4.6 Article

An updated analysis of Inert Higgs Doublet Model in light of the recent results from LUX, PLANCK, AMS-02 and LHC

Journal

Publisher

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/1475-7516/2014/06/030

Keywords

dark matter theory; dark matter simulations; dark matter detectors; dark matter experiments

Funding

  1. National Science Council (NSC) of Taiwan
  2. High Energy Theory Group at the IOP, AS
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11105155]
  4. NSC of Taiwan [102-2811-M-001-032, 101-2112-M-001-005-MY3]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In light of the recent discovery by the ATLAS and CMS experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) of a Higgs-like particle with a narrow mass range of 125-126GeV, we perform an updated analysis on one of the popular scalar dark matter models, the Inert Higgs Doublet Model (IHDM). We take into account in our likelihood analysis of various experimental constraints, including recent relic density measurement, dark matter direct and indirect detection constraints as well as the latest collider constraints on the invisible decay width of the Higgs boson and monojet search at the LHC. It is shown that if the invisible decay of the standard model Higgs boson is open, LHC as well as direct detection experiments like LUX and XENON100 could put stringent limits on the Higgs boson couplings to dark matter. We find that the most favoured parameter space for IHDM corresponds to dark matter with a mass less than 100 GeV or so. In particular, the best-fit points are at the dark matter mass around 70 GeV where the invisible Higgs decay to dark matter is closed. Scalar dark matter in the higher mass range of 0.5-4 TeV is also explored in our study. Projected sensitivities for the future experiments of monojet at LHC-14, XENON1T and AMS-02 one year antiproton flux are shown to put further constraints on the existing parameter space of IHDM.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available