Next Article in Journal
Handedness Development: A Model for Investigating the Development of Hemispheric Specialization and Interhemispheric Coordination
Next Article in Special Issue
Exploring QED Effects to Diphoton Production at Hadron Colliders
Previous Article in Journal
Some Bounds for the Complex Čebyšev Functional of Functions of Bounded Variation
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Brief Review of Implicit Regularization and Its Connection with the BPHZ Theorem
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

IDM Benchmarks for the LHC and Future Colliders

by
Jan Kalinowski
1,
Tania Robens
2,*,
Dorota Sokołowska
1,3 and
Aleksander Filip Żarnecki
1
1
Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw, ul. Pasteura 5, 02–093 Warsaw, Poland
2
Theoretical Physics Division, Rudjer Boskovic Institute, 10002 Zagreb, Croatia
3
International Institute of Physics, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Campus Universitario, Lagoa Nova, Natal 59078-970, RN, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Symmetry 2021, 13(6), 991; https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13060991
Submission received: 27 April 2021 / Revised: 24 May 2021 / Accepted: 27 May 2021 / Published: 2 June 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Higher Order Radiative Corrections in QCD)

Abstract

:
We present cross-section expectations for various processes and collider options, for benchmark scenarios of the Inert Doublet Model, a Two Higgs Doublet Model with a dark matter candidate. The proposed scenarios are consistent with current dark matter constraints, including the most recent bounds from the XENON1T experiment and relic density, as well as with known collider and low-energy limits. These benchmarks, chosen in earlier work for studies at e + e colliders, exhibit a variety of kinematic features that should be explored at current and future runs of the LHC. We provide cross sections for all relevant production processes at 13 TeV, 27 TeV and 100 TeV proton collider, as well as for a possible 10 TeV and 30 TeV muon collider.

1. Introduction

The LHC discovery of a scalar particle consistent with the Standard Model (SM) predictions left many questions unanswered, among which is the lack of a dark matter candidate. This motivates investigations of beyond the SM extensions of the scalar sector. The Inert Doublet Model (IDM) [1,2,3], a Two Higgs Doublet Model with a discrete Z 2 symmetry, is a simple and well-motivated model that leads to a stable dark matter candidate. It has been discussed widely in the literature (see e.g., [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50]), and we refer the reader to this discussion for further reference.
The imposed discrete Z 2 symmetry (called D-symmetry) corresponds to the following transformation properties:
ϕ S ϕ S , ϕ D ϕ D , SM SM .
Here, the ϕ S doublet plays the same role as the analogous doublet in the Standard Model, providing the SM-like Higgs particle. This doublet is even under the D-symmetry, while the second doublet, the inert (or dark) ϕ D , is D-odd and contains four scalars, two charged and two neutral ones, labelled H ± and H , A , respectively. In the rest of this work, we consider cases where H serves as the dark matter candidate of the model.
We refer here to our previous analysis [32,33,51], where we proposed benchmark scenarios with an emphasis on the discovery potential at e + e colliders. The benchmarks presented in this work were chosen to cover a large range of the parameter space relevant at colliders, especially regarding the mass differences in the dark scalar sector. In particular, we divided the benchmark points into two categories, roughly split into areas where the new scalar masses are below 300 GeV or reach up to 500 GeV. As mass spectra are usually relatively degenerate for these particles [20,30,32], especially for higher masses 300 GeV , all scalar masses are relatively close, so a characterization by one scale is sufficient. For lower mass scales, the dark matter candidate can be lighter than the unstable scalars masses. Another important point is the on- or off-shellness of the decay products, which in this case are electroweak gauge bosons. As major backgrounds stem from the production of such bosons, together with missing energy, such features are an important selection criterium for signal over background enhancement. In total, we consider 40 specific parameter points, split into the low and high mass regions as discussed above. A more detailed description of the specific characteristics of these benchmark points is given in Section 4 below.
In this work cross-section predictions are given for these benchmarks, for a variety of production processes at the 13 and 27 TeV LHC, for a 100 TeV proton-proton collider, as well as for a muon collider. The unstable dark scalars decay as A H Z ( 100 % ) and H ± W ± H (dominantly) for all points considered, where the above decays can be on- or off-shell depending on the mass spectra. Cross sections were calculated using Madgraph5 [52] with a UFO input file from [7]. Note the official version available at [53] exhibits a wrong CKM structure, leading to false results for processes involving electroweak gauge bosons radiated off quark lines. In our implementation, we corrected for this. Our implementation corresponds to the expressions available from [54].
In order to assess the possible collider reach, we then resort to a very simple counting criterium, and mark a benchmark point as reachable if at least 1000 events will have been produced for a specific collider scenario, using the colliders nominal center-of-mass energy and design luminosity. We acknowledge that this simple comparison criterium can only serve as a first step, and needs to be further tested by including full signal and background simulation, including the development of specific search strategies. However, we find this useful to provide first guidance for the benchmark points considered here.
The IDM is distinct in the sense that its unique signatures are mostly SM electroweak gauge boson and missing (transverse) energy. VBF-type SM scalar production with invisible decays in the off-shell mode is also an important channel, cf. for example, [34]. As couplings in both electroweak production and decay are determined by SM parameters (see e.g., discussion in [30]), rate predictions depend on a very small number of new physics parameters, typically mainly the masses of the new scalars; we will give examples to exceptions to this in the main body of this manuscript. This distinguishes it from other scalar extensions where a large number of additional parameters plays a role. While production modes can be similar to standard two Higgs doublet models, the exact Z 2 symmetry prevents couplings of the new scalars to fermions and therefore leads to distinct signatures of electroweak gauge bosons and missing (transverse) energy.
Finally, we want to briefly comment on other new physics models that lead to similar final states. In particular, many searches have been carried out by the LHC experiments within supersymmetric frameworks, cf. for example, [55,56]. Supersymmetric models can also lead to multilepton signatures and missing transverse energy. In [18,34], recasts of such searches within the IDM were considered. The parameter space in [18], which is excluded by LHC Run 1 searches is however equally excluded by dark matter considerations, as it features quite low dark matter masses which would lead to an overclosure of the universe. In [34], a heuristic argument was given why multilepton SUSY searches tend to cut out parameter regions in the IDM that would a priori lead to high event rates. Another model one could consider in this respect is the THDMa [57,58,59,60,61,62,63], a two Higgs Doublet model with an additional pseudoscalar that, in the gauge eigenstate, serves as a portal to a dark sector. Again, dilepton and missing transverse energy signatures are one of the prime channels of this model. However, both this and the SUSY scenarios come with topologies different to the one that led to these final states in the IDM. A more detailed comparison of the consequences of these differences is in the line of future work.

2. The IDM

The scalar sector of the IDM consists of two SU(2) L doublets of complex scalar fields, ϕ S and ϕ D , with the D-symmetric potential:
V = 1 2 m 11 2 ( ϕ S ϕ S ) + m 22 2 ( ϕ D ϕ D ) + λ 1 2 ( ϕ S ϕ S ) 2 + λ 2 2 ( ϕ D ϕ D ) 2 + λ 3 ( ϕ S ϕ S ) ( ϕ D ϕ D ) + λ 4 ( ϕ S ϕ D ) ( ϕ D ϕ S ) + λ 5 2 ( ϕ S ϕ D ) 2 + ( ϕ D ϕ S ) 2 .
Exact D-symmetry (cf. Equation (1)) implies that only ϕ S can acquire a nonzero vacuum expectation value (v). As a result the scalar fields from different doublets do not mix, and the lightest particle from ϕ D is stable. The dark sector contains four new particles: H, A and H ± . We here choose H to denote the dark matter candidate (choosing A instead is equivalent to changing the sign of λ 5 ).
The model contains seven free parameters after electroweak symmetry breaking. The SM-like Higgs mass M h and the vev, v, are fixed by LHC measurements as well as electroweak precision observables. We choose the remaining five free parameters to be
M H , M A , M H ± , λ 2 , λ 345 ,
where the λ ’s refer to couplings within the dark sector and to the SM-like Higgs, respectively, with λ 345 = λ 3 + λ 4 + λ 5 .

3. Experimental and Theoretical Constraints

We consider the following experimental and theoretical constraints on the model (see e.g., [20,32] for a more detailed discussion):
  • Positivity constraints: we require that the potential is bounded from below.
  • Perturbative unitarity: we require the scalar 2 2 scattering matrix to be unitary.
  • Global minimum: in the IDM two neutral minima can coexist even at tree level. Unless the following relation is satisfied
    m 11 2 λ 1 m 22 2 λ 2 ,
    the inert minimum is only a local one, with the global vacuum corresponding to the case of massless fermions [64]. We impose the above relation in our scan.
  • Higgs mass and signal strengths: the mass of the SM-like Higgs boson h is set to
    M h = 125.1 GeV ,
    in agreement with limits from ATLAS and CMS experiments [65,66], while the total width of the SM-like Higgs boson obeys an upper limit of [67]
    Γ tot 9 MeV .
    We have confirmed that all points obey the newest limit for invisible Higgs boson decays, BR h inv 0.15 [68]. Furthermore, all points have been checked against currently available signal strength measurements, including simplified template cross-section information, using the publicly available tool HiggsSignals-2.6.0 [69,70], where we require agreement at 95 % confidence level.
  • Gauge bosons width: introduction of light new particles could in principle significantly change the total width of electroweak gauge bosons (cf. e.g., [54]). To ensure that W ± H H ± and Z H A , H + H decay channels are kinematically forbidden we set:
    M A , H + M H ± M W , M A + M H M Z , 2 M H ± M Z .
  • Electroweak precision tests: we call for a 2 σ (i.e., 95 % C.L.) agreement with electroweak precision observables, parametrized through the electroweak oblique parameters S , T , U [71,72,73,74], tested against the latest results from the GFitter collaboration [75,76]. In our work, calculations were done through the routine implemented in the Two Higgs Doublet Model Calculator (2HDMC) tool [77], which checks whenever model predictions fall within the observed parameter range.
  • Charged scalar mass and lifetime: we take a conservative lower estimate on the mass of M H ± following analysis in [78] to be
    M H ± 70 GeV .
    We also set an upper limit on the charged scalar lifetime of
    τ 10 7 s ,
    in order to evade bounds from quasi-stable charged particle searches. More detailed studies using recasts of current LHC long-lived particle searches can be found in [79,80].
  • Collider searches for new physics: we require agreement with the null-searches from the LEP, Tevatron, and LHC experiments. We use the publicly available tool HiggsBounds-5.9.0 [81,82,83,84,85]. In addition the reinterpreted LEP II searches for supersymmetric particles analysis exclude the region of masses in the IDM where simultaneously [8]
    M A 100 GeV , M H 80 GeV , Δ M ( A , H ) 8 GeV ,
    as it would lead to a visible di-jet or dilepton signal. After taking into account all the above limits we are outside of the region excluded due to the reinterpretation of the supersymmetry analysis from LHC Run I [18].
  • Dark matter phenomenology: we apply dark matter relic density limits obtained by the Planck experiment [86]:
    Ω c h 2 = 0.1200 ± 0.0012 .
    For a DM candidate that provides 100% of observed DM in the Universe we require the above bound to be fulfilled within the 2 σ limit. However, we also allow for the case where H is only a subdominant DM candidate, with
    Ω H h 2 < Ω c h 2 .
    Note that this also leads to a rescaling of the respective direct detection limits [20,32].
    In the results presented here, we apply XENON1T limits [87]. We use a digitized format of that data available from [88]. For consistency, we here calculated the dark-matter related variables using micrOMEGAs_5.0.4 [89]. Note that for some points, relic density values change using the most up-to-date version, that is, micrOMEGAs_5.2.4 [90]. Similar results can be obtained by changing the integration mode for some points. We list the corresponding values for the low-mass benchmark points in Appendix A for reference.

Requiring Exact Relic Density

As discussed above, we here require relic density to be below the current value as determined by the Planck collaboration (cf. Equation (10)). In the Inert Doublet model, meeting the exact relic density is only possible in certain mass ranges. We here enhance a previous discussion on this which was presented in [32] (see also the discussion in [91]).
  • Lower bound on dark matter mass
    A combination of signal strength measurements for the 125 GeV resonance sets an upper limit on the absolute value of the coupling λ 345 , which determines the H H h coupling. In this area, the major annihilation channel is H H b b ¯ , mediated by h-exchange. Low values of λ 345 in turn lead to large values for the relic density, as annihilation cross sections are taking lower values. In principle, co-annihilation with A or H ± could remedy this, leading to larger annihilation cross sections, for mass splittings which are smallish. Indeed, in [91] this scenario is explicitly discussed (see also [6]). The combination of these bounds leads to a lowest value of M H 55 GeV [20,30,34,91]. In a more detailed scan, however, we find that masses can in principle be as low as around 44 GeV , if the mass difference between M A and M H is quite small, up to 4 GeV ; the dominant contribution then comes from coannihilation of H A d d ¯ , s s ¯ , b b ¯ , but none of these points results in the correct relic density.
  • Resonance region, M H M h / 2
    In this region, the main annihilation channels are h-mediated, primarily into b b ¯ and W + W final states. This leads to points that meet the exact relic density, with smallish | λ 345 | 0.006 values.
  • Region up to around 75 GeV
    In this region, H H annihilation into (partially off-shell) W + W final states start to dominate. Due to interference effects between h-mediated and quartic couplings (see e.g., [5,91]), some points in the mass range around 70 73 GeV render exact relic density, including all current constraints. Absolute values for λ 345 are 0.006 in that region. As in the low mass region, for quite mass-degenerate scalars, M H M A 7 GeV , the dominant annihilation process is given by H A d d ¯ , s s ¯ , b b ¯ ; none of these points however renders the correct relic density.
  • Region between 75 GeV and 160 GeV
    This region was proposed in [92] as a good region for dark matter relic density in the IDM, where the calculation depends on cancellations between diagrams for V V * final states. However, the values for λ 345 required here are by now ruled out by limits from direct detection experiments. The dominant annihilation channel is H H W + W .
  • Region between 160 GeV and around 500 GeV
    In this region, currently no study exists that provides scenarios within the IDM where exact relic density can be generated. Examples for studies are given in [7,13,20]. Largest values of relic density stem from H H W + W annihilation, with annihiliation rates too large to render the exact value.
  • Larger masses, M H 500 GeV
    Here, the exact values of relic density can be obtained if mass splittings between dark scalars are quite small, roughly 10 GeV (see also discussion in [93]). The dominant annihilation channel is H H W + W . It is possible to obtain the correct relic density for small mass differences M H ± M H 10 GeV , | λ 345 | 0.25 .

4. Benchmark Points

In this section, we list all production cross sections for the production channels
p p H A , H H + , H H , A H + , A H , H + H , A A
for the benchmark scenarios proposed in [32], for center-of-mass energies of 13 and 27 TeV and 100 TeV proton-proton collider. We additionally consider the VBF-like production of A A and H + H at the same hadron collider options as well as a muon-muon collider with center of mass energies of 10 TeV and 30 TeV. Cross sections were calculated using Madgraph5 [52], with an UFO input model from [7]. We separate the benchmarks into low mass benchmark points (BPs) with dark masses up to 300 GeV, as well as high mass points (HPs), which cover the whole mass range up to 1 TeV. The parameter choices as well as kinetic properties of these points are listed in Table 1 and Table 2. We also emphasize when a point reproduces exact relic density.
Figure 1 shows the initial benchmark candidates discussed in [32], that obey all current constraints, in the ( M H + M H ; M A M H ) plane. All points form a narrow band corresponding to M A M H ± . Our chosen benchmark points, also indicated in Figure 1 (red points) cover mass gaps up to about 250 GeV.

5. Production Cross Sections at Various Collider Options

We first focus on the completed LHC Run 2 with a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV and assuming an integrated luminosity of 150 fb 1 . The production cross sections at 13 TeV for all considered benchmark scenarios are listed in Table 3 and Table 4. In Figure 2 cross sections for different on-shell scalar pair-production channels are compared, shown as a function of the sum of produced scalar masses. We note that, apart from A A production, all processes show a similar decrease in the cross section as the mass scale rises; as these production modes are stemming from Drell-Yan processes with intermediate gauge bosons, the masses remain the only undetermined parameters, while all couplings are given by SM electroweak variables. Therefore, differences between, for example, H H + and A H + are small for the same mass scale. In general, A H / H H states are produced with slightly lower cross sections, due to the parton content of the proton. For the A A process, however, the coupling
λ ¯ 345 λ 3 + λ 4 λ 5 = λ 345 2 M H 2 M A 2 v 2
determines the cross section, which is no longer a function of the mass only. Therefore, for this production mode the cross sections do not follow the same simple behaviour. For example, cross sections 0.1 fb are usually achieved for λ ¯ 345 0.5 for the low mass BPs.
We label scenarios as realistic, if they produce at least 1000 events during that run, translating to minimal cross sections of about 7 fb indicated by the horizontal dashed line in Figure 2. We note that this only corresponds to a rough estimate of accessibility. Detailed studies, including background simulation, would be needed to determine discovery options for each BP individually. Note that the decays of the heavier dark scalars are predominantly given by
H ± W ± H ; A Z H ,
with the electroweak gauge bosons decaying as in the SM. Only BPs 2,3,4 have sizeable branching ratios for the channel H ± A W ± of 0.34, 0.25, and 0.08, respectively.

5.1. Current LHC Data, Run 2

With the simple counting criterium proposed above, one can see that minimum cross section of 7 fb (horizontal dashed line in Figure 2) limits the LHC Run 2 sensitivity to the scalar mass sum of about 450 GeV for H H and A H production channels and to about 500 GeV for other scalar pair-production channels. We see that most of the low mass benchmark points in Table 3 (BPs 1-16, 18-20 as well as 23) provide high enough cross sections for dark scalar pair-production in all channels but the A A pair-production channel. On the other hand, for the high-mass benchmark points (Table 4), only HP 1 renders high enough cross sections in the H A and H H + production mode.

5.2. High Luminosity Option

At the high luminosity LHC, the target integrated luminosity corresponds to 3 ab 1 (see e.g., [94]), lowering the cross-section threshold for our simple counting criterium to 0.33 fb. The accessible mass range for pair-production of IDM scalars is extended to a mass sum of about 850 GeV for H H and A H channel, and about 1 TeV for other channels (except for A A ), see Figure 2. The A A channel additionally opens up for BPs 1-10, 12, 14-17, and 23. Similarly BP21 and 22 also render the minimal number of generated events in all channels. Only for BPs 11, 13, and 18-20 the total number of events generated does not suffice in the A A channel. Note that the h A A coupling scales with λ ¯ 345 , cf. Equation (13). For the high-mass points, now HP1, HP11-16 become accessible in all but the A A channel; for HPs 17-19, the H A , H , H H + , A H + , H + H channels seem to become accessible, corresponding to a mass range for scalar masses up to 500 GeV.

5.3. High Energy Option

Values for the production cross sections at a 27 TeV center-of-mass energy are given in Table 5 and Table 6. With a center-of-mass energy of 27 TeV and a target luminosity of 15 ab 1 [95], the minimal cross section required to obtain at least 1000 events in the full run further decreases to 0.07 fb. This means that all but BP20 are accessible in all channels. BP20 features a low value of λ ¯ 345 0.09 and a relatively high mass M A , leading to a low A A cross section even at the 27 TeV HE-LHC. For the high-mass points, HPs 2-7, 11-20 are open in all but the A A channel, while HP1 even renders a large enough cross section for this channel as well. For HPs 8-10, the H H , A H channels additionally remain inaccessible. This means that all HPs and BPs are accessible in at least one channel, with scalar masses up to 1 TeV. The enhancement factors for production processes with respect to cross sections at the LHC including at least one unstable new scalar are shown in Figure 3. In general, for the low BPs the cross-section enhancement is about a factor 3, where for A A final states a maximal value of 6 is reached for BP21. For HPs the enhancement can be up to a factor 10 depending on the dark scalar masses. In fact, the largest enhancement is obtained for HP10, where the cross section increases by a factor 20. However, the absolute value for A A production at 27 TeV for this point is O 10 6 fb , making it too small for a detailed investigation of this channel.

5.4. 100 TeV Proton-Proton Collider

A circular hadron–hadron collider with a 100 TeV center of mass energy is currently another option for a future accelerator design [96,97]. For reference, we therefore list the corresponding cross-sections for scalar pair-production in Table 7 and Table 8. The target accelerator luminosity corresponds to 20 ab 1 ; this corresponds to a production cross section of 5 × 10 2 fb , respectively, to fulfill our accessibility criterium.
For the low BPs, this would allow closure of the remaining A A channel for BP 20.
For the high-mass benchmark points, HPs 1, 3, 4, 9, 11-13, 15, 16, 18, 19 now could be reachable in all channels using our criterium. For the remaining points, the A A production cross section remains too low. As for the HE-LHC, this corresponds to a possible mass reach up to 1 TeV for the single scalar masses, where, however, a larger number of total channels is open.
Production cross sections for selected scalar pair-production channels, for different proton collider options, are compared in Figure 4. In general, production cross sections are enhanced by one to two orders of magnitude with respect to the corresponding values at the 13 TeV LHC, cf. Figure 5.

