Connecting dark matter UV complete models to direct detection rates via effective field theory

Open Access
Regular Article - Theoretical Physics

Abstract

Direct searches for WIMPs are sensitive to physics well below the weak scale. In the absence of light mediators, it is fruitful to apply an Effective Field Theory (EFT) approach accounting only for dark matter (DM) interactions with Standard Model (SM) fields. We consider a singlet fermion WIMP and effective operators up to dimension 6 which are generated at the mass scale of particles mediating DM interactions with the SM. We perform a one-loop Renormalization Group Evolution (RGE) analysis, evolving these effective operators from the mediators mass scale to the nuclear scales probed by direct searches. We apply our results to models with DM velocity-suppressed interactions, DM couplings only to heavy quarks, leptophilic DM and Higgs portal, which without our analysis would not get constrained from direct detection bounds. Remarkably, a large parameter space region for these models is found to be excluded as a consequence of spin-independent couplings induced by SM loops. In addition to these examples, we stress that more general renormalizable models for singlet fermion WIMP can be matched onto our EFT framework, and the subsequent model-independent RGE can be used to compute direct detection rates. Our results allow us to properly connect the different energy scales involved in constraining WIMP models, and to combine information from direct detection with other complementary searches, such as collider and indirect detection.

Keywords

Beyond Standard Model Cosmology of Theories beyond the SM Effective field theories Renormalization Group 

Notes

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits any use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

