Interplay between the Higgs boson and the inert dark matter

Interplay between the Higgs boson and the inert dark matter

Bogumiła Świeżewska

Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw

04.07.2014

37th International Conference on High Energy Physics, Valencia, Spain

in collaboration with M. Krawczyk, D. Sokołowska, P. Swaczyna, PRD 88 (2013) 035019, PRD 88 (2013) 055027, JHEP 09 (2013) 055 supported by:University of Warsaw Foundation,

Universitatis Varsoviensis Foundation

Why Inert Doublet Model?

Simple extension of the SM (with two SU(2) doublets) Rich phenomenology

SM-like Higgs boson Viable DM candidate

Thermal evolution of the Universe + some conditions for baryogenesis

[I. F. Ginzburg, K. A. Kanishev, M. Krawczyk, D. Sokołowska, PRD 82 (2010) 123533, P. Chankowski, G. Gil, M. Krawczyk, PLB717 (2012) 396-402]

Inert Doublet Model (IDM)

[N. G. Deshpande, E. Ma, PRD 18 (1978) 2574, J. F. Gunion, H. E. Haber, G. Kane, S. Dawson,The Higgs Hunter’s Guide, 1990 Addison-Wesley, R. Barbieri, L. J. Hall, V. S. Rychkov, PRD 74 (2006) 015007, I. F. Ginzburg, K. A. Kanishev, M. Krawczyk, D. Sokołowska, PRD 82 (2010) 123533]

IDM – a 2HDM with the scalar potential (real parameters) for φS andφD doublets:

V = −¹₂h

m²₁₁(φ^†_SφS) +m²₂₂(φ^†_DφD) i

+

1 2

hλ1(φ^†_SφS)

2

+λ2(φ_D^†φD)

2i

+λ3(φ_S^†φS)(φ^†_DφD) +λ4(φ^†_SφD)(φ^†_DφS) +

1 2λ5

h (φ_S^†φD)

2

+ (φ^†_DφS)

2i Z2-type symmetryD: φD → −φD,φS → φS

Yukawa sector: Model I (only φS couples to fermions) L – D-symmetric

D-symmetric vacuum state hφ_Si=

√v

2,hφ_Di=0 Ñ EXACT D-symmetry

Particle spectrum of IDM

[E. M. Dolle, S. Su, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 055012, L. Lopez Honorez, E. Nezri, F. J. Oliver, M. Tytgat, JCAP 0702 (2007) 028, D. Sokołowska, arXiv:1107.1991 [hep-ph]]

φS: h – SM-like Higgs boson

tree-level couplings to fermions and gauge bosons like in the SM

deviation from SM in loop couplings possible!

φD: H – scalar, A– pseudoscalar,H^± – 2 charged scalars D symmetryexact Ñlightest D-odd particle stable Ñ DM candidate

DM=H, soM_H <M_H±,M_A

“Higgs portal” DM – coupling to fermions through Higgs

Higgs boson vs dark matter

Goal of this talk: Analyze the properties of the Higgs boson and explore the connection to the DM properties.

Higgs boson:

invisible decays total decay width h→ γγ

h→Zγ DM:

relic density from Planck direct detection: Xenon100, LUX

Higgs boson vs dark matter

Goal of this talk: Analyze the properties of the Higgs boson and explore the connection to the DM properties.

Higgs boson:

invisible decays total decay width h→ γγ

h→Zγ DM:

relic density from Planck direct detection: Xenon100, LUX

Invisible decays of the Higgs boson in the IDM

h →HH – invisible decay (H is stable)

augmented total width of the Higgs boson, Γ(h →HH)∼λ²₃₄₅

H H h

345

LHC:

Br(h →inv)<37%, Γ(h)/Γ(h)

SM<4.2 global fit:

Br(h →inv).20%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

-0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10

M_H

Λ345 GHhLGHhL^SM<4.2

BrHh®invL<0.37 BrHh®invL<0.20

[GeV]

[G. Bélanger, B. Dumont, U. Ellwanger, J. F. Gunion, S. Kraml, PLB 723 (2013) 340;

