4.7 Review

The Higgs-portal for dark matter: effective field theories versus concrete realizations

期刊

EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL C
卷 81, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09411-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. Estonian Mobilitas Plus Grant [MOBTT86]
  2. Junta de Andalucia through the Talentia Senior program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compares effective Higgs-portal models with increasingly complex realistic models, taking into account all constraints from collider and astroparticle physics, and discusses the implications for the parameter space and cosmological relic density assumptions in these models.
Higgs-portal effective field theories are widely used as benchmarks in order to interpret collider and astroparticle searches for dark matter (DM) particles. To assess the validity of these effective models, it is important to confront them to concrete realizations that are complete in the ultraviolet regime. In this paper, we compare effective Higgs-portal models with scalar, fermionic and vector DM with a series of increasingly complex realistic models, taking into account all existing constraints from collider and astroparticle physics. These complete realizations include the inert doublet with scalar DM, the singlet-doublet model for fermionic DM and models based on spontaneously broken dark SU(2) and SU(3) gauge symmetries for vector boson DM. We also discuss the simpler scenarios in which a new scalar singlet field that mixes with the standard Higgs field is introduced with minimal couplings to isosinglet spin-0, 1/2 and 1 DM states. We show that in large regions of the parameter space of these models, the effective Higgs-portal approach provides a consistent limit and thus, can be safely adopted, in particular for the interpretation of searches for invisible Higgs boson decays at the LHC. The phenomenological implications of assuming or not that the DM states generate the correct cosmological relic density are also discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据