References

  1. [1]
    G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski and K. Griest, Supersymmetric dark matter, Phys. Rept. 267 (1996) 195 [hep-ph/9506380] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    G. Bertone, D. Hooper and J. Silk, Particle dark matter: evidence, candidates and constraints, Phys. Rept. 405 (2005) 279 [hep-ph/0404175] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    J.L. Feng, Dark matter candidates from particle physics and methods of detection, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 48 (2010) 495 [arXiv:1003.0904] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    B.W. Lee and S. Weinberg, Cosmological lower bound on heavy neutrino masses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 (1977) 165 [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    R.J. Scherrer and M.S. Turner, On the relic, cosmic abundance of stable weakly interacting massive particles, Phys. Rev. D 33 (1986) 1585 [Erratum ibid. D 34 (1986) 3263] [INSPIRE].
  6. [6]
    M. Srednicki, R. Watkins and K.A. Olive, Calculations of relic densities in the early universe, Nucl. Phys. B 310 (1988) 693 [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    P. Gondolo and G. Gelmini, Cosmic abundances of stable particles: improved analysis, Nucl. Phys. B 360 (1991) 145 [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    H. Goldberg, Constraint on the photino mass from cosmology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50 (1983) 1419 [Erratum ibid. 103 (2009) 099905] [INSPIRE].
  9. [9]
    J.R. Ellis, J.S. Hagelin, D.V. Nanopoulos, K.A. Olive and M. Srednicki, Supersymmetric relics from the big bang, Nucl. Phys. B 238 (1984) 453 [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    T. Falk, K.A. Olive and M. Srednicki, Heavy sneutrinos as dark matter, Phys. Lett. B 339 (1994) 248 [hep-ph/9409270] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    G. Servant and T.M.P. Tait, Is the lightest Kaluza-Klein particle a viable dark matter candidate?, Nucl. Phys. B 650 (2003) 391 [hep-ph/0206071] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    H.-C. Cheng, J.L. Feng and K.T. Matchev, Kaluza-Klein dark matter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 211301 [hep-ph/0207125] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    A. Birkedal, A. Noble, M. Perelstein and A. Spray, Little Higgs dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 035002 [hep-ph/0603077] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    J. Fan, M. Reece and L.-T. Wang, Non-relativistic effective theory of dark matter direct detection, JCAP 11 (2010) 042 [arXiv:1008.1591] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    A.L. Fitzpatrick, W. Haxton, E. Katz, N. Lubbers and Y. Xu, The effective field theory of dark matter direct detection, JCAP 02 (2013) 004 [arXiv:1203.3542] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    A.L. Fitzpatrick, W. Haxton, E. Katz, N. Lubbers and Y. Xu, Model independent direct detection analyses, arXiv:1211.2818 [INSPIRE].
  17. [17]
    N. Anand, A.L. Fitzpatrick and W.C. Haxton, Weakly interacting massive particle-nucleus elastic scattering response, Phys. Rev. C 89 (2014) 065501 [arXiv:1308.6288] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    M.I. Gresham and K.M. Zurek, Effect of nuclear response functions in dark matter direct detection, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 123521 [arXiv:1401.3739] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    A. Alves, S. Profumo, F.S. Queiroz and W. Shepherd, Effective field theory approach to the galactic center gamma-ray excess, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 115003 [arXiv:1403.5027] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    N. Anand, A.L. Fitzpatrick and W.C. Haxton, Model-independent analyses of dark-matter particle interactions, arXiv:1405.6690 [INSPIRE].
  21. [21]
    R. Catena, Prospects for direct detection of dark matter in an effective theory approach, JCAP 07 (2014) 055 [arXiv:1406.0524] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    R.J. Hill and M.P. Solon, Standard model anatomy of WIMP dark matter direct detection. II. QCD analysis and hadronic matrix elements, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 043505 [arXiv:1409.8290] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    M. Beltrán, D. Hooper, E.W. Kolb, Z.A.C. Krusberg and T.M.P. Tait, Maverick dark matter at colliders, JHEP 09 (2010) 037 [arXiv:1002.4137] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    J. Goodman et al., Constraints on light Majorana dark matter from colliders, Phys. Lett. B 695 (2011) 185 [arXiv:1005.1286] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    J. Goodman et al., Constraints on dark matter from colliders, Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) 116010 [arXiv:1008.1783] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    A. Rajaraman, W. Shepherd, T.M.P. Tait and A.M. Wijangco, LHC bounds on interactions of dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 095013 [arXiv:1108.1196] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    Y. Bai, P.J. Fox and R. Harnik, The Tevatron at the frontier of dark matter direct detection, JHEP 12 (2010) 048 [arXiv:1005.3797] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    P.J. Fox, R. Harnik, J. Kopp and Y. Tsai, LEP shines light on dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 014028 [arXiv:1103.0240] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    P.J. Fox, R. Harnik, J. Kopp and Y. Tsai, Missing energy signatures of dark matter at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 056011 [arXiv:1109.4398] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    K. Cheung, P.-Y. Tseng, Y.-L.S. Tsai and T.-C. Yuan, Global constraints on effective dark matter interactions: relic density, direct detection, indirect detection and collider, JCAP 05 (2012) 001 [arXiv:1201.3402] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    Y. Bai and T.M.P. Tait, Searches with mono-leptons, Phys. Lett. B 723 (2013) 384 [arXiv:1208.4361] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    M.R. Buckley, Using effective operators to understand CoGeNT and CDMS-Si signals, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 055028 [arXiv:1308.4146] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  33. [33]
