1/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
The Coannihilation Codex
Michael J. Baker
with
Joachim Brod, Sonia El Hedri, Anna Kaminska, Joachim Kopp, Jia Liu,Andrea Thamm, Maikel de Vries, Xiao-Ping Wang, Felix Yu, José Zurita
arXiv:1510.03434
JGU Mainz
UC Davis - 29 February 2016
2/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Outline
1 Motivation
2 Coannihilation Codex
3 Using the Codex
3/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Outline
1 Motivation
2 Coannihilation Codex
3 Using the Codex
4/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Dark Matter
Begeman, Broeils & Sanders, 1991
Planck, 2013
Viel, Becker, Bolton & Haehnelt, 2013
Ωnbmh2 = 0.1198± 0.0026
4/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Dark Matter
Begeman, Broeils & Sanders, 1991 Planck, 2013
Viel, Becker, Bolton & Haehnelt, 2013
Ωnbmh2 = 0.1198± 0.0026
4/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Dark Matter
Begeman, Broeils & Sanders, 1991 Planck, 2013
Viel, Becker, Bolton & Haehnelt, 2013
Ωnbmh2 = 0.1198± 0.0026
4/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Dark Matter
Begeman, Broeils & Sanders, 1991 Planck, 2013
Viel, Becker, Bolton & Haehnelt, 2013
Ωnbmh2 = 0.1198± 0.0026
5/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Relic Density from Thermal Freeze-out
DM DM↔ SM SM
H(T) vs. Γ(T)
Γ(T) = n(T)σ(T)v(T)
5/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Relic Density from Thermal Freeze-out
DM DM↔ SM SM
H(T) vs. Γ(T)
Γ(T) = n(T)σ(T)v(T)
5/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Relic Density from Thermal Freeze-out
DM DM↔ SM SM
H(T) vs. Γ(T)
Γ(T) = n(T)σ(T)v(T)
5/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Relic Density from Thermal Freeze-out
DM DM↔ SM SM
H(T) vs. Γ(T)
Γ(T) = n(T)σ(T)v(T)
6/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Relic Density from Thermal Freeze-out
dndt
= −〈σv〉(n(t)2 − neq(t)2)− 3H(t)n(t)
6/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Relic Density from Thermal Freeze-out
dndt
= −〈σv〉(n(t)2 − neq(t)2)− 3H(t)n(t)
7/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
The WIMP Miracle
ΩDMh2
0.12∼ O(1)
T30
M3PlH
20〈σannv〉
∼ 1
〈σann1pb
v/c0.1 〉
σann ∝g4
m2DM
7/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
The WIMP Miracle
ΩDMh2
0.12∼ O(1)
T30
M3PlH
20〈σannv〉
∼ 1
〈σann1pb
v/c0.1 〉
σann ∝g4
m2DM
8/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
The WIMP Miracle in SUGRA
Baer, Box and Summy: 1005.2215
9/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
The WIMP Miracle in SUGRA
Baer, Box and Summy: 1005.2215
10/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Three Exceptions
PHYSICAL REVIEW 0 VOLUME 43, NUMBER 10 15 MAY 1991
Three exceptions in the calculation of relic abundances
Kim GriestCenter for Particle Astrophysics and Astronomy Department, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720
David SeckelBartol Research Institute, University ofDelaware, Newark, Delaware 19716
(Received 15 November 1990)
The calculation of relic abundances of elementary particles by following their annihilation andfreeze-out in the early Universe has become an important and standard tool in discussing particledark-rnatter candidates. We find three situations, all occurring in the literature, in which the stan-dard methods of calculating relic abundances fail. The first situation occurs when another particlelies near in mass to the relic particle and shares a quantum number with it. An example is a lightsquark with neutralino dark matter. The additional particle must be included in the reaction net-work, since its annihilation can control the relic abundance. The second situation occurs when therelic particle lies near a mass threshold. Previously, annihilation into particles heavier than the rel-ic particle was considered kinematically forbidden, but we show that if the mass diA'erence is—5 —15%%uo, these "forbidden" channels can dominate the cross section and determine the relic abun-dance. The third situation occurs when the annihilation takes place near a pole in the cross section.Proper treatment of the thermal averaging and the annihilation after freeze-out shows that the dipin relic abundance caused by a pole is not nearly as sharp or deep as previously thought.
I. INTRODUCTION
The calculation of the present-day density of elementa-ry particles which were in thermal equilibrium in the ear-ly Universe has become quite commonplace. ' Of particu-lar interest is the so-called Lee-Weinberg ' calculation inwhich annihilation after a particle species has becomenonrelativistic determines the present-day abundance ofthat species. Standard approximate solutions to theBoltzmann equation exist for this calculation and havebeen tested numerically. In this paper we wish to pointout three cases where naive application of the standardmethods fails to give correct results and a modified treat-ment is required. All three cases exist in the literature,and in all three cases erroneous conclusions have beendrawn. For each case we present appropriate approxi-mate solutions to the Boltzmann equation(s) and describethe values of the parameters for which they apply.
The first case occurs when the relic particle is the light-est of a set of similar particles whose masses are nearlydegenerate. In this case the relic abundance of the light-est particle is determined not only by its annihilationcross section, but also by the annihilation of the heavierparticles, which will later decay into the lightest. We callthis the case of "coannihilation. " As an example, consid-er a supersymmetric theory in which the scalar quarks orscalar electrons are only slightly more massive than thelightest supersymmetric particle (LSP), usually taken tobe a neutralino. Previous calculations of the relic abun-dance which consider only the LSP annihilation can be inerror by more than two orders of magnitude.
The second case concerns annihilation into particleswhich are more massive than the relic particle. Previous
treatments regarded this as kinematically forbidden, butwe show that if the heavier particles are on1y 5 —1S%more massive, these channels can dominate the annihila-tion cross section and determine the relic abundance. Wecall this the "forbidden" channel annihilation case. Ex-amples include annihilation into bb, tt, W+ W, or Higgsbosons, when the annihilating particle is lighter than thefinal-state particle.
The third case occurs when the annihilation takesplace near a pole in the cross section. This happens, forexample, in Z -exchange annihilation when the mass ofthe relic particle is near mz/2. Previous treatments haveincorrectly handled the thermal averages and the integra-tion of the Boltzmann equation in these situations. Thedip in relic abundance caused by a pole is broader andnot nearly as deep as previous treatments imply.
For all three cases we present simple formulas whichallow for a more correct treatment. We also present ex-amples for each case and describe the precise conditionsunder which the modified treatment is necessary. In Sec.II we review the standard method for performing theLee-Weinberg calculation and describe the approxima-tions within which we will work. In Sec. III we discussthe coannihilation case, in Sec. IV we discuss the forbid-den channel case, and in Sec. V we discuss annihilationnear a pole.
II. STANDARD CALCULATIONOF RELIC ABUNDANCE
Here we summarize the standard technique for calcu-lating the relic abundance of a particle species y in theLee-Weinberg scenario. First, a note about the philoso-
43 3191 1991 The American Physical Society
Forbidden annihilationResonant annihilation
Coannihilation
10/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Three Exceptions
PHYSICAL REVIEW 0 VOLUME 43, NUMBER 10 15 MAY 1991
Three exceptions in the calculation of relic abundances
Kim GriestCenter for Particle Astrophysics and Astronomy Department, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720
David SeckelBartol Research Institute, University ofDelaware, Newark, Delaware 19716
(Received 15 November 1990)
The calculation of relic abundances of elementary particles by following their annihilation andfreeze-out in the early Universe has become an important and standard tool in discussing particledark-rnatter candidates. We find three situations, all occurring in the literature, in which the stan-dard methods of calculating relic abundances fail. The first situation occurs when another particlelies near in mass to the relic particle and shares a quantum number with it. An example is a lightsquark with neutralino dark matter. The additional particle must be included in the reaction net-work, since its annihilation can control the relic abundance. The second situation occurs when therelic particle lies near a mass threshold. Previously, annihilation into particles heavier than the rel-ic particle was considered kinematically forbidden, but we show that if the mass diA'erence is—5 —15%%uo, these "forbidden" channels can dominate the cross section and determine the relic abun-dance. The third situation occurs when the annihilation takes place near a pole in the cross section.Proper treatment of the thermal averaging and the annihilation after freeze-out shows that the dipin relic abundance caused by a pole is not nearly as sharp or deep as previously thought.
I. INTRODUCTION
The calculation of the present-day density of elementa-ry particles which were in thermal equilibrium in the ear-ly Universe has become quite commonplace. ' Of particu-lar interest is the so-called Lee-Weinberg ' calculation inwhich annihilation after a particle species has becomenonrelativistic determines the present-day abundance ofthat species. Standard approximate solutions to theBoltzmann equation exist for this calculation and havebeen tested numerically. In this paper we wish to pointout three cases where naive application of the standardmethods fails to give correct results and a modified treat-ment is required. All three cases exist in the literature,and in all three cases erroneous conclusions have beendrawn. For each case we present appropriate approxi-mate solutions to the Boltzmann equation(s) and describethe values of the parameters for which they apply.
The first case occurs when the relic particle is the light-est of a set of similar particles whose masses are nearlydegenerate. In this case the relic abundance of the light-est particle is determined not only by its annihilationcross section, but also by the annihilation of the heavierparticles, which will later decay into the lightest. We callthis the case of "coannihilation. " As an example, consid-er a supersymmetric theory in which the scalar quarks orscalar electrons are only slightly more massive than thelightest supersymmetric particle (LSP), usually taken tobe a neutralino. Previous calculations of the relic abun-dance which consider only the LSP annihilation can be inerror by more than two orders of magnitude.
The second case concerns annihilation into particleswhich are more massive than the relic particle. Previous
treatments regarded this as kinematically forbidden, butwe show that if the heavier particles are on1y 5 —1S%more massive, these channels can dominate the annihila-tion cross section and determine the relic abundance. Wecall this the "forbidden" channel annihilation case. Ex-amples include annihilation into bb, tt, W+ W, or Higgsbosons, when the annihilating particle is lighter than thefinal-state particle.
The third case occurs when the annihilation takesplace near a pole in the cross section. This happens, forexample, in Z -exchange annihilation when the mass ofthe relic particle is near mz/2. Previous treatments haveincorrectly handled the thermal averages and the integra-tion of the Boltzmann equation in these situations. Thedip in relic abundance caused by a pole is broader andnot nearly as deep as previous treatments imply.
For all three cases we present simple formulas whichallow for a more correct treatment. We also present ex-amples for each case and describe the precise conditionsunder which the modified treatment is necessary. In Sec.II we review the standard method for performing theLee-Weinberg calculation and describe the approxima-tions within which we will work. In Sec. III we discussthe coannihilation case, in Sec. IV we discuss the forbid-den channel case, and in Sec. V we discuss annihilationnear a pole.
II. STANDARD CALCULATIONOF RELIC ABUNDANCE
Here we summarize the standard technique for calcu-lating the relic abundance of a particle species y in theLee-Weinberg scenario. First, a note about the philoso-
43 3191 1991 The American Physical Society
Forbidden annihilationResonant annihilation
Coannihilation
10/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Three Exceptions
PHYSICAL REVIEW 0 VOLUME 43, NUMBER 10 15 MAY 1991
Three exceptions in the calculation of relic abundances
Kim GriestCenter for Particle Astrophysics and Astronomy Department, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720
David SeckelBartol Research Institute, University ofDelaware, Newark, Delaware 19716
(Received 15 November 1990)
The calculation of relic abundances of elementary particles by following their annihilation andfreeze-out in the early Universe has become an important and standard tool in discussing particledark-rnatter candidates. We find three situations, all occurring in the literature, in which the stan-dard methods of calculating relic abundances fail. The first situation occurs when another particlelies near in mass to the relic particle and shares a quantum number with it. An example is a lightsquark with neutralino dark matter. The additional particle must be included in the reaction net-work, since its annihilation can control the relic abundance. The second situation occurs when therelic particle lies near a mass threshold. Previously, annihilation into particles heavier than the rel-ic particle was considered kinematically forbidden, but we show that if the mass diA'erence is—5 —15%%uo, these "forbidden" channels can dominate the cross section and determine the relic abun-dance. The third situation occurs when the annihilation takes place near a pole in the cross section.Proper treatment of the thermal averaging and the annihilation after freeze-out shows that the dipin relic abundance caused by a pole is not nearly as sharp or deep as previously thought.
I. INTRODUCTION
The calculation of the present-day density of elementa-ry particles which were in thermal equilibrium in the ear-ly Universe has become quite commonplace. ' Of particu-lar interest is the so-called Lee-Weinberg ' calculation inwhich annihilation after a particle species has becomenonrelativistic determines the present-day abundance ofthat species. Standard approximate solutions to theBoltzmann equation exist for this calculation and havebeen tested numerically. In this paper we wish to pointout three cases where naive application of the standardmethods fails to give correct results and a modified treat-ment is required. All three cases exist in the literature,and in all three cases erroneous conclusions have beendrawn. For each case we present appropriate approxi-mate solutions to the Boltzmann equation(s) and describethe values of the parameters for which they apply.
The first case occurs when the relic particle is the light-est of a set of similar particles whose masses are nearlydegenerate. In this case the relic abundance of the light-est particle is determined not only by its annihilationcross section, but also by the annihilation of the heavierparticles, which will later decay into the lightest. We callthis the case of "coannihilation. " As an example, consid-er a supersymmetric theory in which the scalar quarks orscalar electrons are only slightly more massive than thelightest supersymmetric particle (LSP), usually taken tobe a neutralino. Previous calculations of the relic abun-dance which consider only the LSP annihilation can be inerror by more than two orders of magnitude.
The second case concerns annihilation into particleswhich are more massive than the relic particle. Previous
treatments regarded this as kinematically forbidden, butwe show that if the heavier particles are on1y 5 —1S%more massive, these channels can dominate the annihila-tion cross section and determine the relic abundance. Wecall this the "forbidden" channel annihilation case. Ex-amples include annihilation into bb, tt, W+ W, or Higgsbosons, when the annihilating particle is lighter than thefinal-state particle.
The third case occurs when the annihilation takesplace near a pole in the cross section. This happens, forexample, in Z -exchange annihilation when the mass ofthe relic particle is near mz/2. Previous treatments haveincorrectly handled the thermal averages and the integra-tion of the Boltzmann equation in these situations. Thedip in relic abundance caused by a pole is broader andnot nearly as deep as previous treatments imply.
For all three cases we present simple formulas whichallow for a more correct treatment. We also present ex-amples for each case and describe the precise conditionsunder which the modified treatment is necessary. In Sec.II we review the standard method for performing theLee-Weinberg calculation and describe the approxima-tions within which we will work. In Sec. III we discussthe coannihilation case, in Sec. IV we discuss the forbid-den channel case, and in Sec. V we discuss annihilationnear a pole.
II. STANDARD CALCULATIONOF RELIC ABUNDANCE
Here we summarize the standard technique for calcu-lating the relic abundance of a particle species y in theLee-Weinberg scenario. First, a note about the philoso-
43 3191 1991 The American Physical Society
Forbidden annihilationResonant annihilation
Coannihilation
10/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Three Exceptions
PHYSICAL REVIEW 0 VOLUME 43, NUMBER 10 15 MAY 1991
Three exceptions in the calculation of relic abundances
Kim GriestCenter for Particle Astrophysics and Astronomy Department, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720
David SeckelBartol Research Institute, University ofDelaware, Newark, Delaware 19716
(Received 15 November 1990)
The calculation of relic abundances of elementary particles by following their annihilation andfreeze-out in the early Universe has become an important and standard tool in discussing particledark-rnatter candidates. We find three situations, all occurring in the literature, in which the stan-dard methods of calculating relic abundances fail. The first situation occurs when another particlelies near in mass to the relic particle and shares a quantum number with it. An example is a lightsquark with neutralino dark matter. The additional particle must be included in the reaction net-work, since its annihilation can control the relic abundance. The second situation occurs when therelic particle lies near a mass threshold. Previously, annihilation into particles heavier than the rel-ic particle was considered kinematically forbidden, but we show that if the mass diA'erence is—5 —15%%uo, these "forbidden" channels can dominate the cross section and determine the relic abun-dance. The third situation occurs when the annihilation takes place near a pole in the cross section.Proper treatment of the thermal averaging and the annihilation after freeze-out shows that the dipin relic abundance caused by a pole is not nearly as sharp or deep as previously thought.
I. INTRODUCTION
The calculation of the present-day density of elementa-ry particles which were in thermal equilibrium in the ear-ly Universe has become quite commonplace. ' Of particu-lar interest is the so-called Lee-Weinberg ' calculation inwhich annihilation after a particle species has becomenonrelativistic determines the present-day abundance ofthat species. Standard approximate solutions to theBoltzmann equation exist for this calculation and havebeen tested numerically. In this paper we wish to pointout three cases where naive application of the standardmethods fails to give correct results and a modified treat-ment is required. All three cases exist in the literature,and in all three cases erroneous conclusions have beendrawn. For each case we present appropriate approxi-mate solutions to the Boltzmann equation(s) and describethe values of the parameters for which they apply.
The first case occurs when the relic particle is the light-est of a set of similar particles whose masses are nearlydegenerate. In this case the relic abundance of the light-est particle is determined not only by its annihilationcross section, but also by the annihilation of the heavierparticles, which will later decay into the lightest. We callthis the case of "coannihilation. " As an example, consid-er a supersymmetric theory in which the scalar quarks orscalar electrons are only slightly more massive than thelightest supersymmetric particle (LSP), usually taken tobe a neutralino. Previous calculations of the relic abun-dance which consider only the LSP annihilation can be inerror by more than two orders of magnitude.
The second case concerns annihilation into particleswhich are more massive than the relic particle. Previous
treatments regarded this as kinematically forbidden, butwe show that if the heavier particles are on1y 5 —1S%more massive, these channels can dominate the annihila-tion cross section and determine the relic abundance. Wecall this the "forbidden" channel annihilation case. Ex-amples include annihilation into bb, tt, W+ W, or Higgsbosons, when the annihilating particle is lighter than thefinal-state particle.
The third case occurs when the annihilation takesplace near a pole in the cross section. This happens, forexample, in Z -exchange annihilation when the mass ofthe relic particle is near mz/2. Previous treatments haveincorrectly handled the thermal averages and the integra-tion of the Boltzmann equation in these situations. Thedip in relic abundance caused by a pole is broader andnot nearly as deep as previous treatments imply.
For all three cases we present simple formulas whichallow for a more correct treatment. We also present ex-amples for each case and describe the precise conditionsunder which the modified treatment is necessary. In Sec.II we review the standard method for performing theLee-Weinberg calculation and describe the approxima-tions within which we will work. In Sec. III we discussthe coannihilation case, in Sec. IV we discuss the forbid-den channel case, and in Sec. V we discuss annihilationnear a pole.
II. STANDARD CALCULATIONOF RELIC ABUNDANCE
Here we summarize the standard technique for calcu-lating the relic abundance of a particle species y in theLee-Weinberg scenario. First, a note about the philoso-
43 3191 1991 The American Physical Society
Forbidden annihilationResonant annihilation
Coannihilation
11/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Coannihilation
DM DM ↔ SM1 SM2
DM X ↔ SM1 SM2
X X ↔ SM1 SM2
DM SM1 ↔ X SM2
dndt
=− 〈σeffv〉(n(t)2 − neq(t)2)− 3Hn
σeff ∼σDMDM + 2σDMX(1 + ∆)3/2e−xf ∆ + σXX(1 + ∆)e−2xf ∆
∆ =mDM − mX
mDM, xf =
mDM
Tf
11/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Coannihilation
DM DM ↔ SM1 SM2
DM X ↔ SM1 SM2
X X ↔ SM1 SM2
DM SM1 ↔ X SM2
dndt
=− 〈σeffv〉(n(t)2 − neq(t)2)− 3Hn
σeff ∼σDMDM + 2σDMX(1 + ∆)3/2e−xf ∆ + σXX(1 + ∆)e−2xf ∆
∆ =mDM − mX
mDM, xf =
mDM
Tf
11/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Coannihilation
DM DM ↔ SM1 SM2
DM X ↔ SM1 SM2
X X ↔ SM1 SM2
DM SM1 ↔ X SM2
dndt
=− 〈σeffv〉(n(t)2 − neq(t)2)− 3Hn
σeff ∼σDMDM + 2σDMX(1 + ∆)3/2e−xf ∆ + σXX(1 + ∆)e−2xf ∆
∆ =mDM − mX
mDM, xf =
mDM
Tf
11/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Coannihilation
DM DM ↔ SM1 SM2
DM X ↔ SM1 SM2
X X ↔ SM1 SM2
DM SM1 ↔ X SM2
dndt
=− 〈σeffv〉(n(t)2 − neq(t)2)− 3Hn
σeff ∼σDMDM + 2σDMX(1 + ∆)3/2e−xf ∆ + σXX(1 + ∆)e−2xf ∆
∆ =mDM − mX
mDM, xf =
mDM
Tf
12/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Coannihilation in the literature
Bino-Higgsino: 1601.01569, 1510.06151, 1510.02760, 1509.08838Bino-gluino: 1509.03613, 1508.04811Bino-wino: 1509.03613, 1506.08206Bino-stau: 1509.08838, 1509.07152Bino-sleptons: 1506.08202Bino-stop: 1509.08838Neutralino-chargino: 1509.08485, 1507.02288, 1506.08202Neutralino-sbottom: 1507.01001Neutralino-gluino: 1510.03498Radiative Neutrino Mass Models: 1512.07961, 1509.04068, 1507.06782Scalar DM & vector-like quark mediator: 1511.04452Triplet-Quadruplet DM: 1601.01354Lepton-flavored DM: 1510.00100Kaluza-Klein DM: 1601.00081Inert Zee model: 1511.01873Flavoured DM: 1510.04694
13/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Theoretical Framework
More complete
Complete Dark Matter
Models
Dark Matter Effective Field Theories
Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model
Universal Extra
DimensionsLittleHiggs
ContactInteractions
“Sketches of models”
Z′ bosonSimplified
Dark MatterModels
HiggsPortal “Squarks”
DarkPhoton
DipoleInteractions
Less complete
FIG. 1. Artistic view of the DM theory space. See text for detailed explanations.
us to describe the DM-SM interactions mediated by all kinematically inaccessible
particles in an universal way. The DM-EFT approach [3–9] has proven to be very
useful in the analysis of LHC Run I data, because it allows to derive stringent bounds
on the “new-physics” scale Λ that suppresses the higher-dimensional operators. Since
for each operator a single parameter encodes the information on all the heavy states
of the dark sector, comparing LHC bounds to the limits following from direct and
indirect DM searches is straightforward in the context of DM-EFTs.