5.5. VBF-Like Topologies

Apart from the direct pair-production processes in Equation (12), also final states with additional jets should be considered. We here include all processes that lead to the required final state; a subset of these are VBF-like topologies. As an example, we additionally consider
p p A A j j , p p H + H j j .
Both processes can include VBF-type diagrams. The respective cross sections for the low and high mass benchmarks, with varying collider energies, are given in Table 9 and Table 10, and compared in Figure 6.
Note that we did not apply VBF-like cuts, as, depending on the parameter point, different channels contribute; for A A production, this can for example, be gluon-gluon or vector-boson fusion to h with successive decays to A A , as well as diagrams with for example, a charged scalar in the t-channel. For H + H final states, standard dijet production with Z / γ radiation with successive decay into H + H can also play a significant role.
For A A production, comparing to non-VBF like topologies, we encounter enhancement rates up to three orders of magnitude when considering the VBF-like contribution, especially for example, for HP14 and HP20, where the largest relative growth takes place for 13 TeV. However, at this center-of-mass energy the total rate remains small. If we consider accessible points only, with at least 1000 events being produced over the full run in the VBF mode, the largest enhancement can be seen for HP20 at 100 TeV and HP14 at 27 TeV or 100 TeV, where the production cross section increases by roughly three orders of magnitude. A detailed analysis for the latter point shows that the predominant contribution for this point at, for example, 100 TeV stems from off-shell H + A production and subsequent decay H + W + A as well as processes decribed by diagrams with a charged scalar in the t-channel, initiated by W W fusion. Note this identification stems from graph identification within Madgraph5; in general, only the complete set of W W initiated diagrams is gauge-invariant. The above statement has been derived by evaluations in the unitary gauge.
Enhancements by more than an order of magnitude are also observed for HPs 11 and 12 at the same center-of-mass energies 27 TeV and 100 TeV, HPs 2 and 16 at 100 TeV, followed by BP 2 accessible already in Run II and BP 20 at 100 TeV. At 13 TeV, the cross section for BP 2 rises from 1.5 fb to 19 fb when VBF-like topologies are considered. This can again be traced back mainly to contributions from H ± A production with successive decays H ± A W ± . At 13 TeV, for example, BPs 11 and 13 might now be accessible at the HL-LHC in the AA VBF channel. At 27 TeV, BP20 as well as 7 additional HPs might now be visible; at 100 TeV, nearly all HPs have large enough cross sections in this channel, with only HPs 8 and 10 having cross sections 0.04 fb . We show the enhancement for points with more than 1000 events with full integrated luminosity in Figure 7.
In Figure 6, although in general a decrease in the cross sections is observed for rising masses, there are points which deviate from this behaviour, as, for example, the production cross sections for A A j j at 100 TeV. As an example, HP4 here leads to a cross section of about 7 fb, while the production cross section for HP5 is more an order of magnitude lower, while masses of A are quite similar. This can be traced back to the production of an off-shell h with two jets, where the h subsequently decays to A A . This process is mediated via the λ ¯ 345 coupling, which grows with the difference between M H 2 and M A 2 . In fact, concentrating on the dominant contribution, namely g g h * g g , with subsequent decays h * A A , we find that λ ¯ 345 , H P 5 λ ¯ 345 , H P 4 2 0.026 . The production cross sections in this mode are 4.7 fb and 0.11 fb for HP4 and HP5, respectively, displaying the same ratio. Additional contributions in both points stem from VBF diagrams with, for example, a charged or neutral scalar in the t-channel; for HP 4/ 5, these contribute roughly 4 % / 10 % to the total cross section.
For the H + H channel, the VBF-induced cross sections are up to a factor of 2 larger than for the direct production; maximal enhancement is observed for HP4 at 100 TeV. In fact, enhancements can mainly present for this collider option. In contrast, for example, for BP3 at 13 TeV, the VBF-type cross section only amounts to about 20 % of the direct production. As before, we note a general decrease of the cross sections as masses rise. However, we can again observe that for similar mass scales, there can be exceptions where cross sections differ by about a factor 3. Again, this can be traced back to diagrams that are mediated via the SM-like scalar h. The coupling between h and H + H is given by
λ 3 λ 345 2 M H 2 M H ± 2 v 2 .
As an example, we can consider production cross sections for BP21 and HP11 at 100 TeV; both points feature similar charged scalar masses, however, the mass differences to the dark matter candidate vary largely. For BP21, we have λ 3 2.9 , while for HP11, the corresponding value is given by λ 3 0.5 . This leads to a relative factor of around 30 for contributions which are triggered by h-exchange in the s-channel. In fact, the corresponding cross sections stemming from gluon-fusion are 118 fb for BP21 and 4 fb for HP11, reflecting this ratio. Other diagrams come from p p j j γ ( Z ) , with the electroweak gauge boson decaying into the charged scalars, as well as diagrams with charged scalars in the t-channel. Due to quantum interference, it is not obvious to disentangle these from h-induced contributions. However, for HP11 it can be stated that gg-induced processes contribute roughly 5 % to the total cross section, while the corresponding number for BP21 is 50 % . Similarly, one can compare cross sections for HP4 and HP5 a 100 TeV center-of-mass energy; although these points feature similar charged scalar masses, the cross sections differ by a factor 3.5. This can again be traced back to differences in λ 3 , which is given by 4.15/0.64 for HP4/HP5, respectively. Comparing numbers from gg-induced processes only, which are dominantly mediated via h-exchange, we find that the cross sections are given by 10.5 fb and 0.229 fb respectively, representing the above hierarchy in the coupling. In other channels, processes which are h-mediated are contributing mainly for HP4. As before, a clear disentanglement is not possible due to interference effects, however, one can state that for HP4 at least 50 % of the total cross section are mediated via h, while this number goes down to about 4 % for HP5.
In summary, for A A final states inclusion of processes with additional jets can greatly improve the collider reach. For H + H , instead, maximal enhancements reach a factor 2 at a 100 TeV collider, while for lower center-of-mass energies the respective cross sections can be up to a factor 5 smaller than the direct production channel.

5.6. Purely Photon-Induced Processes

We also briefly comment on the possibility of observing photon-induced production processes using forward proton spectrometers, as for example, discussed in [98,99,100]. Here, photons are emitted from the protons, and the final state p p + X is measured, with X being the final state generated via photon-fusion and p denoting intact protons in the final state, which could be measured in the proton spectrometers. For the IDM, the only possible process into novel final states is given by
p p p p H + H ,
as no other BSM final state can be generated via photon-photon fusion at tree-level. In principle processes would be possible via the photon-photon-Higgs vertex, possibly allowing for A A photo-production, and also contribute to the above process, albeit at higher order. This is currently not implemented in our framework and beyond the scope of the current work. We present the production cross-sections for all benchmark scenarios in Table 11 and Table 12, respectively.
No cuts on the scattered proton kinematics are applied. As for direct pair-production, the cross sections are determined by the available phase space, given by the masses of the charged scalars, and exhibit decline with rising mass scales. The production cross sections are lower by factors 300 for 13 TeV and up to 800 for 100 TeV with respect to the direct pair-production cross sections, given in Table 3, Table 4, Table 7 and Table 8 for 13 TeV and 100 TeV, respectively. Therefore, all points here would in principle be within reach first in direct pair-production, using again our simple counting criterium. The photon-fusion mode would in principle provide an additional test of the model for photon induced processes. However, even not taking into account the acceptance of the proton spectrometers only BPs 1-3 would be accessible at the HL-LHC, corresponding to a mass range up to 200 GeVfor the sum of the produced particles. At 100 TeV, all low mass points as well as HPs 1, 11-18 would be accessible, enhancing the mass range to 900 GeV.