    L. Vecchi, WIMPs and un-naturalness, arXiv:1312.5695 [INSPIRE].
  34. [34]
    M.A. Fedderke, J.-Y. Chen, E.W. Kolb and L.-T. Wang, The fermionic dark matter Higgs portal: an effective field theory approach, JHEP 08 (2014) 122 [arXiv:1404.2283] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. [35]
    S. Matsumoto, S. Mukhopadhyay and Y.-L.S. Tsai, Singlet Majorana fermion dark matter: a comprehensive analysis in effective field theory, JHEP 10 (2014) 155 [arXiv:1407.1859] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. [36]
    I.M. Shoemaker and L. Vecchi, Unitarity and monojet bounds on models for DAMA, CoGeNT and CRESST-II, Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 015023 [arXiv:1112.5457] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  37. [37]
    G. Busoni, A. De Simone, E. Morgante and A. Riotto, On the validity of the effective field theory for dark matter searches at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B 728 (2014) 412 [arXiv:1307.2253] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. [38]
    S. Profumo, W. Shepherd and T. Tait, Pitfalls of dark matter crossing symmetries, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 056018 [arXiv:1307.6277] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  39. [39]
    G. Busoni, A. De Simone, J. Gramling, E. Morgante and A. Riotto, On the validity of the effective field theory for dark matter searches at the LHC, part II: complete analysis for the s-channel, JCAP 06 (2014) 060 [arXiv:1402.1275] [INSPIRE].ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. [40]
    M. Endo and Y. Yamamoto, Unitarity bounds on dark matter effective interactions at LHC, JHEP 06 (2014) 126 [arXiv:1403.6610] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. [41]
    G. Busoni, A. De Simone, T. Jacques, E. Morgante and A. Riotto, On the validity of the effective field theory for dark matter searches at the LHC, part III: analysis for the t-channel, JCAP 09 (2014) 022 [arXiv:1405.3101] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. [42]
    D. Racco, A. Wulzer and F. Zwirner, Robust collider limits on heavy-mediator dark matter, arXiv:1502.04701 [INSPIRE].
  43. [43]
    S. Chang, R. Edezhath, J. Hutchinson and M. Luty, Effective WIMPs, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 015011 [arXiv:1307.8120] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  44. [44]
    H. An, L.-T. Wang and H. Zhang, Dark matter with t-channel mediator: a simple step beyond contact interaction, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 115014 [arXiv:1308.0592] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  45. [45]
    A. DiFranzo, K.I. Nagao, A. Rajaraman and T.M.P. Tait, Simplified models for dark matter interacting with quarks, JHEP 11 (2013) 014 [Erratum ibid. 01 (2014) 162] [arXiv:1308.2679] [INSPIRE].
  46. [46]
    O. Buchmueller, M.J. Dolan and C. McCabe, Beyond effective field theory for dark matter searches at the LHC, JHEP 01 (2014) 025 [arXiv:1308.6799] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. [47]
    M. Papucci, A. Vichi and K.M. Zurek, Monojet versus the rest of the world I: t-channel models, JHEP 11 (2014) 024 [arXiv:1402.2285] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. [48]
    A. De Simone, G.F. Giudice and A. Strumia, Benchmarks for dark matter searches at the LHC, JHEP 06 (2014) 081 [arXiv:1402.6287] [INSPIRE].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. [49]
    Y. Bai and J. Berger, Lepton portal dark matter, JHEP 08 (2014) 153 [arXiv:1402.6696] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. [50]
    S. Chang, R. Edezhath, J. Hutchinson and M. Luty, Leptophilic effective WIMPs, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 015011 [arXiv:1402.7358] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  51. [51]
    P. Agrawal, Z. Chacko and C.B. Verhaaren, Leptophilic dark matter and the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon, JHEP 08 (2014) 147 [arXiv:1402.7369] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. [52]
    K. Hamaguchi, S.P. Liew, T. Moroi and Y. Yamamoto, Isospin-violating dark matter with colored mediators, JHEP 05 (2014) 086 [arXiv:1403.0324] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. [53]
    M. Garny, A. Ibarra, S. Rydbeck and S. Vogl, Majorana dark matter with a coloured mediator: collider vs direct and indirect searches, JHEP 06 (2014) 169 [arXiv:1403.4634] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. [54]
    A. Askew, S. Chauhan, B. Penning, W. Shepherd and M. Tripathi, Searching for dark matter at hadron colliders, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 29 (2014) 1430041 [arXiv:1406.5662] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. [55]
    O. Buchmueller, M.J. Dolan, S.A. Malik and C. McCabe, Characterising dark matter searches at colliders and direct detection experiments: vector mediators, JHEP 01 (2015) 037 [arXiv:1407.8257] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. [56]
    S. Malik et al., Interplay and characterization of dark matter searches at colliders and in direct detection experiments, arXiv:1409.4075 [INSPIRE].
  57. [57]
    J. Abdallah et al., Simplified models for dark matter and missing energy searches at the LHC, arXiv:1409.2893 [INSPIRE].
  58. [58]