(II) The large energies accessible at the LHC call into question the momentum expansion
underlying the EFT approximation [6, 9–16], and we can expand our level of detail
toward simplified DM models (for early proposals see for example [17–22]). Such
models are characterized by the most important state mediating the DM particle
interactions with the SM, as well as the DM particle itself. Unlike the DM-EFTs,
simplified models are able to describe correctly the full kinematics of DM production
at the LHC, because they resolve the EFT contact interactions into single-particle s-
channel or t-channel exchanges. This comes with the price that they typically involve
not just one, but a handful of parameters that characterize the dark sector and its
6
Abdallah et al., 1506.03116
More complete
Complete Dark Matter
Models
Dark Matter Effective Field Theories
Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model
Universal Extra
DimensionsLittleHiggs
ContactInteractions
“Sketches of models”
Z′ bosonSimplified
Dark MatterModels
HiggsPortal “Squarks”
DarkPhoton
DipoleInteractions
Less complete
FIG. 1. Artistic view of the DM theory space. See text for detailed explanations.
us to describe the DM-SM interactions mediated by all kinematically inaccessible
particles in an universal way. The DM-EFT approach [3–9] has proven to be very
useful in the analysis of LHC Run I data, because it allows to derive stringent bounds
on the “new-physics” scale Λ that suppresses the higher-dimensional operators. Since
for each operator a single parameter encodes the information on all the heavy states
of the dark sector, comparing LHC bounds to the limits following from direct and
indirect DM searches is straightforward in the context of DM-EFTs.
(II) The large energies accessible at the LHC call into question the momentum expansion
underlying the EFT approximation [6, 9–16], and we can expand our level of detail
toward simplified DM models (for early proposals see for example [17–22]). Such
models are characterized by the most important state mediating the DM particle
interactions with the SM, as well as the DM particle itself. Unlike the DM-EFTs,
simplified models are able to describe correctly the full kinematics of DM production
at the LHC, because they resolve the EFT contact interactions into single-particle s-
channel or t-channel exchanges. This comes with the price that they typically involve
not just one, but a handful of parameters that characterize the dark sector and its
6
More complete
Complete Dark Matter
Models
Dark Matter Effective Field Theories
Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model
Universal Extra
DimensionsLittleHiggs
ContactInteractions
“Sketches of models”
Z′ bosonSimplified
Dark MatterModels
HiggsPortal “Squarks”
DarkPhoton
DipoleInteractions
Less complete
FIG. 1. Artistic view of the DM theory space. See text for detailed explanations.
us to describe the DM-SM interactions mediated by all kinematically inaccessible
particles in an universal way. The DM-EFT approach [3–9] has proven to be very
useful in the analysis of LHC Run I data, because it allows to derive stringent bounds
on the “new-physics” scale Λ that suppresses the higher-dimensional operators. Since
for each operator a single parameter encodes the information on all the heavy states
of the dark sector, comparing LHC bounds to the limits following from direct and
indirect DM searches is straightforward in the context of DM-EFTs.
(II) The large energies accessible at the LHC call into question the momentum expansion
underlying the EFT approximation [6, 9–16], and we can expand our level of detail
toward simplified DM models (for early proposals see for example [17–22]). Such
models are characterized by the most important state mediating the DM particle
interactions with the SM, as well as the DM particle itself. Unlike the DM-EFTs,
simplified models are able to describe correctly the full kinematics of DM production
at the LHC, because they resolve the EFT contact interactions into single-particle s-
channel or t-channel exchanges. This comes with the price that they typically involve
not just one, but a handful of parameters that characterize the dark sector and its
6
13/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Theoretical Framework
More complete
Complete Dark Matter
Models
Dark Matter Effective Field Theories
Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model
Universal Extra
DimensionsLittleHiggs
ContactInteractions
“Sketches of models”
Z′ bosonSimplified
Dark MatterModels
HiggsPortal “Squarks”
DarkPhoton
DipoleInteractions
Less complete
FIG. 1. Artistic view of the DM theory space. See text for detailed explanations.
us to describe the DM-SM interactions mediated by all kinematically inaccessible
particles in an universal way. The DM-EFT approach [3–9] has proven to be very
useful in the analysis of LHC Run I data, because it allows to derive stringent bounds
on the “new-physics” scale Λ that suppresses the higher-dimensional operators. Since
for each operator a single parameter encodes the information on all the heavy states
of the dark sector, comparing LHC bounds to the limits following from direct and
indirect DM searches is straightforward in the context of DM-EFTs.
(II) The large energies accessible at the LHC call into question the momentum expansion
underlying the EFT approximation [6, 9–16], and we can expand our level of detail
toward simplified DM models (for early proposals see for example [17–22]). Such
models are characterized by the most important state mediating the DM particle
interactions with the SM, as well as the DM particle itself. Unlike the DM-EFTs,
simplified models are able to describe correctly the full kinematics of DM production
at the LHC, because they resolve the EFT contact interactions into single-particle s-
channel or t-channel exchanges. This comes with the price that they typically involve
not just one, but a handful of parameters that characterize the dark sector and its
6
Abdallah et al., 1506.03116
More complete
Complete Dark Matter
Models
Dark Matter Effective Field Theories
Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model
Universal Extra
DimensionsLittleHiggs
ContactInteractions
“Sketches of models”
Z′ bosonSimplified
Dark MatterModels
HiggsPortal “Squarks”
DarkPhoton
DipoleInteractions
Less complete
FIG. 1. Artistic view of the DM theory space. See text for detailed explanations.
us to describe the DM-SM interactions mediated by all kinematically inaccessible
particles in an universal way. The DM-EFT approach [3–9] has proven to be very
useful in the analysis of LHC Run I data, because it allows to derive stringent bounds
on the “new-physics” scale Λ that suppresses the higher-dimensional operators. Since
for each operator a single parameter encodes the information on all the heavy states
of the dark sector, comparing LHC bounds to the limits following from direct and
indirect DM searches is straightforward in the context of DM-EFTs.
(II) The large energies accessible at the LHC call into question the momentum expansion
underlying the EFT approximation [6, 9–16], and we can expand our level of detail
toward simplified DM models (for early proposals see for example [17–22]). Such
models are characterized by the most important state mediating the DM particle
interactions with the SM, as well as the DM particle itself. Unlike the DM-EFTs,
simplified models are able to describe correctly the full kinematics of DM production
at the LHC, because they resolve the EFT contact interactions into single-particle s-
channel or t-channel exchanges. This comes with the price that they typically involve
not just one, but a handful of parameters that characterize the dark sector and its
6
More complete
Complete Dark Matter
Models
Dark Matter Effective Field Theories
Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model
Universal Extra
DimensionsLittleHiggs
ContactInteractions
“Sketches of models”
Z′ bosonSimplified
Dark MatterModels
HiggsPortal “Squarks”
DarkPhoton
DipoleInteractions
Less complete
FIG. 1. Artistic view of the DM theory space. See text for detailed explanations.
us to describe the DM-SM interactions mediated by all kinematically inaccessible
particles in an universal way. The DM-EFT approach [3–9] has proven to be very
useful in the analysis of LHC Run I data, because it allows to derive stringent bounds
on the “new-physics” scale Λ that suppresses the higher-dimensional operators. Since
for each operator a single parameter encodes the information on all the heavy states
of the dark sector, comparing LHC bounds to the limits following from direct and
indirect DM searches is straightforward in the context of DM-EFTs.
(II) The large energies accessible at the LHC call into question the momentum expansion
underlying the EFT approximation [6, 9–16], and we can expand our level of detail
toward simplified DM models (for early proposals see for example [17–22]). Such
models are characterized by the most important state mediating the DM particle
interactions with the SM, as well as the DM particle itself. Unlike the DM-EFTs,
simplified models are able to describe correctly the full kinematics of DM production
at the LHC, because they resolve the EFT contact interactions into single-particle s-
channel or t-channel exchanges. This comes with the price that they typically involve
not just one, but a handful of parameters that characterize the dark sector and its
6
13/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Theoretical Framework
More complete
Complete Dark Matter
Models
Dark Matter Effective Field Theories
Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model
Universal Extra
DimensionsLittleHiggs
ContactInteractions
“Sketches of models”
Z′ bosonSimplified
Dark MatterModels
HiggsPortal “Squarks”
DarkPhoton
DipoleInteractions
Less complete
FIG. 1. Artistic view of the DM theory space. See text for detailed explanations.
us to describe the DM-SM interactions mediated by all kinematically inaccessible
particles in an universal way. The DM-EFT approach [3–9] has proven to be very
useful in the analysis of LHC Run I data, because it allows to derive stringent bounds
on the “new-physics” scale Λ that suppresses the higher-dimensional operators. Since
for each operator a single parameter encodes the information on all the heavy states
of the dark sector, comparing LHC bounds to the limits following from direct and
indirect DM searches is straightforward in the context of DM-EFTs.
(II) The large energies accessible at the LHC call into question the momentum expansion
underlying the EFT approximation [6, 9–16], and we can expand our level of detail
toward simplified DM models (for early proposals see for example [17–22]). Such
models are characterized by the most important state mediating the DM particle
interactions with the SM, as well as the DM particle itself. Unlike the DM-EFTs,
simplified models are able to describe correctly the full kinematics of DM production
at the LHC, because they resolve the EFT contact interactions into single-particle s-
channel or t-channel exchanges. This comes with the price that they typically involve
not just one, but a handful of parameters that characterize the dark sector and its
6
Abdallah et al., 1506.03116
More complete
Complete Dark Matter
Models
Dark Matter Effective Field Theories
Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model
Universal Extra
DimensionsLittleHiggs
ContactInteractions
“Sketches of models”
Z′ bosonSimplified
Dark MatterModels
HiggsPortal “Squarks”
DarkPhoton
DipoleInteractions
Less complete
FIG. 1. Artistic view of the DM theory space. See text for detailed explanations.
us to describe the DM-SM interactions mediated by all kinematically inaccessible
particles in an universal way. The DM-EFT approach [3–9] has proven to be very
useful in the analysis of LHC Run I data, because it allows to derive stringent bounds
on the “new-physics” scale Λ that suppresses the higher-dimensional operators. Since
for each operator a single parameter encodes the information on all the heavy states
of the dark sector, comparing LHC bounds to the limits following from direct and
indirect DM searches is straightforward in the context of DM-EFTs.
(II) The large energies accessible at the LHC call into question the momentum expansion
underlying the EFT approximation [6, 9–16], and we can expand our level of detail
toward simplified DM models (for early proposals see for example [17–22]). Such
models are characterized by the most important state mediating the DM particle
interactions with the SM, as well as the DM particle itself. Unlike the DM-EFTs,
simplified models are able to describe correctly the full kinematics of DM production
at the LHC, because they resolve the EFT contact interactions into single-particle s-
channel or t-channel exchanges. This comes with the price that they typically involve
not just one, but a handful of parameters that characterize the dark sector and its
6
More complete
Complete Dark Matter
Models
Dark Matter Effective Field Theories
Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model
Universal Extra
DimensionsLittleHiggs
ContactInteractions
“Sketches of models”
Z′ bosonSimplified
Dark MatterModels
HiggsPortal “Squarks”
DarkPhoton
DipoleInteractions
Less complete
FIG. 1. Artistic view of the DM theory space. See text for detailed explanations.
us to describe the DM-SM interactions mediated by all kinematically inaccessible
particles in an universal way. The DM-EFT approach [3–9] has proven to be very
useful in the analysis of LHC Run I data, because it allows to derive stringent bounds
on the “new-physics” scale Λ that suppresses the higher-dimensional operators. Since
for each operator a single parameter encodes the information on all the heavy states
of the dark sector, comparing LHC bounds to the limits following from direct and
indirect DM searches is straightforward in the context of DM-EFTs.
(II) The large energies accessible at the LHC call into question the momentum expansion
underlying the EFT approximation [6, 9–16], and we can expand our level of detail
toward simplified DM models (for early proposals see for example [17–22]). Such
models are characterized by the most important state mediating the DM particle
interactions with the SM, as well as the DM particle itself. Unlike the DM-EFTs,
simplified models are able to describe correctly the full kinematics of DM production
at the LHC, because they resolve the EFT contact interactions into single-particle s-
channel or t-channel exchanges. This comes with the price that they typically involve
not just one, but a handful of parameters that characterize the dark sector and its
6
14/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Simplified Models of DM at the LHC
Simplified Models for Dark Matter Searches at the LHCAbdallah et al. 1506.03116
. . . outlines a set of simplified models of DM for searches at theLHC
Dark Matter Benchmark Models for Early LHC Run-2 Searches:Report of the ATLAS/CMS Dark Matter Forum
Abercrombie et al. 1507.00966
. . . a minimal basis of dark matter models that should influencethe design of the early Run-2 searches. At the same time, athorough survey of realistic collider signals of Dark Matter
15/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Our Goal
A complete classification of simplified coannihilation models
The Coannihilation Codex
A bottom-up framework for discovering dark matter at theLHCLHC phenomenology testing DM freeze-outIdentify lesser studied models & searchesIn the event of a signal, gives a framework for the inverseproblem
15/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Our Goal
A complete classification of simplified coannihilation models
The Coannihilation Codex
A bottom-up framework for discovering dark matter at theLHCLHC phenomenology testing DM freeze-outIdentify lesser studied models & searchesIn the event of a signal, gives a framework for the inverseproblem
15/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Our Goal
A complete classification of simplified coannihilation models
The Coannihilation Codex
A bottom-up framework for discovering dark matter at theLHCLHC phenomenology testing DM freeze-outIdentify lesser studied models & searchesIn the event of a signal, gives a framework for the inverseproblem
16/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Outline
1 Motivation
2 Coannihilation Codex
3 Using the Codex
17/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Assumptions
To complete a classification we need to make someassumptions
DM is a thermal relicDM is a colourless, electrically neutral particle in (1,N, β)
Coannihilation diagram is 2-to-2 via dimension four,tree-level couplingsNew particles have spin 0, 1/2 or 1
17/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Assumptions
To complete a classification we need to make someassumptions
DM is a thermal relicDM is a colourless, electrically neutral particle in (1,N, β)
Coannihilation diagram is 2-to-2 via dimension four,tree-level couplingsNew particles have spin 0, 1/2 or 1
17/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Assumptions
To complete a classification we need to make someassumptions
DM is a thermal relicDM is a colourless, electrically neutral particle in (1,N, β)
Coannihilation diagram is 2-to-2 via dimension four,tree-level couplingsNew particles have spin 0, 1/2 or 1
17/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Assumptions
To complete a classification we need to make someassumptions
DM is a thermal relicDM is a colourless, electrically neutral particle in (1,N, β)
Coannihilation diagram is 2-to-2 via dimension four,tree-level couplingsNew particles have spin 0, 1/2 or 1
17/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Assumptions
To complete a classification we need to make someassumptions
DM is a thermal relicDM is a colourless, electrically neutral particle in (1,N, β)
Coannihilation diagram is 2-to-2 via dimension four,tree-level couplingsNew particles have spin 0, 1/2 or 1
18/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Coannihilation Diagrams
X
DM
SM2
SM1
⇓X
DM
SM2
SM1
Ms
X
DM
SM2
SM1
Mt
X
DM
SM2
SM1
19/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Classification Procedure
Work in unbroken SU(2)L × U(1)Y
Given SM field content, iterate over SM1 and SM2 to find allpossible X using
Gauge invarianceLorentz invarianceZ2 parity (to prevent DM decay)
Then find all s-channel and t-channel mediators, usingsame restrictions and
Dimension four, tree-level couplingsGauge bosons only couple through kinetic terms
19/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Classification Procedure
Work in unbroken SU(2)L × U(1)Y
Given SM field content, iterate over SM1 and SM2 to find allpossible X using
Gauge invarianceLorentz invarianceZ2 parity (to prevent DM decay)
Then find all s-channel and t-channel mediators, usingsame restrictions and
Dimension four, tree-level couplingsGauge bosons only couple through kinetic terms
19/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Classification Procedure
Work in unbroken SU(2)L × U(1)Y
Given SM field content, iterate over SM1 and SM2 to find allpossible X using
Gauge invarianceLorentz invarianceZ2 parity (to prevent DM decay)
Then find all s-channel and t-channel mediators, usingsame restrictions and
Dimension four, tree-level couplingsGauge bosons only couple through kinetic terms
20/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
s-channel classification - sample
DM in (1,N, β)ID X α + β Ms Spin (SM1 SM2) SM3 M-X-X
ST11
(3, N ± 1, α)
73
(3, 2, 73)
B (QL`R), (uRLL)
ST12 F (uRH)
ST13 13
(3, 2, 13)
B (dRLL), (QLdR), (uRLL)
ST14 F (uRH†), (dRH) QL
ST15− 5
3(3, 2,− 5
3)
B (QLuR), (QL`R), (dRLL)
ST16 F (dRH†)
ST17
(3, N ± 2, α)
43
(3, 3, 43)
B (QLLR) Xα = − 23
ST18 F (QLH)
ST19− 2
3(3, 3,− 2
3)
B (QLQL), (QLLL) Xα = 13
ST20 F (QLH†)
B:
X
DM
SM2
SM1
Ms
X
DM
SM2
SM1
Ms
F:
X
DM
SM2
SM1
Ms
X
DM
SM2
SM1
Ms
X
DM
SM2
SM1
Ms
X
DM
SM2
SM1
Ms
X
DM
SM2
SM1
Ms
X
DM
SM2
SM1
Ms
21/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
t-channel classification - sample
DM in (1,N, β)
ID X α + β Mt Spin (SM1 SM2) SM3
TU26
(1, N ± 2, α)
0
(1, N ± 1, β − 1) I (HH†)
TU27 (1, N ± 1, β + 1) II (LLH)
TU28 (1, N ± 1, β − 1) III (HLL)
TU29 (3, N ± 1, β − 13
) IV (QLQL)
TU30 (1, N ± 1, β + 1) IV (LLLL)
TU31
−2
(1, N ± 1, β + 1) I (H†H†)
TU32 (1, N ± 1, β + 1) II (LLH†)
TU33 (1, N ± 1, β + 1) III (H†LL)
I
X
DM
SM2
SM1
Mt
X
DM
SM2
SM1
Mt II
X
DM
SM2
SM1
Mt
X
DM
SM2
SM1
Mt
III
X
DM
SM2
SM1
Mt
X
DM
SM2
SM1
Mt IV
X
DM
SM2
SM1
Mt
X
DM
SM2
SM1
Mt
X
DM
SM2
SM1
Mt
22/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Classification: hybrid models
ID X α + β SM partner Extensions
H1(1, N, α)
0 B,WN≥2i SU1, SU3, TU1, TU4–TU8
H2 −2 `R SU6, SU8, TU10, TU11
H3(1, N ± 1, α) −1
H† SU10, TU18–TU23
H4 LL SU11, TU16, TU17
H5(3, N, α)
43
uR ST3, ST5, TT3, TT4
H6 − 23
dR ST7, ST9, TT10, TT11
H7 (3, N ± 1, α) 13
QL ST14, TT28–TT31
7 models
23/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Classification: s-channel
ID X α + β Ms Spin (SM1 SM2) SM3 M-X-X
SU1
(1, N, α)
0
(1, 1, 0)B
(uRuR), (dRdR), (QLQL)B,W
N≥2i
X(`R`R), (LLLL), (HH†)
SU2 F (LLH)
SU3(1, 3, 0)N≥2
B (QLQL), (LLLL), (HH†) B, Wi X
SU4 F (LLH)
SU5
−2
(1, 1,−2)B (dRuR), (H†H†) X
SU6 F (LLH†) `R
SU7(1, 3,−2)N≥2
B (H†H†), (LLLL) X(α = ±1)
SU8 F (LLH†) `R
SU9 −4 (1, 1,−4) B (`R`R) X(α = ±2)
SU10
(1, N ± 1, α)
−1 (1, 2,−1)B (dRQL), (uRQL), (LL`R) H†
SU11 F (`RH) LL
SU12−3 (1, 2,−3)
B (LL`R)
SU13 F (`RH†)
SU14
(1, N ± 2, α)
0 (1, 3, 0)B (LLLL), (QLQL), (HH†) X(α = 0)
SU15 F (LLH)
SU16−2 (1, 3,−2)
B (H†H†), (LLLL) X(α = ±1)
SU17 F (LLH†)
SU type - 17 models
ID X α + β Ms Spin (SM1 SM2) SM3 M-X-X
ST1
(3, N, α)
103
(3, 1, 103
) B (uRlR) Xα = − 53
ST2
43
(3, 1, 43)
B (dR`R), (QLLL), (dRdR) Xα = − 23
ST3 F (QLH) uR
ST4(3, 3, 4
3)N≥2 B (QLLL) Xα = − 2
3
ST5 F (QLH) uR
ST6
− 23
(3, 1,− 23)
B (QLQL), (uRdR), (uR, `R), (QLLL) Xα = 13
ST7 F (QLH†) dR
ST8(3, 3,− 2
3)N≥2 B (QLQL), (QLLL) Xα = 1
3
ST9 F (QLH†) dR
ST10 − 83
(3, 1,− 83) B (uRuR), (dR`R) Xα = 4
3
ST11
(3, N ± 1, α)
73
(3, 2, 73)
B (QL`R), (uRLL)
ST12 F (uRH)
ST13 13
(3, 2, 13)
B (dRLL), (QLdR), (uRLL)
ST14 F (uRH†), (dRH) QL
ST15− 5
3(3, 2,− 5
3)
B (QLuR), (QL`R), (dRLL)
ST16 F (dRH†)
ST17
(3, N ± 2, α)
43
(3, 3, 43)
B (QLLR) Xα = − 23
ST18 F (QLH)
ST19− 2
3(3, 3,− 2
3)
B (QLQL), (QLLL) Xα = 13
ST20 F (QLH†)
ST type - 20 models
U: X uncoloured
T: X SU(3) triplet
O: X SU(3) octet
E: X SU(3) exotic
ID X α + β Ms Spin (SM1 SM2) SM3 M-X-X
SO1
(8, N, α)0
(8, 1, 0)6=g[s2] B (dRdR), (uRuR), (QLQL) Xα = 0
SO2 (8, 3, 0)N≥2 B (QLQL) Xα = 0
SO3 −2 (8, 1,−2) B (dRuR) Xα = ±1
SO4 (8, N ± 1, α) −1 (8, 2,−1) B (dRQL), (QLuR)
SO5 (8, N ± 2, α) 0 (8, 3, 0) B (QLQL) Xα = 0
SE1
(6, N, α)
83
(6, 1, 83) B (uRuR) Xα = − 4
3
SE2 23
(6, 1, 23) B (QLQL), (uRdR) X(α = − 1
3)
SE3 (6, 3, 23)N≥2 B (QLQL) Xα = − 1
3
SE4 − 43
(6, 1,− 43) B (dRdR) Xα = 2
3
SE5(6, N ± 1, α)
53
(6, 2, 53) B (QLuR)
SE6 − 13
(6, 2,− 13) B (QLdR)
SE7 (6, N ± 2, α) 23
(6, 3, 23) B (QLQL) Xα = − 1
3
SO and SE type - 5 and 7 models
24/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Classification: t-channel
ID X α + β Mt Spin (SM1 SM2) SM3
TU1
(1, N, α)
0
(1, N ± 1, β − 1) I (HH†) B, WN≥2i
TU2 (1, N ± 1, β + 1) II (LLH)
TU3 (1, N ± 1, β − 1) III (HLL)
TU4 (3, N ± 1, β − 13
) IV (QLQL) B, WN≥2i
TU5 (3, N, β − 43
) IV (uRuR) B, WN≥2i
TU6 (3, N, β + 23
) IV (dRdR) B, WN≥2i
TU7 (1, N ± 1, β + 1) IV (LLLL) B, WN≥2i
TU8 (1, N, β + 2) IV (`R`R) B, WN≥2i
TU9
−2
(1, N ± 1, β + 1) I (H†H†)
TU10 (1, N ± 1, β + 1) II (LLH†) `R
TU11 (1, N ± 1, β + 1) III (H†LL) `R
TU12 (1, N ± 1, β + 1) IV (LLLL)
TU13 (3, N, β + 43
) IV (uRdR)
TU14 (3, N, β + 23
) IV (dRuR)
TU15 −4 (1, N, β + 2) IV (`R`R)
TU16
(1, N ± 1, α)
−1
(1, N, β + 2) II (`RH) LL
TU17 (1, N ± 1, β − 1) III (H`R) LL
TU18 (1, N, β + 2) IV (`RLL) H†
TU19 (1, N ± 1, β − 1) IV (LL`R) H†
TU20 (3, N, β + 23
) IV (dRQL) H†
TU21 (3, N ± 1, β + 13
) IV (QLdR) H†
TU22 (3, N ± 1, β − 13
) IV (QLuR) H†
TU23 (3, N, β + 43
) IV (uRQL) H†
TU24−3
(1, N ± 1, β + 1) IV (LL`R)
TU25 (1, N, β + 2) IV (`RLL)
TU26
(1, N ± 2, α)
0
(1, N ± 1, β − 1) I (HH†)
TU27 (1, N ± 1, β + 1) II (LLH)
TU28 (1, N ± 1, β − 1) III (HLL)
TU29 (3, N ± 1, β − 13
) IV (QLQL)
TU30 (1, N ± 1, β + 1) IV (LLLL)
TU31
−2
(1, N ± 1, β + 1) I (H†H†)
TU32 (1, N ± 1, β + 1) II (LLH†)
TU33 (1, N ± 1, β + 1) III (H†LL)
TU type - 33 models
IDX
α+β
Mt
Spin
(SM
1SM
2)
SM
3
TT
1
(3,N,α
)
10 3
(3,N,β
−4 3
)IV
(uR`R
)
TT
2(1,N,β
−2)
IV(`
RuR
)
TT
3
4 3
(3,N
±1,β
−1 3
)II
(QLH
)uR
TT
4(1,N
±1,β
−1)
III
(HQ
L)
uR
TT
5(1,N,β
−2)
IV(`
RdR
)
TT
6(3,N
±1,β
−1 3
)IV
(QLL
L)
TT
7(1,N
±1,β
−1)
IV(L
LQ
L)
TT
8(3,N,β
+2 3
)IV
(dR`R
)
TT
9(3,N,β
−2 3
)IV
(dRdR
)
TT
10
−2 3
(3,N
±1,β
−1 3
)II
(QLH
†)
dR
TT
11
(1,N
±1,β
+1)
III
(H†Q
L)
dR
TT
12
(3,N,β
+4 3
)IV
(uRdR
)
TT
13
(3,N
±1,β
+1 3
)IV
(QLQ
L)
TT
14
(3,N,β
−4 3
)IV
(uR`R
)
TT
15
(1,N,β
+2)
IV(`
RuR
)
TT
16
(3,N
±1,β
−1 3
)IV
(QLL
L)
TT
17
(1,N
±1,β
+1)
IV(L
LQ
L)
TT
18
(3,N,β
−2 3
)IV
(dRuR
)
TT
19
−8 3
(3,N,β
+4 3
)IV
(uRuR
)
TT
20
(3,N,β
+2 3
)IV
(dR`R
)
TT
21
(1,N,β
+2)
IV(`
RdR
)
TT
22
(3,N
±1,α
)
7 3
(3,N,β
−4 3
)II
(uRH
)
TT
23
(1,N
±1,β
−1)
III
(HuR
)
TT
24
(3,N,β
−4 3
)IV
(uRL
L)
TT
25
(1,N
±1,β
−1)
IV(L
LuR
)
TT
26
(3,N
±1,β
−1 3
)IV
(QL`R
)
TT
27
(1,N,β
−2)
IV(`
RQ
L)
TT
28
1 3
(3,N,β
−4 3
)II
(uRH
†)
QL
TT
29
(3,N,β
+2 3
)II
(dRH
)Q
L
TT
30
(1,N
±1,β
+1)
III
(H†uR
)Q
L
TT
31
(1,N
±1,β
−1)
III
(HdR
)Q
L
TT
32
(3,N,β
−4 3
)IV
(uRL
L)
TT
33
(1,N
±1,β
+1)
IV(L
LuR
)
TT
34
3,N,β
−2 3
)IV
(dRQ
L)
TT
35
(3,N
±1,β
+1 3
)IV
(QLdR
)
TT
36
−5 3
(3,N,β
+2 3
)II
(dRH
†)
TT
37
(1,N
±1,β
+1)
III
(H†dR
)
TT
38
(3,N,β
+2 3
)IV
(dRL
L)
TT
39
(1,N
±1,β
+1)
IV(L
LdR
)
TT
40
(3,N
±1,β
−1 3
)IV
(QL`R
)
TT
41
(1,N,β
+2)
IV(`
RQ
L)
TT
42
(3,N,β
+4 3
)IV
(uRQ
L)
TT
43
(3,N
±1,β
+1 3
)IV
(QLuR
)
TT
44
(3,N
±2,α
)
4 3
(3,N
±1,β
−1 3
)II
(QLH
)
TT
45
(1,N
±1,β
−1)
III
(HQ
L)
TT
46
(3,N
±1,β
−1 3
)IV
(QLL
L)
TT
47
−2 3
(1,N
±1,β
−1)
IV(L
LQ
L)
TT
48
(3,N
±1,β
−1 3
)II
(QLH
†)
TT
49
(1,N
±1,β
+1)
III
(H†Q
L)
TT
50
(3,N
±1,β
−1 3
)IV
(QLL
L)
TT
51
(1,N
±1,β
+1)
IV(L
LQ
L)
TT
52
(3,N
±1,β
+1 3
)IV
(QLQ
L)
TT type - 52 models
ID X α + β Mt Spin (SM1 SM2) SM3
TO1
(8, N, α)
0
(3, N ± 1, β − 13
) IV (QLQL)
TO2 (3, N, β − 43
) IV (uRuR)
TO3 (3, N, β + 23
) IV (dRdR)
TO4−2
(3, N, β + 23
) IV (dRuR)
TO5 (3, N, β + 43
) IV (uRdR)
TO6
(8, N ± 1, α) −1
(3, N, β + 23
) IV (dRQL)
TO7 (3, N ± 1, β + 13
) IV (QLdR)
TO8 (3, N ± 1, β − 13
) IV (QLuR)
TO9 (3, N, β + 43
) IV (uRQL)
TO10 (8, N ± 2, α) 0 (3, N ± 1, β − 13
) IV (QLQL)
TE1
(6, N, α)
83
(3, N, β − 43
) IV (uRuR)
TE2
23
(3, N ± 1, β − 13
) IV (QLQL)
TE3 (3, N, β − 43
) IV (uRdR)
TE4 (3, N, β + 23
) IV (dRuR)
TE5 − 43
(3, N, β + 23
) IV (dRdR)
TE6
(6, N ± 1, α)
53
(3, N, β − 43
) IV (uRQL)
TE7 (3, N ± 1, β − 13
) IV (QLuR)
TE8- 13
(3, N, β + 23
) IV (dRQL)
TE9 (3, N ± 1, β − 13
) IV (QLdR)
TE10 (6, N ± 2, α) 23
(3, N ± 1, β − 13
) IV (QLQL)
TO and TE type - 10 and 10 models
25/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Complete Classification
We have written down all possible simplified models of 2-to-2coannihilating dark matter!
LHC Phenomenology
25/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Complete Classification
We have written down all possible simplified models of 2-to-2coannihilating dark matter!
LHC Phenomenology
26/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
LHC Production: Common
q
q
X, M
X, M
q
qγ/Z
X, M, DM
X, M, DM
q
q
FJ
FJ
X, M, DM
X, M, DM
if (SM1SM2) ∈ p
SM2
SM1
X
DM
27/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Decays: Common
X
DM
SM1
SM2
/ET+
soft
28/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Signature Table: Common
pp→ . . . Prod. via Signatures Search
com
mon
DM + DM + ISR
gauge int.
mono-Y + /ET [55,56,62,63,104]or SM1 ∈ p
for t-channelX (→ SMsoft1 SMsoft
2 DM)X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM)
ISR
gauge int. mono-Y + /ET [55,56,62,63,104]
or SM2 ∈ p mono-Y + /ET+ ≤ 4 SM Partial coverage [105]
for t-channel
DM + X (→ SMsoft1 SMsoft
2 DM) + ISR (SM1 SM2) ∈ pmono-Y + /ET [55,56,62,63,104]
mono-Y + /ET+ ≤ 2 SM Partial coverage [105]
29/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
LHC Production: s-channel
Gauge boson production +
if (SM1SM2) ∈ p
SM2
SM1
X
DM
⇒q
q′
M
if SM1/SM2 ∈ p
q
gq∗
SM
M
29/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
LHC Production: s-channel
Gauge boson production +
if (SM1SM2) ∈ p
SM2
SM1
X
DM
⇒q
q′
M
if SM1/SM2 ∈ p
q
gq∗
SM
M
30/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Decays: s-channel
X
DM
Ms
SM1
SM2
/ET+
soft
Ms
SM1
SM2
Resonance
Ms
DM
XDM
M∗s
SM1
SM2
/ET
+soft
30/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Decays: s-channel
X
DM
Ms
SM1
SM2
/ET+
soft
Ms
SM1
SM2
Resonance
Ms
DM
XDM
M∗s
SM1
SM2
/ET
+soft
30/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Decays: s-channel
X
DM
Ms
SM1
SM2
/ET+
soft
Ms
SM1
SM2
Resonance
Ms
DM
XDM
M∗s
SM1
SM2
/ET
+soft
31/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Signature Table: s-channel
pp→ . . . Prod. via Signatures Search
s-ch
anne
l
Ms (→ [SM1 SM2]res)Ms (→ [SM1 SM2]res)
gauge int.
2 resonances [106-112]
Ms (→ [SM1 SM2]res)Ms (→ DM + X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM))
resonance + /ET No search
resonance + /ET+ ≤ 2 SM No searchMs (→ DM + X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM))
Ms (→ DM + X (→ SMsoft1 SMsoft
2 DM))/ET+ ≤ 4 SM [113-124]
Ms (→ [SM1 SM2]res)
(SM1 SM2) ∈ p
1 resonance [125-146]
Ms (→ DM + X (→ SMsoft1 SMsoft
2 DM)) /ET+ ≤ 2 SM[120-122,124]
[104,147-153]
SM1,2 + Ms (→ [SM1 SM2]res)
SM2,1 ∈ p
1 resonance + 1 SM Partial coverage [154,155]SM1,2Ms (→ DM + X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM))
/ET + 1 ≤ 3 SM[114,120-124]
[147-153,156-158]
32/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
LHC Production: t-channel
Gauge boson production +Coannihilation diagram +
if SM1 ∈ p
q
gq∗
DM
M
if SM2 ∈ p
q
gq∗
X
M
32/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
LHC Production: t-channel
Gauge boson production +Coannihilation diagram +
if SM1 ∈ p
q
gq∗
DM
M
if SM2 ∈ p
q
gq∗
X
M
33/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Decays: t-channel
X
SM2
Mt
SM1
DM /ET
+
soft
Mt
SM1
DM
hard+
/ET
Mt
SM2
XSM2
M∗t
SM1
DM
hard+
soft
+
/ET
33/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Decays: t-channel
X
SM2
Mt
SM1
DM /ET
+
soft
Mt
SM1
DM
hard+
/ET
Mt
SM2
XSM2
M∗t
SM1
DM
hard+
soft
+
/ET
33/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Decays: t-channel
X
SM2
Mt
SM1
DM /ET
+
soft
Mt
SM1
DM
hard+
/ET
Mt
SM2
XSM2
M∗t
SM1
DM
hard+
soft
+
/ET
34/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Signature Table: t-channel
pp→ . . . Prod. via Signatures Search
t-ch
anne
l
Mt (→ SM1 DM)Mt (→ SM1 DM)
gauge int.