ATLAS-CONF-2014-010, 2014; CMS-PAS-HIG-14-002]

Two-photon decay of the Higgs boson, h → γγ

At the loop level in the SM

h W

γ γ

h f

γ γ

In the IDM – additional H^±

h H

γ γ

±

ÑModified h→ γγ width Γ(h→ γγ)

IDM ∼

A^SM +

2M²_H±+m²₂₂ 2M²_H±

A₀

4M²_H±

M²_h

2

R_γγ – signal strength R_γγ =

σ(pp→h→ γγ)

IDM

σ(pp→h→ γγ)

SM ≈ Γ(h → γγ)

IDM

Γ(h→ γγ)

SM

Γ(h)

SM

Γ(h)

IDM

For now: R_γγ =1.29±0.30(ATLAS), R_γγ =1.14⁺_−0.23^0.26 (CMS)

[see the talks by M. Kenzie and S. Laplace at ICHEP 2014]

R

> 1 and the masses of the dark scalars

Mass of the charged scalar Mass of the DM

If R_γγ >1.2:

M_H, M_H^± .154GeV.

Fairly light charged scalar

If R_γγ >1: M_H >M_h/2

Light (.63GeV)DM excluded

[A. Arhrib, R. Benbrik, N. Gaur, PRD 85 (2012) 095021, BŚ, M. Krawczyk, PRD 88 (2013) 035019]

h → γγ vs h → Z γ

[BŚ, M. Krawczyk, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 035019, formulas forh→Zγ: A. Djouadi, Phys.Rept.

459 (2008) 1, C.-S. Chen, C.-Q. Geng, D. Huang, L.-H. Tsai, Phys.Rev.D 87 (2013) 075019]

Sensitivity to invisible channels

R_γγ andR_Zγ positively correlated

R_γγ >1⇔R_Zγ >1

Constraints from R

[M. Krawczyk, D. Sokołowska, P. Swaczyna, BŚ, JHEP 09 (2013) 055]

Setting a lower limit on R_γγ constrainsλ345

Upper and lower limits on λ345 depend onM_H

-0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.0

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Λ345

RΓΓ Λ345,min=-0.023 Λ345,max=0.009

R_ΓΓHΛ345L R_ΓΓ=0.7

ForMH =55GeV,MA=60GeV, MH^±=120GeV

Does it agree with the Planck measurements?

Relic density constraints

[E. M. Dolle, S. Su, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 055012, L. Lopez Honorez, E. Nezri, F. J. Oliver, M. Tytgat, JCAP 0702 (2007) 028, D. Sokołowska, arXiv:1107.1991 [hep-ph]]

0.1118<Ω^DMh² <0.1280 (3σ,Planck) f

f H

H

λ345 h

W W H

H

λ345 h

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 l₃₄₅

0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13WDMh²

8 GeV 7 GeV 6 GeV 5 GeV 4 GeV WMAP WMAP

From D. Sokołowska, arXiv:1107.1991

Possible masses:

light DM:M_H .10GeV

intermediate DM: 40GeV.M_H .160GeV heavy DM: M_H &500GeV

Light DM, M

. 10 GeV

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 l₃₄₅ 0.09

0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13W_DMh²

8 GeV 7 GeV 6 GeV 5 GeV 4 GeV WMAP WMAP

MH^±@GeVD

70 120 500

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

-0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04

MH@GeVD Λ345

M_A>M_h2

correct relic density Ñ |λ345| ∼ O(0.5) too small λ345 Ñoverclosing the Universe R_γγ >0.7Ñ |λ345| <0.04

Light DM excluded

[D. Sokołowska, arXiv:1107.1991 [hep-ph]; Scalars 2013]

Intermediate DM

[Planck update: D. Sokołowska, P. Swaczyna, 2014]

h→HH open

50 52 54 56 58 60

-0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10

MH@GeVD Λ345

MA=MH±=120 GeV

Planck excluded

RΓΓ

0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9

red - agreement with Planck

50GeV<M_H<M_h/2,M_A=M_H±=120GeV

R_γγ >0.7& PLANCK ÑMH>53GeV

h →HH closed

65 70 75 80

-0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2

MH@GeVD Λ345

∆A=∆H±=50 GeV

Planc k excluded

RΓΓ

0.86 0.90 0.94 0.98

red - agreement with Planck

M_h/2<MH<83GeV,MA=M_H±=MH+50GeV

agreement with PLANCK and R_γγ >0.7, alwaysR_γγ <1

Heavy DM

MH >500GeV,MA =MH^± =MH+1GeV (because ofS,T)

550 600 650 700 750 800 850

-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4

M_H@GeVD Λ345

∆A=∆H^±=1 GeV

Planck excluded

RΓΓ

0.996 0.998 1 1.002 1.004

red - agreement with Planck

Agreement with PLANCK andR_γγ ≈1.

Direct detection – comparison with XENON/LUX

DM-nucleon scattering cross sectionσ_DM,N ∼λ₃₄₅² R_γγ bounds onλ345 translated to (M_H, σ_DM,N) plane

H H

h N H

N

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

10^-10 10^-9 10^-8 10^-7 10^-6 10^-5

M_H@GeVD

ΣDM,N@pbD

ATLAS LUX XENON100

R_ΓΓ>0.7HourL

Limits stronger/comparable to those from XENON100

Direct detection – comparison with XENON/LUX

DM-nucleon scattering cross sectionσ_DM,N ∼λ₃₄₅² R_γγ bounds onλ345 translated to (M_H, σ_DM,N) plane

H H

h N H

N

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

10^-10 10^-9 10^-8 10^-7 10^-6 10^-5

M_H@GeVD

ΣDM,N@pbD

ATLAS LUX XENON100

RΓΓ>0.8HourL

and to those from LUX (stronger forM_H<10GeV)

Summary

IDM is consistent with present experimental results It provides a viable DM candidate

Measurements of Higgs properties constrainH^± and DM masses

Rγγ>1.2ÑMH, MH^± .154GeV Rγγ>1ÑMH >63GeV

When Higgs results combined with PLANCKÑ stringent constraints on DM scenarios

Rγγ>0.7ÑMH >53GeV or other DM particle needed MH >500GeVÑRγγ ≈1

Interesting issue of metastability in the IDM – work in progress

Backup slides

Direct detection – dependence on f

.

DM-nucleon scattering cross sectionσ_DM,N ∼ λ₃₄₅² σ_DM,N =

λ₃₄₅² 4πM_h⁴

m⁴_N (m_N+M_H)

2f_N²

Depends on the value off_N, no agreement on its precise value.

f_N ∈(0.014, 0.66). We use f_N =0.326 – the middle value.

Constraints

Vacuum stability: boundedness from below, stability of Inert vacuum

Perturbative unitarity: eigenvalues Λⁱ of the high-energy scattering matrix fulfill the condition|Λi| <8π

Electroweak Precision Tests (EWPT): S andT within 2σ (S =0.03±0.09, T =0.07±0.08, with correlation of 87%) LEP bounds on the scalars’ masses

LHC:M_H =125GeV, Br(h→ inv), Γ(h)

DM constraints: Planck results on DM relic density

R

> 1 – analytical solution

If invisible channels closed R_γγ =

Γ(h→ γγ)^IDM Γ(h→ γγ)^SM

ÑR_γγ >1 can be solved analytically for MH^±, m²₂₂ Constructive interference

– m²₂₂< −2M_H²± (⇔λ3<0) – with LEP bound onM_H^±

Ñ m²₂₂< −9.8·10³GeV

2

Destructive interference – IDM contribution >2×SM

contribution – bigm₂₂² required:

m₂₂² &1.8·10⁵GeV

2

– excluded by the condition for the Inert vacuum m₂₂² .9·10⁴GeV

2

[B.Ś., M. Krawczyk, PRD 88 (2013) 035019]

R

versus λ