    M.R. Buckley, D. Feld and D. Goncalves, Scalar simplified models for dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 015017 [arXiv:1410.6497] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  59. [59]
    P. Harris, V.V. Khoze, M. Spannowsky and C. Williams, Constraining dark sectors at colliders: beyond the effective theory approach, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 055009 [arXiv:1411.0535] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  60. [60]
    J. Kopp, V. Niro, T. Schwetz and J. Zupan, DAMA/LIBRA and leptonically interacting dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 083502 [arXiv:0907.3159] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  61. [61]
    R.J. Hill and M.P. Solon, Universal behavior in the scattering of heavy, weakly interacting dark matter on nuclear targets, Phys. Lett. B 707 (2012) 539 [arXiv:1111.0016] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. [62]
    M.T. Frandsen, U. Haisch, F. Kahlhoefer, P. Mertsch and K. Schmidt-Hoberg, Loop-induced dark matter direct detection signals from gamma-ray lines, JCAP 10 (2012) 033 [arXiv:1207.3971] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. [63]
    U. Haisch, F. Kahlhoefer and J. Unwin, The impact of heavy-quark loops on LHC dark matter searches, JHEP 07 (2013) 125 [arXiv:1208.4605] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. [64]
    U. Haisch and F. Kahlhoefer, On the importance of loop-induced spin-independent interactions for dark matter direct detection, JCAP 04 (2013) 050 [arXiv:1302.4454] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. [65]
    R.J. Hill and M.P. Solon, WIMP-nucleon scattering with heavy WIMP effective theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014) 211602 [arXiv:1309.4092] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. [66]
    R.J. Hill and M.P. Solon, Standard model anatomy of WIMP dark matter direct detection. I. Weak-scale matching, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 043504 [arXiv:1401.3339] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  67. [67]
    J. Kopp, L. Michaels and J. Smirnov, Loopy constraints on leptophilic dark matter and internal bremsstrahlung, JCAP 04 (2014) 022 [arXiv:1401.6457] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. [68]
    A. Crivellin, F. D’Eramo and M. Procura, New constraints on dark matter effective theories from standard model loops, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014) 191304 [arXiv:1402.1173] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. [69]
    A. Crivellin and U. Haisch, Dark matter direct detection constraints from gauge bosons loops, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 115011 [arXiv:1408.5046] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  70. [70]
    P. Gondolo et al., DarkSUSY: computing supersymmetric dark matter properties numerically, JCAP 07 (2004) 008 [astro-ph/0406204] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. [71]
    A. Crivellin, M. Hoferichter and M. Procura, Accurate evaluation of hadronic uncertainties in spin-independent WIMP-nucleon scattering: disentangling two- and three-flavor effects, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 054021 [arXiv:1312.4951] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  72. [72]
    M.W. Goodman and E. Witten, Detectability of certain dark matter candidates, Phys. Rev. D 31 (1985) 3059 [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  73. [73]
    XENON100 collaboration, E. Aprile et al., Dark matter results from 225 live days of XENON100 data, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 181301 [arXiv:1207.5988] [INSPIRE].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. [74]
    LUX collaboration, D.S. Akerib et al., First results from the LUX dark matter experiment at the Sanford Underground Research Facility, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014) 091303 [arXiv:1310.8214] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. [75]
    P. Cushman et al., Snowmass CF1 summary: WIMP dark matter direct detection, arXiv:1310.8327 [INSPIRE].
  76. [76]
    W. Buchmüller and D. Wyler, Effective Lagrangian analysis of new interactions and flavor conservation, Nucl. Phys. B 268 (1986) 621 [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. [77]
    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak and J. Rosiek, Dimension-six terms in the standard model Lagrangian, JHEP 10 (2010) 085 [arXiv:1008.4884] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  78. [78]
    V. Barger, W.-Y. Keung and D. Marfatia, Electromagnetic properties of dark matter: dipole moments and charge form factor, Phys. Lett. B 696 (2011) 74 [arXiv:1007.4345] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. [79]
    T. Banks, J.-F. Fortin and S. Thomas, Direct detection of dark matter electromagnetic dipole moments, arXiv:1007.5515 [INSPIRE].
  80. [80]
    J.-F. Fortin and T.M.P. Tait, Collider constraints on dipole-interacting dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 063506 [arXiv:1103.3289] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  81. [81]
    M.A. Shifman, A.I. Vainshtein and V.I. Zakharov, Remarks on Higgs boson interactions with nucleons, Phys. Lett. B 78 (1978) 443 [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. [82]
    Y.G. Kim and K.Y. Lee, The minimal model of fermionic dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 115012 [hep-ph/0611069] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  83. [83]
    Y.G. Kim, K.Y. Lee and S. Shin, Singlet fermionic dark matter, JHEP 05 (2008) 100 [arXiv:0803.2932] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  84. [84]
    J. March-Russell, S.M. West, D. Cumberbatch and D. Hooper, Heavy dark matter through the Higgs portal, JHEP 07 (2008) 058 [arXiv:0801.3440] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. [85]