/ET+ ≤ 2 SM[120-122,124]
[104,147-153]Mt (→ SM1 DM)Mt (→ SM2 + X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM))
/ET+ ≤ 4 SM[106-112]
[114,119-124]Mt (→ SM2 + X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM))
Mt (→ SM2 + X (→ SMsoft1 SMsoft
2 DM))/ET+ ≤ 6 SM
[113,114,120-124]
[116-118,159-163]
DM + Mt (→ SM1 DM)
SM1 ∈ p
/ET+ ≤ 1 SM[55,56,62,63]
[104,149]DMMt (→ SM2 + X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM))
/ET+ ≤ 3 SM[114,120-124]
[152,153,156-158]Mt (→ SM1 DM)X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM)
SM2 ∈ p
/ET+ ≤ 3 SM[114,120-124]
[152,153,156-158]Mt (→ SM2 + X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM))
X (→ SMsoft1 SMsoft
2 DM)/ET+ ≤ 5 SM
[113,114,116-124]
[159-161,164]
35/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
LHC Production: hybrid models
Gauge boson production +
if SM ∈ p
q
gq∗
X
DM
35/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
LHC Production: hybrid models
Gauge boson production +
if SM ∈ p
q
gq∗
X
DM
36/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Decays: hybrid models
X
SM
DM
soft+
/ET
37/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Signature Table: hybrid models
pp→ . . . Prod. via Signatures Search
hybr
id
X (→ DM + SMsoft
3 )X (→ DM + SMsoft
3 )gauge int.
/ET+ ≤ 2 SM[120-122,124]
or SM3 ∈ p [104,147-153]
DM + X (→ DM + SMsoft3 ) SM3 ∈ p /ET+ ≤ 1 SM
[128,129,149]
[55,56,62,63,104]
38/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Signature Table
pp→ . . . Prod. via Signatures Search
com
mon
DM + DM + ISR
gauge int.
mono-Y + /ET [55,56,62,63,104]or SM1 ∈ p
for t-channelX (→ SMsoft1 SMsoft
2 DM)X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM)
ISR
gauge int. mono-Y + /ET [55,56,62,63,104]
or SM2 ∈ p mono-Y + /ET+ ≤ 4 SM Partial coverage [105]
for t-channel
DM + X (→ SMsoft1 SMsoft
2 DM) + ISR (SM1 SM2) ∈ pmono-Y + /ET [55,56,62,63,104]
mono-Y + /ET+ ≤ 2 SM Partial coverage [105]s-
chan
nel
Ms (→ [SM1 SM2]res)Ms (→ [SM1 SM2]res)
gauge int.
2 resonances [106-112]
Ms (→ [SM1 SM2]res)Ms (→ DM + X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM))
resonance + /ET No search
resonance + /ET+ ≤ 2 SM No searchMs (→ DM + X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM))
Ms (→ DM + X (→ SMsoft1 SMsoft
2 DM))/ET+ ≤ 4 SM [113-124]
Ms (→ [SM1 SM2]res)
(SM1 SM2) ∈ p
1 resonance [125-146]
Ms (→ DM + X (→ SMsoft1 SMsoft
2 DM)) /ET+ ≤ 2 SM[120-122,124]
[104,147-153]
SM1,2 + Ms (→ [SM1 SM2]res)
SM2,1 ∈ p
1 resonance + 1 SM Partial coverage [154,155]SM1,2Ms (→ DM + X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM))
/ET + 1 ≤ 3 SM[114,120-124]
[147-153,156-158]
t-ch
anne
l
Mt (→ SM1 DM)Mt (→ SM1 DM)
gauge int.
/ET+ ≤ 2 SM[120-122,124]
[104,147-153]Mt (→ SM1 DM)Mt (→ SM2 + X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM))
/ET+ ≤ 4 SM[106-112]
[114,119-124]Mt (→ SM2 + X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM))
Mt (→ SM2 + X (→ SMsoft1 SMsoft
2 DM))/ET+ ≤ 6 SM
[113,114,120-124]
[116-118,159-163]
DM + Mt (→ SM1 DM)
SM1 ∈ p
/ET+ ≤ 1 SM[55,56,62,63]
[104,149]DMMt (→ SM2 + X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM))
/ET+ ≤ 3 SM114,120-124]
[152,153,156-158]Mt (→ SM1 DM)X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM)
SM2 ∈ p
/ET+ ≤ 3 SM[114,120-124]
[152,153,156-158]Mt (→ SM2 + X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM))
X (→ SMsoft1 SMsoft
2 DM)/ET+ ≤ 5 SM
[113,114,116-124]
[159-161,164]
hybr
id
X (→ DM + SMsoft
3 )X (→ DM + SMsoft
3 )gauge int.
/ET+ ≤ 2 SM[120-122,124]
or SM3 ∈ p [104,147-153]
DM + X (→ DM + SMsoft3 ) SM3 ∈ p /ET+ ≤ 1 SM
[128,129,149]
[55,56,62,63,104]
39/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Outline
1 Motivation
2 Coannihilation Codex
3 Using the Codex
40/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Bino-gluino Coannihilation
Label Field Rep. Spin assignment
DM Bino (1,1,0) Fermion
X Gluino (8,1,0) Fermion
M Squark (3,1,4/3) Scalar
DM ∼ (1,N, β)X ∼ (8,N, α)α+ β = 0
M ∼ (3,N, β + 4/3)
t-channel: IV
X
DM
SM2
SM1
Mt
41/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Bino-gluino Coannihilation
X ∼ (8,N, α) α+ β = 0
M ∼ (3,N, β + 4/3) Spin: IV
ID X α + β Mt Spin (SM1 SM2) SM3
TO1
(8, N, α)
0
(3, N ± 1, β − 13
) IV (QLQL)
TO2 (3, N, β − 43
) IV (uRuR)
TO3 (3, N, β + 23
) IV (dRdR)
TO4−2
(3, N, β + 23
) IV (dRuR)
TO5 (3, N, β + 43
) IV (uRdR)
TO6
(8, N ± 1, α) −1
(3, N, β + 23
) IV (dRQL)
TO7 (3, N ± 1, β + 13
) IV (QLdR)
TO8 (3, N ± 1, β − 13
) IV (QLuR)
TO9 (3, N, β + 43
) IV (uRQL)
TO10 (8, N ± 2, α) 0 (3, N ± 1, β − 13
) IV (QLQL)
42/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Bino-gluino Coannihilation
DM ∼ (1, 1, 0)F X ∼ (8, 1, 0)F
M ∼ (3, 1, 4/3)B (SM1SM2) = (uRuR)
g
B
uR
uR
uRg2
g1
pp→ . . . Prod. via Signatures Search Strength
com
mon
DM + DM + ISR
gauge int.
mono-Y + /ET [55,56,62,63,104] g41αior SM1 ∈ p
for t-channelX (→ SMsoft1 SMsoft
2 DM)X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM)
ISR
gauge int. mono-Y + /ET [55,56,62,63,104]
α2sαi, g4
2αior SM2 ∈ p mono-Y + /ET+ ≤ 4 SM Partial coverage [105]
for t-channel
DM + X (→ SMsoft1 SMsoft
2 DM) + ISR (SM1 SM2) ∈ pmono-Y + /ET [55,56,62,63,104]
g21g2
2αimono-Y + /ET+ ≤ 2 SM Partial coverage [105]
pp→ . . . Prod. via Signatures Search Strength
t-ch
anne
l
Mt (→ SM1 DM)Mt (→ SM1 DM)
gauge int.
/ET+ ≤ 2 SM[120-122,124]
α2s
[104,147-153]Mt (→ SM1 DM)Mt (→ SM2 + X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM))
/ET+ ≤ 4 SM[106-112]
α2s
[114,119-124]Mt (→ SM2 + X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM))
Mt (→ SM2 + X (→ SMsoft1 SMsoft
2 DM))/ET+ ≤ 6 SM
[113,114,120-124]α2
s[116-118,159-163]
DM + Mt (→ SM1 DM)
SM1 ∈ p
/ET+ ≤ 1 SM[55,56,62,63]
αsg21
[104,149]DMMt (→ SM2 + X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM))
/ET+ ≤ 3 SM[114,120-124]
αsg21
[152,153,156-158]Mt (→ SM1 DM)X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM)
SM2 ∈ p
/ET+ ≤ 3 SM[114,120-124]
αsg22
[152,153,156-158]Mt (→ SM2 + X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM))
X (→ SMsoft1 SMsoft
2 DM)/ET+ ≤ 5 SM
[113,114,116-124]αsg2
2[159-161,164]
42/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Bino-gluino Coannihilation
DM ∼ (1, 1, 0)F X ∼ (8, 1, 0)F
M ∼ (3, 1, 4/3)B (SM1SM2) = (uRuR)
g
B
uR
uR
uRg2
g1
pp→ . . . Prod. via Signatures Search Strength
com
mon
DM + DM + ISR
gauge int.
mono-Y + /ET [55,56,62,63,104] g41αior SM1 ∈ p
for t-channelX (→ SMsoft1 SMsoft
2 DM)X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM)
ISR
gauge int. mono-Y + /ET [55,56,62,63,104]
α2sαi, g4
2αior SM2 ∈ p mono-Y + /ET+ ≤ 4 SM Partial coverage [105]
for t-channel
DM + X (→ SMsoft1 SMsoft
2 DM) + ISR (SM1 SM2) ∈ pmono-Y + /ET [55,56,62,63,104]
g21g2
2αimono-Y + /ET+ ≤ 2 SM Partial coverage [105]
pp→ . . . Prod. via Signatures Search Strength
t-ch
anne
l
Mt (→ SM1 DM)Mt (→ SM1 DM)
gauge int.
/ET+ ≤ 2 SM[120-122,124]
α2s
[104,147-153]Mt (→ SM1 DM)Mt (→ SM2 + X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM))
/ET+ ≤ 4 SM[106-112]
α2s
[114,119-124]Mt (→ SM2 + X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM))
Mt (→ SM2 + X (→ SMsoft1 SMsoft
2 DM))/ET+ ≤ 6 SM
[113,114,120-124]α2
s[116-118,159-163]
DM + Mt (→ SM1 DM)
SM1 ∈ p
/ET+ ≤ 1 SM[55,56,62,63]
αsg21
[104,149]DMMt (→ SM2 + X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM))
/ET+ ≤ 3 SM[114,120-124]
αsg21
[152,153,156-158]Mt (→ SM1 DM)X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM)
SM2 ∈ p
/ET+ ≤ 3 SM[114,120-124]
αsg22
[152,153,156-158]Mt (→ SM2 + X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM))
X (→ SMsoft1 SMsoft
2 DM)/ET+ ≤ 5 SM
[113,114,116-124]αsg2
2[159-161,164]
42/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Bino-gluino Coannihilation
DM ∼ (1, 1, 0)F X ∼ (8, 1, 0)F
M ∼ (3, 1, 4/3)B (SM1SM2) = (uRuR)
g
B
uR
uR
uRg2
g1
pp→ . . . Prod. via Signatures Search Strength
com
mon
DM + DM + ISR
gauge int.
mono-Y + /ET [55,56,62,63,104] g41αior SM1 ∈ p
for t-channelX (→ SMsoft1 SMsoft
2 DM)X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM)
ISR
gauge int. mono-Y + /ET [55,56,62,63,104]
α2sαi, g4
2αior SM2 ∈ p mono-Y + /ET+ ≤ 4 SM Partial coverage [105]
for t-channel
DM + X (→ SMsoft1 SMsoft
2 DM) + ISR (SM1 SM2) ∈ pmono-Y + /ET [55,56,62,63,104]
g21g2
2αimono-Y + /ET+ ≤ 2 SM Partial coverage [105]
pp→ . . . Prod. via Signatures Search Strength
t-ch
anne
l
Mt (→ SM1 DM)Mt (→ SM1 DM)
gauge int.
