb, red dotted), Tevatron (10 fb, green dotdashed), LEP (10 fb, pink dotted), LEP2 (10 fb, orange dotted), LHC (1 fb, 10 fb, 100 fb, blue dashed) and the Z 0 decay width (2.5 10 6 GeV, brown dotted) in the (log 10 α, log 10 M Z ) plane. For the relic density, we show three contours with Ωh 2 = 0.106 for M ψd = 10 GeV, 100 GeV and 1000 GeV. The blue band is allowed by a µ = (302 ± 88) 10 11 within 3 σ. 3. Dark matter The Dirac fermion ψ D can play a role of the CDM. In our model, thermal relic density of the CDM in our model is achieved through the DM annihilations into muon or tau leptons or their neutrinos: ψ D ψd Z l + l,ν l ν l with l = µ or τ. We modified the micromegas [45] in order to calculate the relic density of the U(1) charged ψ D CDM. It is easy to fulfil the WMAP data on Ω CDM for a wide range of the DM mass, as shown in Fig. 1 in the black curves which represent constant contours of Ωh 2 = 0.106 in the (M Z,α)-plane for M ψd = 10,100,1000 GeV from below. We can clearly see the s channel resonance effect of Z ψ D ψd near M Z 2M ψd. If 100 GeV M ψd 10 TeV, α 10 3 and 100 GeV M Z 1 TeV, both the relic density and a µ can be easily satisfied while escaping the current collider searches. This parameter space, however, can be probed by the LHC. These issues are covered in the following section. There would be no signal in direct DM detection experiments in this model, since the 4
messenger Z does not interact with electron, quarks or gluons inside nucleus. Also we do not expect any excess in the antiproton flux in cosmic rays in the indirect search for CDM. On the other hand, there could be excess in the positron signal consistent with the PAMELA positron excess in our model. 4. Collider Signatures New particles in this model are Z, s (the modulus of φ) and ψ D, and they couple only to muon, tau or their neutrinos. Let us discuss first the decay of Z gauge boson and its productions at various colliders, and then Higgs phenomenology in our model. In the broken phase with M Z 0, Z can decay through the following channels: Z µ + µ,τ + τ,ν α ν α (with α = µ or τ), ψ D ψ D, if they are kinematically allowed. Since these decays occur through U(1) Lµ L τ gauge interactions, the branching ratio is completely fixed once particle masses are specified. In particular, Γ(Z µ + µ ) = Γ(Z τ + τ ) = 2Γ(Z ν µ ν µ ) = 2Γ(Z ν τ ν τ ) = Γ(Z ψ D ψd ) if M Z m µ,m τ,m DM. And the total decay rate of Z is approximately given by ( ) ( ) Γ tot (Z ) = α 3 M 4(or 3) α MZ Z 4(3) GeV 3 10 2 100GeV if the channel Z ψ D ψd is open (or closed). Therefore Z will decay immediately inside the detector for a reasonable range of α and M Z. Z can be produced at a muon collider as resonances in the µµ or ττ channel [42] via µ + µ Z µ + µ (τ + τ ). The LHC can also observe the Z which gives the right amount of the relic density as can be seen in Fig. 1. Its signal is the excess of multi-muon (tau) events without the excess of multi-e events. The dominant mechanisms of Z productions at available colliders are q q (or e + e ) γ,z µ + µ Z,τ + τ Z Z ν µ ν µ Z,ν τ ν τ Z There are also vector boson fusion processes such as W + W ν µ ν µ Z (or µ + µ Z ), etc. Z 0 Z 0 ν µ ν µ Z (or µ + µ Z ), etc. W + Z 0 ν µ µz (or µ + µ Z ), etc. and the channels with µ τ. We will ignore these vector boson fusion channels in this paper, since their contributions are expected to be subdominant to the q q or e + e 5
annihilations. In Fig. 1, we present the Z production cross sections at B factories, Z 0 pole, LEP(2), Tevatron and LHC. We find that the light M Z region that can accommodate the muon (g 2) µ is almost excluded by the current collider data. The remaining region can be covered at the LHC with high integrated luminosity 50 fb 1. The signatures of Z will be an s channel resonance in the dimuon invariant mass spectrum, or its deviation from the SM predictions as in Drell-Yan production of the muon pair. Therefore one could expect that the number of multi-muon events at colliders is enhanced compared with the SM predictions. The e + e channel will be diluted compared with the µ + µ channel, since the e + e final state in the Z decay can appear only through the Z decay into a tau pair and τ eν ν in this model. Now let us discuss the Higgs phenomenology in our model. In general, there can be a mixing between the SM Higgs boson h SM and a new scalar s (the modulus of φ) due to the λ Hφ coupling in (2.3). As a consequence, the Higgs searches at colliders can be quite different from those of the SM. For example, one can imagine gg h SM s Z Z, followed by Z µ + µ,τ + τ,ν µ ν µ,ν τ ν τ,ψ D ψd. This is an additional contribution to the Z production at the LHC. We did not include the Z pair production through gluon fusion in Fig. 1. In any case, the generic collider signatures of the new Z are the excess of multi-muon or tau events, compared with the SM. It is strongly desirable to search for µµµµ, ττττ, or µµττ events at LEP, LEP2, Tevatron and at the LHC. We parametrize the mixing of h SM and s by an angle α: h SM = H 1 cos α H 2 sinα, s = H 1 sin α + H 2 cos α, (4.1) where H 1(2) denotes the lighter (heavier) mass eigenstate of two scalars. We also introduce the angle β so that the ratio of two scalar VEV s is given by tan β = v φ /v hsm. In Fig. 2, we show the branching ratios (s) of the two-body decay modes of H 1,2. We fixed M Z = 300 GeV. We also fixed M H2 = 700 GeV (M H1 = 150 GeV) for the plots of the H 1 (H 2 ) decay [ the left (right) column ]. The modes H 1,2 Z Z (solid blue) and H 2 H 1 H 1 (solid green) which are absent in the SM Higgs decay can dominate for large α and small tan β. Therefore we can see quite exotic Higgs signatures at the LHC. 5. Conclusions In this paper, we considered a leptophilic model with extra U(1) Lµ L τ gauge symmetry which is one of the anomaly free global symmetry in the SM. We have introduced a new complex scalar φ and Dirac fermion ψ D charged under the new U(1). The U(1) charged Dirac fermion can be a good CDM that might explain the positron excess reported by HEAT and PAMELA, without producing excess in antiproton flux as observed by PAMELA. This model is constrained by the muon (g 2) µ and the collider search for a vector boson decaying into µ + µ at the Tevatron, LEP(2) and B factories. The collider constraints 6
1 Α 5, tanβ 1 Α 5, tanβ 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 10 4 10 5 10 6 10 7 M H1 GeV M H2 GeV 1 Α 40, tanβ 1 1 Α 40, tanβ 1 0.01 0.01 10 4 10 4 10 6 10 6 M H1 GeV M H2 GeV 1 0.01 Α 40, tanβ 0.1 0.1 0.001 Α 40, tanβ 0.1 10 4 10 5 10 6 10 7 10 8 M H1 GeV 10 9 M H2 GeV Figure 2: In the left (right) column are shown the branching ratios of the lighter (heavier) Higgs H 1(2) into two particles in the final states: t t (solid in red), b b (dashed red), c c (dotted red), s s (dot-dashed red), τ τ (solid orange), µ µ (dashed orange), W W (dashed blue), ZZ (dotted blue) and Z Z (solid blue) for difference values of the mixing angle α and tanβ. We fixed M Z = 300 GeV. We also fixed M H2 = 700 GeV (M H1 = 150 GeV) for the plots of the left (right) column. favors ψ DM heavier than 100 GeV. We calculated the relic density of the CDM with these constraints, and still find that the thermal relic density could be easily within the WMAP range. We also considered the production cross section of the new gauge boson Z at the LHC, which could be 1 fb 1000 fb. This is clearly within the discovery range at the LHC with enough integrated luminosity 50fb 1. It is remained to be seen whether there are excess in the multimuon events at the Tevatron or at the LHC. 7
6. Acknowledgements We are grateful to Seong Chan Park, Stefano Scopel and Intae Yu for useful discussions. SB thanks PK for the hospitality of KIAS, where part of this work was done. The work was supported in part by the Korea Research Foundation Grant funded by the Korean Government (MOEHRD) No. KRF-2007-359-C00009 (SB). References [1] C. Amsler et al. [Particle Data Group], Phys. Lett. B 667, 1 (2008). [2] O. Adriani et al., arxiv:0810.4995 [astro-ph]. [3] O. Adriani et al., arxiv:0810.4994 [astro-ph]. [4] M. Cirelli, M. Kadastik, M. Raidal and A. Strumia, arxiv:0809.2409 [hep-ph]; [5] S. W. Barwick et al. [HEAT Collaboration], Astrophys. J. 482, L191 (1997) [arxiv:astro-ph/9703192]. [6] M. Aguilar et al. [AMS-01 Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 646, 145 (2007) [arxiv:astro-ph/0703154]. [7] S. Torii et al., arxiv:0809.0760 [astro-ph]. [8] J. Chang, et al. (ATIC) (2005), prepared for 29th International Cosmic Ray Conferences (ICRC2005), Pune, India, 31 Aug 03-10 2005. [9] L. Bergstrom, T. Bringmann and J. Edsjo, arxiv:0808.3725 [astro-ph]. [10] M. Cirelli and A. Strumia, arxiv:0808.3867 [astro-ph]. [11] V. Barger, W. Y. Keung, D. Marfatia and G. Shaughnessy, arxiv:0809.0162 [hep-ph]. [12] I. Cholis, L. Goodenough, D. Hooper, M. Simet and N. Weiner, arxiv:0809.1683 [hep-ph]. [13] J. H. Huh, J. E. Kim and B. Kyae, arxiv:0809.2601 [hep-ph]. [14] N. Arkani-Hamed, D. P. Finkbeiner, T. Slatyer and N. Weiner, arxiv:0810.0713 [hep-ph]. [15] N. Arkani-Hamed and N. Weiner, arxiv:0810.0714 [hep-ph]. [16] D. P. Finkbeiner, T. Slatyer and N. Weiner, arxiv:0810.0722 [hep-ph]. [17] M. Pospelov and A. Ritz, arxiv:0810.1502 [hep-ph]. [18] D. Hooper, P. Blasi and P. D. Serpico, arxiv:0810.1527 [astro-ph]. [19] J. Hisano, M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri and K. Nakayama, arxiv:0810.1892 [hep-ph]. [20] H. Yuksel, M. D. Kistler and T. Stanev, arxiv:0810.2784 [astro-ph]. [21] M. Kamionkowski and S. Profumo, arxiv:0810.3233 [astro-ph]. [22] M. Boezio et al., arxiv:0810.3508 [astro-ph]. [23] M. Masip and I. Mastromatteo, arxiv:0810.4468 [hep-ph]. [24] S. Khalil and H. Okada, arxiv:0810.4573 [hep-ph]. [25] P. D. Serpico, arxiv:0810.4846 [hep-ph]. 8
[26] A. E. Nelson and C. Spitzer, arxiv:0810.5167 [hep-ph]. [27] F. Donato, D. Maurin, P. Brun, T. Delahaye and P. Salati, arxiv:0810.5292 [astro-ph]. [28] I. Cholis, D. P. Finkbeiner, L. Goodenough and N. Weiner, arxiv:0810.5344 [astro-ph]. [29] Y. Nomura and J. Thaler, arxiv:0810.5397 [hep-ph]. [30] R. Harnik and G. D. Kribs, arxiv:0810.5557 [hep-ph]. [31] T. Hambye, arxiv:0811.0172 [hep-ph]. [32] P. f. Yin, Q. Yuan, J. Liu, J. Zhang, X. j. Bi and S. h. Zhu, arxiv:0811.0176 [hep-ph]. [33] K. Ishiwata, S. Matsumoto and T. Moroi, arxiv:0811.0250 [hep-ph]. [34] Y. Bai and Z. Han, arxiv:0811.0387 [hep-ph]. [35] P. J. Fox and E. Poppitz, arxiv:0811.0399 [hep-ph]. [36] C. R. Chen, F. Takahashi and T. T. Yanagida, arxiv:0811.0477 [hep-ph]. [37] K. Hamaguchi, E. Nakamura, S. Shirai and T. T. Yanagida, arxiv:0811.0737 [hep-ph]. [38] E. Ponton and L. Randall, arxiv:0811.1029 [hep-ph]. [39] X. G. He, G. C. Joshi, H. Lew and R. R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. D 43 (1991) 22. [40] X. G. He, G. C. Joshi, H. Lew and R. R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. D 44 (1991) 2118. [41] R. Foot, X. G. He, H. Lew and R. R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 4571 [arxiv:hep-ph/9401250]. [42] S. Baek, N. G. Deshpande, X. G. He and P. Ko, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 055006 [arxiv:hep-ph/0104141]. [43] G. W. Bennett et al. [Muon G-2 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 73, 072003 (2006) [arxiv:hep-ex/0602035]. [44] K. Hagiwara, A. D. Martin, D. Nomura and T. Teubner, Phys. Lett. B 649, 173 (2007) [arxiv:hep-ph/0611102]. [45] G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov and A. Semenov, Comput. Phys. Commun. 176, 367 (2007) [arxiv:hep-ph/0607059]; arxiv:0803.2360 [hep-ph]. 9