    S. Kanemura, S. Matsumoto, T. Nabeshima and N. Okada, Can WIMP dark matter overcome the nightmare scenario?, Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) 055026 [arXiv:1005.5651] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  86. [86]
    L. Lopez-Honorez, T. Schwetz and J. Zupan, Higgs portal, fermionic dark matter and a standard model like Higgs at 125 GeV, Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 179 [arXiv:1203.2064] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. [87]
    A.A. Petrov and W. Shepherd, Searching for dark matter at LHC with mono-Higgs production, Phys. Lett. B 730 (2014) 178 [arXiv:1311.1511] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. [88]
    L. Carpenter et al., Mono-Higgs-boson: a new collider probe of dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 075017 [arXiv:1312.2592] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  89. [89]
    A. Berlin, T. Lin and L.-T. Wang, Mono-Higgs detection of dark matter at the LHC, JHEP 06 (2014) 078 [arXiv:1402.7074] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. [90]
    F. D’Eramo, Dark matter and Higgs boson physics, Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 083522 [arXiv:0705.4493] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  91. [91]
    M. Pospelov and A. Ritz, Higgs decays to dark matter: beyond the minimal model, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 113001 [arXiv:1109.4872] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  92. [92]
    Y. Bai, P. Draper and J. Shelton, Measuring the invisible Higgs width at the 7 and 8 TeV LHC, JHEP 07 (2012) 192 [arXiv:1112.4496] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. [93]
    A. Greljo, J. Julio, J.F. Kamenik, C. Smith and J. Zupan, Constraining Higgs mediated dark matter interactions, JHEP 11 (2013) 190 [arXiv:1309.3561] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. [94]
    C. Arzt, Reduced effective Lagrangians, Phys. Lett. B 342 (1995) 189 [hep-ph/9304230] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. [95]
    D. Tucker-Smith and N. Weiner, Inelastic dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 043502 [hep-ph/0101138] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  96. [96]
    D. Buttazzo et al., Investigating the near-criticality of the Higgs boson, JHEP 12 (2013) 089 [arXiv:1307.3536] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. [97]
    Z.-z. Xing, H. Zhang and S. Zhou, Impacts of the Higgs mass on vacuum stability, running fermion masses and two-body Higgs decays, Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 013013 [arXiv:1112.3112] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  98. [98]
    J. March-Russell, J. Unwin and S.M. West, Closing in on asymmetric dark matter I: model independent limits for interactions with quarks, JHEP 08 (2012) 029 [arXiv:1203.4854] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. [99]
    M. Freytsis and Z. Ligeti, On dark matter models with uniquely spin-dependent detection possibilities, Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 115009 [arXiv:1012.5317] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  100. [100]
    G.F. Giudice, E.W. Kolb and A. Riotto, Largest temperature of the radiation era and its cosmological implications, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 023508 [hep-ph/0005123] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  101. [101]
    F. D’Eramo, L. Fei and J. Thaler, Dark matter assimilation into the baryon asymmetry, JCAP 03 (2012) 010 [arXiv:1111.5615] [INSPIRE].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. [102]
    C.P. Burgess, M. Pospelov and T. ter Veldhuis, The minimal model of nonbaryonic dark matter: a singlet scalar, Nucl. Phys. B 619 (2001) 709 [hep-ph/0011335] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. [103]
    A. Alves, S. Profumo and F.S. Queiroz, The dark Z portal: direct, indirect and collider searches, JHEP 04 (2014) 063 [arXiv:1312.5281] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. [104]
    G. Arcadi, Y. Mambrini, M.H.G. Tytgat and B. Zaldivar, Invisible Z and dark matter: LHC vs LUX constraints, JHEP 03 (2014) 134 [arXiv:1401.0221] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. [105]
    O. Lebedev and Y. Mambrini, Axial dark matter: the case for an invisible Z , Phys. Lett. B 734 (2014) 350 [arXiv:1403.4837] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. [106]
    A. Alves, A. Berlin, S. Profumo and F. S. Queiroz, Dark matter complementarity and the Z portal,arXiv:1501.03490[INSPIRE].
  107. [107]
    M.E. Peskin and D.V. Schroeder, An introduction to quantum field theory, Addison-Wesley, Reading U.S.A. (1995) [INSPIRE].Google Scholar
  108. [108]
    M.E. Machacek and M.T. Vaughn, Two loop renormalization group equations in a general quantum field theory. I. Wave function renormalization, Nucl. Phys. B 222 (1983) 83 [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. [109]
    M.E. Machacek and M.T. Vaughn, Two loop renormalization group equations in a general quantum field theory. II. Yukawa couplings, Nucl. Phys. B 236 (1984) 221 [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. [110]
    M.E. Machacek and M.T. Vaughn, Two loop renormalization group equations in a general quantum field theory. III. Scalar quartic couplings, Nucl. Phys. B 249 (1985) 70 [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhysicsUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUnited States
  2. 2.Theoretical Physics GroupLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryBerkeleyUnited States
  3. 3.Albert Einstein Center for Fundamental Physics, Institute for Theoretical PhysicsUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland
  4. 4.Fakultät für PhysikUniversität WienViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations