4.7 Article

Race to find split Higgsino dark matter

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
卷 105, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.035012

关键词

-

资金

  1. DoE [DE-SC0007859]
  2. DoE Early Career Grant at the University of Minnesota [DE-SC0019225, DE-SC0011842]
  3. NSF Graduate Research Fellowship
  4. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) [DE-SC0019225, DE-SC0011842] Funding Source: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Split Higgsinos, a class of models to explain dark matter, may soon be detected by multiple current experimental avenues. These models suggest a large split in scales between the electroweak scale and decoupled scalars, with relatively light Higgsinos between the two. They require few parameters, but can still explain gauge coupling unification, dark matter, and the hierarchy between the Planck and electroweak scales. We analyze the prospects of detecting split Higgsinos in current and future experiments, including the promising discovery potentials in electron electric dipole moment experiments.
Split Higgsinos are a compelling class of models to explain dark matter and may be on the verge of detection by multiple current experimental avenues. The idea is based on a large split in scales between the electroweak scale and decoupled scalars, with relatively light Higgsinos between the two. Such models enjoy the merit of depending on very few parameters while still explaining gauge coupling unification, dark matter, and most of the hierarchy between the Planck and electroweak scales, and they remain undetected by past experiments. We analyze split Higgsinos in view of current and next generation experiments. We discuss the direct and indirect detection prospects and further demonstrate promising discovery potentials in the upcoming electron electric dipole moment experiments. The parameter space of this model is analyzed in terms of experiments expected to run in the coming years and where we should be looking for the next potential discoveries.

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