5.7. Muon Collider

Recently, discussions of a muon collider have again raised some interest in the community (see e.g., [101]). We therefore present cross sections at such a collider for two collider options, namely, for center-of-mass energies of 10 TeV and 30 TeV . Note that without taking beamstrahlung and initial state radiation effects into account, the cross sections for μ + μ and e + e induced processes are the same as lepton masses are negligible for the considered center-of-mass energies. Since beamstrahlung and initial state radiation effects are much less important for μ + μ they were therefore not taken into account in the presented study.
For direct production, we found that cross sections are similar for all BPs and HPs, given by 0.13 fb for H A production and 0.31 fb for H + H production at the 10 TeV collider, respectively; cross sections at 30 TeV are about an order of magnitude lower. Cross sections might slightly rise due to radiative return (see e.g., [102]). We therefore list results for VBF-type production modes only; in particular, we consider
μ + μ ν μ ν ¯ μ A A , μ + μ ν μ ν ¯ μ H + H .
Production cross sections for these processes can be found in Table 13 and Table 14, and are compared in Figure 8.
Depending on the parameter point, different diagrams contribute. For the low-mass BPs, production cross sections range between 0.06 fb and 1.17 fb at 10 TeV and between 0.1 fb and 3 fb at 30 TeV. For example, the dominant contribution to the cross section for A A final states at BP21, the benchmark point with the highest rates, stems from diagrams with a charged scalar in the t-channel. For high-mass HPs, cross sections start basically an order of magnitude lower, and can reach up to roughly 1 fb at both center-of-mass energies, depending on the benchmark point and production mode. Note that for H + H the VBF-like production almost always renders rates higher than direct pair-production, with the exception of the HPs at 10 TeV center-of-mass energy. For example, for BP3 at 30 TeV, diagrams with W-boson fusion to a Z-boson or photon with successive decay to H + H are predominant, with slightly lower contributions from diagrams with an A or H in the t-channel.
As before, in general, one can observe a decrease of production cross sections with rising mass scales, where however some exceptions exist. For H + H production, it is again instructive to compare cross sections for BP21 and HP11, which feature similar charged scalar masses but different M H , leading to a factor 5 difference in production cross sections at 30 TeV. This difference can be traced back to the interference between two different gauge-invariant sets of diagrams which contribute to this process, with W + W and W μ fusion, which we label GI I and GI II, respectively; the two sets of diagrams are displayed in Appendix B. Contributions from these sets of diagrams are shown in Table 15 where we also consider two additional parameter points HP11b and HP11c, which have the same charged or charged and dark matter mass as BP21. We see that, while contributions to GI II mainly depend on the masses of the charged scalars, in GI I the masses of the neutral dark scalars also play a role via diagrams with these particles in the t-channel.
From the table, we observe that the final contribution seems to dominantly stem from a fine-tuned cancellation between these two type of diagrams according to
P S | M I + M I I | 2 P S | M I | 2 | M I I | 2 ,
where M i = | M i | e i φ i and P S denotes integration over phase space. The above equation is, for example, fulfilled if the integrated matrix elements differ by a phase and obey
P S | M I I | 2 P S | M I | | M I I | cos φ I I φ I .
A similar observation can be made by comparing HP4 and HP5, which feature similar scalar masses but vary in the mass differences between M H + and M H . A detailed study shows that, as before, a larger mass gap increases contributions from GI I, therefore leading to a larger total result.
For the A A channel, things are slightly different. Here, the main contribution stems from W W fusion only, where the corresponding diagrams can be found in Appendix C. It is instructive to consider the contributions triggered by h- exchange, with the coupling strength λ ¯ 345 (cf. Equation (13)), with respect to the remaining diagrams. Note that this discussion now assumes unitary gauge; in general, the above split is not gauge-invariant. We again consider HP4 and HP5 at 30 TeV; these points have similar charged and heavier neutral scalar masses, but largely different M H , resulting in different λ ¯ 345 values. We list the separate contributions in Table 16. Note that the total contribution is dominated by the h exchange diagram for HP4, corresponding to the relatively large λ ¯ 345 value. From the table, we can see that indeed the different terms are found to be proportional to the ratio of the h H + H coupling squared.
In general, however, the total contribution depends on all three dark scalar masses. This can be seen in Table 17, where we compare BP21, HP12, as well as variations around BP21 where we vary the mass differences between the dark scalars. Comparing BP21b and BPP21c, we observe that the contribution from h-exchange is directly proportional to λ ¯ 345 2 , as expected. For a similar mass range of M A , we can therefore tune the total cross section by at least an order of magnitude by varying the other dark scalar masses.
In [103], the authors give a rough estimate of integrated luminosity that could be achieved at a muon collider, as a function of the center-of-mass energy. In particular
L s 10 TeV 2 .
For a 10 TeV collider, they estimate an integrated luminosity of 10 ab 1 for a 5-year run. Applying the above expression for the higher center-of-mass energy, we roughly expect the integrated luminosity to be larger by one order of magnitude.
The authors equally state that target processes at 10 TeV should have cross sections of O fb , with a similar rescaling at 30 TeV. Using this criterium, we see that at 10 TeV only BPs 16, 21, 22, and 23 would be accessible in the VBF-like production of A A , while none of the HPs can be tested. At 30 TeV, all low mass BPs are accessible; in the high mass region, HPs 2, 5-8, 10 and 18-20 render too low cross sections. This corresponds to a maximal mass range of about i M i = 1400 GeV .
In accordance with the previous discussion, we can again alternatively require that at least 1000 events are produced in order to assess accessibility of a certain benchmark point. Using this criterium, all low mass BPs would be accessible during a 5 year run at 10 TeV in all channels, with the exception of A A production for BP20; this channel however provides a large enough cross section at 30 TeV. For the high-mass HPs, HPs 1, 3, 4, 12 and 14 would be accessible in the A A channel, where HP 1 and 11 have large enough cross sections in the H + H channel. This corresponds to a mass range of up to 600 GeV(1400 GeV) in the H + H ( A A ) channel. At 30 TeV, all HPs would be accessible.
We want to emphasize again that the accessibility criterium of 1000 generated events can only be regarded as a first approximation and was introduced for comparison only; obviously, detailed investigations are needed in order to determine the true discovery range. We however consider this an easy selection criterium. More detailed results for investigation and reachability of the discussed benchmarks scenarios at CLIC can be found for example, in [33,51,104].