/ET+ ≤ 2 SM[120-122,124]
α2s
[104,147-153]Mt (→ SM1 DM)Mt (→ SM2 + X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM))
/ET+ ≤ 4 SM[106-112]
α2s
[114,119-124]Mt (→ SM2 + X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM))
Mt (→ SM2 + X (→ SMsoft1 SMsoft
2 DM))/ET+ ≤ 6 SM
[113,114,120-124]α2
s[116-118,159-163]
DM + Mt (→ SM1 DM)
SM1 ∈ p
/ET+ ≤ 1 SM[55,56,62,63]
αsg21
[104,149]DMMt (→ SM2 + X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM))
/ET+ ≤ 3 SM[114,120-124]
αsg21
[152,153,156-158]Mt (→ SM1 DM)X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM)
SM2 ∈ p
/ET+ ≤ 3 SM[114,120-124]
αsg22
[152,153,156-158]Mt (→ SM2 + X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM))
X (→ SMsoft1 SMsoft
2 DM)/ET+ ≤ 5 SM
[113,114,116-124]αsg2
2[159-161,164]
43/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Using the Codex II
Underexplored DM Models
44/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Leptoquark Mediated DM - ST11
ID X α + β Ms Spin (SM1 SM2) SM3 M-X-X
ST11 (3, N ± 1, α) 73
(3, 2, 73) B (QL`R), (uRLL)
DM in (1,N, β)
Field Rep. Spin and mass assignment
DM (1,1,0) Majorana fermion
X (3,2,7/3) Dirac fermion
M (3,2,7/3) Scalar
44/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Leptoquark Mediated DM - ST11
ID X α + β Ms Spin (SM1 SM2) SM3 M-X-X
ST11 (3, N ± 1, α) 73
(3, 2, 73) B (QL`R), (uRLL)
DM in (1,N, β)
Field Rep. Spin and mass assignment
DM (1,1,0) Majorana fermion
X (3,2,7/3) Dirac fermion
M (3,2,7/3) Scalar
45/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Leptoquark Mediated DM - ST11
Field Rep. Spin and mass assignment
DM (1,1,0) Majorana fermion
X (3,2,7/3) Dirac fermion
M (3,2,7/3) Scalar
X
DMM
`+
q
L ⊃ Lkin + yDX M DM + yQ`QLM`R + yLuLLMcuR + h.c.
∆ =mX − mDM
mDMyij
Q` = yLu = 0 yD = y11Q`
45/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Leptoquark Mediated DM - ST11
Field Rep. Spin and mass assignment
DM (1,1,0) Majorana fermion
X (3,2,7/3) Dirac fermion
M (3,2,7/3) Scalar
X
DMM
`+
q
L ⊃ Lkin + yDX M DM + yQ`QLM`R + yLuLLMcuR + h.c.
∆ =mX − mDM
mDMyij
Q` = yLu = 0 yD = y11Q`
45/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Leptoquark Mediated DM - ST11
Field Rep. Spin and mass assignment
DM (1,1,0) Majorana fermion
X (3,2,7/3) Dirac fermion
M (3,2,7/3) Scalar
X
DMM
`+
q
L ⊃ Lkin + yDX M DM + yQ`QLM`R + yLuLLMcuR + h.c.
∆ =mX − mDM
mDMyij
Q` = yLu = 0 yD = y11Q`
45/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Leptoquark Mediated DM - ST11
Field Rep. Spin and mass assignment
DM (1,1,0) Majorana fermion
X (3,2,7/3) Dirac fermion
M (3,2,7/3) Scalar
X
DMM
`+
q
L ⊃ Lkin + yDX M DM + yQ`QLM`R + yLuLLMcuR + h.c.
∆ =mX − mDM
mDMyij
Q` = yLu = 0 yD = y11Q`
46/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Leptoquark Mediated DM - ST11 - Relic Density
mLQ=400, Δ=0.1, y=0.5
mLQ=1000, Δ=0.1, y=0.5
mLQ=1000, Δ=0.15, y=0.5
mLQ=1500, Δ=0.1, y=0.1
mLQ=1500, Δ=0.1, y=0.5
Relic Density (3σ)
yD=yQl, yLu=0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
0.001
0.01
0.1
1.0
10.0
mDM [GeV]
Ωh2
σann ∝ 1m2
e.g.,X
X
g
gX
X
DMM
`+
q
DM
DM
M
M†X
46/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Leptoquark Mediated DM - ST11 - Relic Density
mLQ=400, Δ=0.1, y=0.5
mLQ=1000, Δ=0.1, y=0.5
mLQ=1000, Δ=0.15, y=0.5
mLQ=1500, Δ=0.1, y=0.1
mLQ=1500, Δ=0.1, y=0.5
Relic Density (3σ)
yD=yQl, yLu=0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
0.001
0.01
0.1
1.0
10.0
mDM [GeV]
Ωh2
σann ∝ 1m2
e.g.,X
X
g
gX
X
DMM
`+
q
DM
DM
M
M†X
46/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Leptoquark Mediated DM - ST11 - Relic Density
mLQ=400, Δ=0.1, y=0.5
mLQ=1000, Δ=0.1, y=0.5
mLQ=1000, Δ=0.15, y=0.5
mLQ=1500, Δ=0.1, y=0.1
mLQ=1500, Δ=0.1, y=0.5
Relic Density (3σ)
yD=yQl, yLu=0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
0.001
0.01
0.1
1.0
10.0
mDM [GeV]
Ωh2
σann ∝ 1m2
e.g.,X
X
g
gX
X
DMM
`+
q
DM
DM
M
M†X
46/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Leptoquark Mediated DM - ST11 - Relic Density
mLQ=400, Δ=0.1, y=0.5
mLQ=1000, Δ=0.1, y=0.5
mLQ=1000, Δ=0.15, y=0.5
mLQ=1500, Δ=0.1, y=0.1
mLQ=1500, Δ=0.1, y=0.5
Relic Density (3σ)
yD=yQl, yLu=0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
0.001
0.01
0.1
1.0
10.0
mDM [GeV]
Ωh2
σann ∝ 1m2
e.g.,X
X
g
gX
X
DMM
`+
q
DM
DM
M
M†X
47/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Leptoquark Mediated DM - ST11 - Signatures
DM ∼ (1, 1, 0)F X ∼ (3, 2, 7/3)F M ∼ (3, 2, 7/3)B (SM1SM2) = (QLeR)
pp→ . . . Prod. via Signatures Search Strength
com
mon
DM + DM + ISR
gauge int.
mono-Y + /ET [55,56,62,63,104] –or SM1 ∈ p
for t-channelX (→ SMsoft1 SMsoft
2 DM)X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM)
ISR
gauge int. mono-Y + /ET [55,56,62,63,104]
α2sαior SM2 ∈ p mono-Y + /ET+ ≤ 4 SM Partial coverage [105]
for t-channel
DM + X (→ SMsoft1 SMsoft
2 DM) + ISR (SM1 SM2) ∈ pmono-Y + /ET [55,56,62,63,104]
–mono-Y + /ET+ ≤ 2 SM Partial coverage [105]
pp→ . . . Prod. via Signatures Search Strength
s-ch
anne
l
Ms (→ [SM1 SM2]res)Ms (→ [SM1 SM2]res)
gauge int.
2 resonances [106-112] α2s
Ms (→ [SM1 SM2]res)Ms (→ DM + X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM))
resonance + /ET No searchα2
sresonance + /ET+ ≤ 2 SM No search
Ms (→ DM + X (→ SMsoft1 SMsoft
2 DM))Ms (→ DM + X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM))
/ET+ ≤ 4 SM [113-124] α2s
Ms (→ [SM1 SM2]res)
(SM1 SM2) ∈ p
1 resonance [125-146] –
Ms (→ DM + X (→ SMsoft1 SMsoft
2 DM)) /ET+ ≤ 2 SM[120-122,124]
–[104,147-153]
SM1,2 + Ms (→ [SM1 SM2]res)
SM2,1 ∈ p
1 resonance + 1 SM Partial coverage [154,155] αs(y11Q`)
2SM1,2Ms (→ DM + X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM))
/ET + 1 ≤ 3 SM[114,120-124]
αs(y11Q`)
2
[147-153,156-158]
47/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Leptoquark Mediated DM - ST11 - Signatures
DM ∼ (1, 1, 0)F X ∼ (3, 2, 7/3)F M ∼ (3, 2, 7/3)B (SM1SM2) = (QLeR)
pp→ . . . Prod. via Signatures Search Strength
com
mon
DM + DM + ISR
gauge int.
mono-Y + /ET [55,56,62,63,104] –or SM1 ∈ p
for t-channelX (→ SMsoft1 SMsoft
2 DM)X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM)
ISR
gauge int. mono-Y + /ET [55,56,62,63,104]
α2sαior SM2 ∈ p mono-Y + /ET+ ≤ 4 SM Partial coverage [105]
for t-channel
DM + X (→ SMsoft1 SMsoft
2 DM) + ISR (SM1 SM2) ∈ pmono-Y + /ET [55,56,62,63,104]
–mono-Y + /ET+ ≤ 2 SM Partial coverage [105]
pp→ . . . Prod. via Signatures Search Strength
s-ch
anne
l
Ms (→ [SM1 SM2]res)Ms (→ [SM1 SM2]res)
gauge int.
2 resonances [106-112] α2s
Ms (→ [SM1 SM2]res)Ms (→ DM + X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM))
resonance + /ET No searchα2
sresonance + /ET+ ≤ 2 SM No search
Ms (→ DM + X (→ SMsoft1 SMsoft
2 DM))Ms (→ DM + X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM))
/ET+ ≤ 4 SM [113-124] α2s
Ms (→ [SM1 SM2]res)
(SM1 SM2) ∈ p
1 resonance [125-146] –
Ms (→ DM + X (→ SMsoft1 SMsoft
2 DM)) /ET+ ≤ 2 SM[120-122,124]
–[104,147-153]
SM1,2 + Ms (→ [SM1 SM2]res)
SM2,1 ∈ p
1 resonance + 1 SM Partial coverage [154,155] αs(y11Q`)
2SM1,2Ms (→ DM + X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM))
/ET + 1 ≤ 3 SM[114,120-124]
αs(y11Q`)
2
[147-153,156-158]
48/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Leptoquark Mediated DM - ST11 - Signatures
DM ∼ (1, 1, 0)F X ∼ (3, 2, 7/3)F M ∼ (3, 2, 7/3)B (SM1SM2) = (QLeR)
pp→ . . . Signatures Existing Searches Strength Search
com
mon
DM + DM + ISR mono-Y + /ET [ 55,56,62,63,104] – –
X (→ SMsoft1 SMsoft
2 DM)X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM)
ISR
mono-Y + /ET [55,56,62,63,104]
α2sαi
(I) monojet + /ET
mono-Y + /ET+ ≤ 4 SM Partial coverage [105] (II) monojet + /ET + soft e
DM + X (→ SMsoft1 SMsoft
2 DM) + ISRmono-Y + /ET [55,56,62,63,104]
– –mono-Y + /ET+ ≤ 2 SM Partial coverage [105]
s-ch
anne
l
Ms (→ [SM1 SM2]res)Ms (→ [SM1 SM2]res)
2 resonances [106-111,112] α2s (III) Leptoquark pair
Ms (→ [SM1 SM2]res)Ms (→ DM + X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM))
resonance + /ET No searchα2
s(IV) Leptoquark + /ET
resonance + /ET+ ≤ 2 SM No search (V) Leptoquark + /ET + j + eMs (→ DM + X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM))
Ms (→ DM + X (→ SMsoft1 SMsoft
2 DM))/ET+ ≤ 4 SM
[113,114-124]α2
s(VI) 2e+2j + /ET
(I) monojet + /ET
Ms (→ [SM1 SM2]res) 1 resonance [125-146] – –
Ms (→ DM + X (→ SMsoft1 SMsoft
2 DM)) /ET+ ≤ 2 SM[120-122,124]
– –[104,147-153]
SM1,2 + Ms (→ [SM1 SM2]res) 1 resonance + 1 SM Partial coverage [154,155] αs(y11Q`)
2 (VII) Leptoquark + eSM1,2Ms (→ DM + X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM))
/ET + 1 ≤ 3 SM[114,120-124]
αs(y11Q`)
2 (VI) 2e + j + /ET
[128,129,147-153,156-158] (VIII) e + /ET
←←
←←
←
48/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Leptoquark Mediated DM - ST11 - Signatures
DM ∼ (1, 1, 0)F X ∼ (3, 2, 7/3)F M ∼ (3, 2, 7/3)B (SM1SM2) = (QLeR)
pp→ . . . Signatures Existing Searches Strength Search
com
mon
DM + DM + ISR mono-Y + /ET [ 55,56,62,63,104] – –
X (→ SMsoft1 SMsoft
2 DM)X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM)
ISR
mono-Y + /ET [55,56,62,63,104]
α2sαi
(I) monojet + /ET
mono-Y + /ET+ ≤ 4 SM Partial coverage [105] (II) monojet + /ET + soft e
DM + X (→ SMsoft1 SMsoft
2 DM) + ISRmono-Y + /ET [55,56,62,63,104]
– –mono-Y + /ET+ ≤ 2 SM Partial coverage [105]
s-ch
anne
l
Ms (→ [SM1 SM2]res)Ms (→ [SM1 SM2]res)
2 resonances [106-111,112] α2s (III) Leptoquark pair
Ms (→ [SM1 SM2]res)Ms (→ DM + X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM))
resonance + /ET No searchα2
s(IV) Leptoquark + /ET
resonance + /ET+ ≤ 2 SM No search (V) Leptoquark + /ET + j + eMs (→ DM + X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM))
Ms (→ DM + X (→ SMsoft1 SMsoft
2 DM))/ET+ ≤ 4 SM
[113,114-124]α2
s(VI) 2e+2j + /ET
(I) monojet + /ET
Ms (→ [SM1 SM2]res) 1 resonance [125-146] – –
Ms (→ DM + X (→ SMsoft1 SMsoft
2 DM)) /ET+ ≤ 2 SM[120-122,124]
– –[104,147-153]
SM1,2 + Ms (→ [SM1 SM2]res) 1 resonance + 1 SM Partial coverage [154,155] αs(y11Q`)
2 (VII) Leptoquark + eSM1,2Ms (→ DM + X (→ SMsoft
1 SMsoft2 DM))
/ET + 1 ≤ 3 SM[114,120-124]
αs(y11Q`)
2 (VI) 2e + j + /ET
[128,129,147-153,156-158] (VIII) e + /ET
←←
←←
←
49/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
ST11 - Existing Collider Constraints
LQPair(Visible)[8TeV]
SingleLQ
(Visible)[8TeV](yQl=0.4)
XX+j (Monojet) [8 TeV]
LQPair(Visible)[13TeV
]
XX+j (Monojet) [13 TeV]
(2+Δ)mD
M=m
LQ
Δ = 0.1, Br(LQ→lq)|mDM=0 = 0.5
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
mLQ [GeV]
mDM[GeV
]
g
g
M
M†
q
e+
e−
q
g
qq∗
e−
Mq
e+
g g
g
X
X
DMDM
q
e+
e−
q
49/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
ST11 - Existing Collider Constraints
LQPair(Visible)[8TeV]
SingleLQ
(Visible)[8TeV](yQl=0.4)
XX+j (Monojet) [8 TeV]
LQPair(Visible)[13TeV
]
XX+j (Monojet) [13 TeV]
(2+Δ)mD
M=m
LQ
Δ = 0.1, Br(LQ→lq)|mDM=0 = 0.5
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
mLQ [GeV]
mDM[GeV
]
g
g
M
M†
q
e+
e−
q
g
qq∗
e−
Mq
e+
g g
g
X
X
DMDM
q
e+
e−
q
49/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
ST11 - Existing Collider Constraints
LQPair(Visible)[8TeV]
SingleLQ
(Visible)[8TeV](yQl=0.4)
XX+j (Monojet) [8 TeV]
LQPair(Visible)[13TeV
]
XX+j (Monojet) [13 TeV]
(2+Δ)mD
M=m
LQ
Δ = 0.1, Br(LQ→lq)|mDM=0 = 0.5
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
mLQ [GeV]
mDM[GeV
]
g
g
M
M†
q
e+
e−
q
g
qq∗
e−
Mq
e+
g g
g
X
X
DMDM
q
e+
e−
q
49/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
ST11 - Existing Collider Constraints
LQPair(Visible)[8TeV]
SingleLQ
(Visible)[8TeV](yQl=0.4)
XX+j (Monojet) [8 TeV]
LQPair(Visible)[13TeV
]
XX+j (Monojet) [13 TeV]
(2+Δ)mD
M=m
LQ
Δ = 0.1, Br(LQ→lq)|mDM=0 = 0.5
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
mLQ [GeV]
mDM[GeV
]
g
g
M
M†
q
e+
e−
q
g
qq∗
e−
Mq
e+
g g
g
X
X
DMDM
q
e+
e−
q
50/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
ST11 - Constraints from New Searches
LQPair(Visible)[8TeV]
XX+j (Monojet) [8 TeV]
LQPair(Visible)[13TeV
]
LQPair(M
ixed)
[13TeV
]
XX+j (Monojet) [13 TeV]
XX+j (Leptons) [13 TeV] (pT(l) > 10 GeV)
XX+j (Leptons) [13 TeV] (pT(l) > 25 GeV)
Relic Density + APV (3σ allowed)
(2+Δ)mD
M=m
LQ
Δ = 0.1, Br(LQ→lq)|mDM=0 = 0.5
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
mLQ [GeV]
mDM[GeV
]
g g
g
X
X
DMDM
q
e+
e−
q
g
g M
M† e−
qDM
XDM
M∗q
e+
50/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
ST11 - Constraints from New Searches
LQPair(Visible)[8TeV]
XX+j (Monojet) [8 TeV]
LQPair(Visible)[13TeV
]
LQPair(M
ixed)
[13TeV
]
XX+j (Monojet) [13 TeV]
XX+j (Leptons) [13 TeV] (pT(l) > 10 GeV)
XX+j (Leptons) [13 TeV] (pT(l) > 25 GeV)
Relic Density + APV (3σ allowed)
(2+Δ)mD
M=m
LQ
Δ = 0.1, Br(LQ→lq)|mDM=0 = 0.5
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
mLQ [GeV]
mDM[GeV
]
g g
g
X
X
DMDM
q
e+
e−
q
g
g M
M† e−
qDM
XDM
M∗q
e+
51/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Summary
Coannihilation Codex gives a complete list of simplifiedmodels of coannihilationGuaranteed kinetic & coannihilation vertices→ signaturesClassify signatures of a wide range of models
Identify new signaturesIdentify interesting models, e.g., leptoquarks and DM
Huge number of coannihilating models of DMwith interesting collider signatures to studyat the LHC and future colliders
51/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Summary
Coannihilation Codex gives a complete list of simplifiedmodels of coannihilationGuaranteed kinetic & coannihilation vertices→ signaturesClassify signatures of a wide range of models
Identify new signaturesIdentify interesting models, e.g., leptoquarks and DM
Huge number of coannihilating models of DMwith interesting collider signatures to studyat the LHC and future colliders
51/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Summary
Coannihilation Codex gives a complete list of simplifiedmodels of coannihilationGuaranteed kinetic & coannihilation vertices→ signaturesClassify signatures of a wide range of models
Identify new signaturesIdentify interesting models, e.g., leptoquarks and DM
Huge number of coannihilating models of DMwith interesting collider signatures to studyat the LHC and future colliders
51/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Summary
Coannihilation Codex gives a complete list of simplifiedmodels of coannihilationGuaranteed kinetic & coannihilation vertices→ signaturesClassify signatures of a wide range of models
Identify new signaturesIdentify interesting models, e.g., leptoquarks and DM
Huge number of coannihilating models of DMwith interesting collider signatures to studyat the LHC and future colliders
51/51
Motivation Coannihilation Codex Using the Codex
Summary
Coannihilation Codex gives a complete list of simplifiedmodels of coannihilationGuaranteed kinetic & coannihilation vertices→ signaturesClassify signatures of a wide range of models
Identify new signaturesIdentify interesting models, e.g., leptoquarks and DM
Huge number of coannihilating models of DMwith interesting collider signatures to studyat the LHC and future colliders
52/51
EWSB I
The main effect of EWSB on our models is from mixing:Due to Z2 symmetry, in t-channel models the effects of themixing will be entirely in the dark sectorMediators in s-channel models may mix with SM particles,giving hybrid model like signatures
53/51
EWSB II
It is also possible to construct new 2-to-2 diagrams exist thanksto EWSB
E.g.: mixing between Wi(1, 3, 0) and Vi(1, 5, 0) in the 3–3–1model
However, all diagrams are built from verticies present in ourtables and LHC signatures (almost always) differ only by mixingangles and group theory factors
54/51
Cut-flow table - Mixed decay
QCD W + 1, 2j tt Zνν + j Zττ + j W+W− WZνν + j WZjj signal
pT(j1) > 50 GeV 2.1×1012 4.4×108 1.3×108 7.0×107 1.3×107 1.2×106 1.3×105 3.1×105 600
Nhe = 1, Ne ≤ 2 4.8×109 8.8×107 1.2×107 8.6×104 4.8×105 2.4×105 1.9×104 6.1×104 415
b-jet veto 4.0×109 8.2×107 5.0×106 8.2×104 4.6×105 2.2×105 1.9×104 5.4×104 395
Nhard jets ≤ 3 3.9×109 8.2×107 4.3×106 8.2×104 4.6×105 2.2×105 1.9×104 5.4×104 335
Z veto 3.9×109 8.2×107 1.7×106 8.2×104 4.6×105 2.2×105 1.9×104 5.4×104 326
/ET > 700 GeV 133 1738 15 19 9 10 27 2 75
mT > 150 GeV 132 16 10−3 18 0.005 0.01 10 0.001 67
mass window 3 0.2 0 0.3 10−5 10−5 0.1 10−5 24
55/51
Cut-flow table - XXj
tt Z`` + j Diboson W`ν + j t + j Signal
/ET > 50 GeV 1.9× 107 7.9× 106 1.1× 106 1.9× 108 5.6× 105 8.5× 104
pleadT > 50 GeV 1.8× 107 6.1× 106 5.9× 105 1.5× 108 4.6× 105 7.1× 104
∆φj1j2 < 2.5 1.2× 107 4.2× 106 5.0× 105 1.1× 108 2.9× 105 5.4× 104
Z and µ veto 8.5× 106 2.7× 106 4.0× 105 8.6× 107 1.9× 105 5.2× 104
b veto 3.6× 106 2.6× 106 3.7× 105 8.2× 107 1.1× 105 2.0× 104
Nl ≥ 2 2.5× 104 4371 1076 9.8× 104 382 1748
/ET > 400 GeV 12 11 0.07 780 2 118∣∣∣∣pT j1/ET− 1∣∣∣∣ < 0.2 1 11 0.07 148 0.2 85