6. Conclusions

We have presented several benchmarks for the Inert Doublet Model, a Two Higgs Doublet Model with a dark matter candidate, and provided predictions for the pair-production of dark scalars at the 13 TeV LHC, a high-energy upgrade, as well as a possible 100 TeV proton-proton collider. We also gave predictions for pair-production cross sections at possible μ + μ colliders with various center-of-mass energies. Applying a simple counting criterium, we categorize these benchmarks in terms of their possible accessibility at different facilities. For example, after the high-luminosity run of the LHC, assuming target luminosity, for the low BPs in Table 1 all channels should be accessible, apart from the A A final state which is suppressed due to small absolute values of the coupling λ 345 . Taking additionally VBF-like topologies into account for this final state then renders all but BPs 18 - 20 accessible after the HL-LHC run. For the high benchmark points HPs 1 and 11-17 should be accessible in all but the A A channel; for HPs 18 and 19, in addition the A H , H H production modes render lower cross sections. For HP20, only the H H + and A H + channels look feasible. This corresponds to a possible reach up to about 500 GeV for scalar masses. For A A , masses up to 300 GeV render large enough cross sections. We also briefly comment on the possibility of using proton spectrometers at hadron colliders to tag processes induced via photon-photon fusion. At tree-level, only charged scalar pair-production is possible. Cross sections for these processes are much smaller than for direct pair-production, but some points are within range at both HL-LHC as well as a 100 TeV collider assuming high tagging efficiency of forward proton spectrometers.
In turn, several possible future scenarios are considered: a high-energy upgrade to a center of mass energy of 27 TeV, a 100 TeV proton-proton facility, as well as a possible muon collider with different energy stages. For CLIC, detailed studies are available and have been presented in [33,51,104,105,106]; we therefore omit their discussion here. The main result for 3 TeV CLIC is that the discovery reach for charged scalar pair-production extends to up to scalar masses of 1 TeV. At 27 TeV, we find that the range up to 1 TeV can basically be covered in all channels, although some of the BPs and HPs still remain elusive in the A A channel. At a 100 TeV collider, the number of HPs that remain inaccessible in this channel decreases. Including again A A production with additional jets, only two of the HP points remain inaccessible in this channel according to our simple counting criterium.
At a muon collider, we can again discuss both direct as well as VBF-like production channels. For direct production, A H as well as H + H seem to be accessible at all center-of-mass energies considered for all BPs and HPs. For the VBF-like probes, with 10 TeV center-of-mass energy, basically all low-mass BPs as well a subset of high-mass HPs are accessible for A A production, which might provide an interesting cross check. This corresponds to a mass scale for M A in this channel of about 700 GeV. At 30 TeV, all channels should be accessible assuming target luminosity over the whole runtime. In addition, for almost all scenarios the VBF-induced production of H + H gives higher cross sections than direct pair-production, with the exception of the HPs at 10 TeV.
We again want to emphasize that our rough criterium needs to be supported by detailed studies for each scenario, including both signal and background. However, we consider the BPs and HPs presented here give useful guidelines for either phenomenological studies or experimental searches.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.K., T.R., D.S., and A.F.Ż.; methodology, T.R. and D.S.; software, T.R. and D.S.; validation, T.R.; formal analysis, T.R.; investigation, T.R.; resources, J.K., T.R., and A.F.Ż.; data curation, T.R.; writing—original draft preparation, T.R. and D.S.; writing—review and editing, J.K., T.R., and A.F.Ż.; visualization, T.R. and A.F.Ż.; supervision, T.R.; project administration, T.R.; funding acquisition, J.K., T.R. and A.F.Ż. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported in parts by the National Science Centre, Poland, the HARMONIA project under contract UMO-2015/18/M/ST2/00518 (2016–2021) and OPUS project under contract UMO-2017/25/B/ST2/00496 (2018–2021). It is also partially based upon work from COST Action CA16201 PARTICLEFACE, supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology, www.cost.eu). The work of TR was partially supported by grant K 125105 of the National Research, Development and Innovation Fund in Hungary.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

J.K. thanks Gudrid Moortgat-Pick for her hospitality and the DFG for support through the SFB 676 “Particles, Strings and the Early Universe” during the initial stage of this project. We also want to thank the MicrOMEGAs authors for useful discussions regarding different versions of their code.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Benchmark Tables Using micrOMEGAs_5.2.4

We present the benchmark points from Table 1, were micrOMEGAs_5.2.4 has been used in the relic density calculation, in Table A1. For selected benchmark points, deviations can be up to 7 % . We also present values for micrOMEGAs_5.0.4 for fast=0 in the integration setup (see [89] for details).
Table A1. As Table 1 (without λ 2 and on or offshell information for intermediate gauge bosons), with dark matter relic density calculated using micrOMEGAs_5.2.4 and micrOMEGAs_5.0.4 with fast=0. Note that several benchmark points, selected previously to match PLANCK measurements, result in relic density slightly above the assumed limit (indicated by slashed font).
Table A1. As Table 1 (without λ 2 and on or offshell information for intermediate gauge bosons), with dark matter relic density calculated using micrOMEGAs_5.2.4 and micrOMEGAs_5.0.4 with fast=0. Note that several benchmark points, selected previously to match PLANCK measurements, result in relic density slightly above the assumed limit (indicated by slashed font).
No. M H M A M H ± λ 345 Ω H h 2 Ω H h 2 Ω H h 2
5.0.45.2.45.0.4, fast=0
BP172.77107.803114.639 0.00440723 0.119980.122770.12245
BP26571.525112.850.00040.070760.070850.070725
BP367.0773.22296.730.007380.061590.0617060.061569
BP473.68100.112145.728 0.00440723 0.0891140.088540.088507
BP672.14109.548154.761 0.00234 0.1170.121550.12104
BP776.55134.563174.3670.00440.0313810.0313340.031303
BP870.91148.664175.890.00580.122070.1226180.12537
BP956.78166.22178.240.003380.0812430.0812260.080547
BP2362.69162.397190.8220.00560.0650.06080.062146
BP1076.69154.579163.0450.00960.0281250.0283120.028293
BP1198.88155.037155.438 0.0628 0.0027350.0027350.0027319
BP1258.31171.148172.960.007620.00641040.00640980.0063558
BP1399.65138.484181.3210.05320.00125410.00125410.0012534
BP1471.03165.604175.9710.005960.118330.122450.12169
BP1571.03217.656218.7380.002140.122170.126470.12571
BP1671.33203.796229.092 0.00122 0.122050.126860.12615
BP18147194.647197.403 0.018 0.00177110.00177110.0017667
BP19165.8190.082195.999 0.004 0.00283080.00283080.0028209
BP20191.8198.376199.7210.0080.00842190.00842190.0083755
BP2157.475288.031299.5360.001920.119420.119370.11845
BP2271.42247.224258.382 0.0032 0.122060.126990.1263

Appendix B. Diagrams Contributing to μ+ μH+ H ν μ ν ¯ μ

Appendix B.1. Diagrams via W + W - Fusion (GI I)

Figure A1. GI I diagrams for W + W fusion.
Figure A1. GI I diagrams for W + W fusion.
Symmetry 13 00991 g0a1

Appendix B.2. Sample Diagrams via Wμ Fusion (GI II)

Figure A2. GI II diagrams for W μ fusion.
Figure A2. GI II diagrams for W μ fusion.
Symmetry 13 00991 g0a2

Appendix C. Sample Diagrams Contributing to μ+ μAA ν μ ν ¯ μ

Figure A3. Diagrams for W + W fusion.
Figure A3. Diagrams for W + W fusion.
Symmetry 13 00991 g0a3

References

  1. Deshpande, N.G.; Ma, E. Pattern of Symmetry Breaking with Two Higgs Doublets. Phys. Rev. D 1978, 18, 2574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Cao, Q.H.; Ma, E.; Rajasekaran, G. Observing the Dark Scalar Doublet and its Impact on the Standard-Model Higgs Boson at Colliders. Phys. Rev. D 2007, 76, 95011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Barbieri, R.; Hall, L.J.; Rychkov, V.S. Improved naturalness with a heavy Higgs: An Alternative road to LHC physics. Phys. Rev. D 2006, 74, 15007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Lopez Honorez, L.; Nezri, E.; Oliver, J.F.; Tytgat, M.H.G. The Inert Doublet Model: An Archetype for Dark Matter. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2007, 702, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lopez Honorez, L.; Yaguna, C.E. The inert doublet model of dark matter revisited. J. High Energy Phys. 2010, 9, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Dolle, E.M.; Su, S. The Inert Dark Matter. Phys. Rev. D 2009, 80, 55012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Goudelis, A.; Herrmann, B.; Stal, O. Dark matter in the Inert Doublet Model after the discovery of a Higgs-like boson at the LHC. J. High Energy Phys. 2013, 9, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Lundstrom, E.; Gustafsson, M.; Edsjo, J. The Inert Doublet Model and LEP II Limits. Phys. Rev. D 2009, 79, 35013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Dolle, E.; Miao, X.; Su, S.; Thomas, B. Dilepton Signals in the Inert Doublet Model. Phys. Rev. D 2010, 81, 35003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Gustafsson, M.; Rydbeck, S.; Lopez-Honorez, L.; Lundstrom, E. Status of the Inert Doublet Model and the Role of multileptons at the LHC. Phys. Rev. D 2012, 86, 75019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Aoki, M.; Kanemura, S.; Yokoya, H. Reconstruction of Inert Doublet Scalars at the International Linear Collider. Phys. Lett. B 2013, 725, 302–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ho, S.Y.; Tandean, J. Probing Scotogenic Effects in e+e Colliders. Phys. Rev. D 2014, 89, 114025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Arhrib, A.; Tsai, Y.L.S.; Yuan, Q.; Yuan, T.C. An Updated Analysis of Inert Higgs Doublet Model in light of the Recent Results from LUX, PLANCK, AMS-02 and LHC. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2014, 1406, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Arhrib, A.; Benbrik, R.; Gaur, N. Hγγ in Inert Higgs Doublet Model. Phys. Rev. D 2012, 85, 95021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Swiezewska, B.; Krawczyk, M. Diphoton rate in the inert doublet model with a 125 GeV Higgs boson. Phys. Rev. D 2013, 88, 35019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Krawczyk, M.; Sokolowska, D.; Swaczyna, P.; Swiezewska, B. Constraining Inert Dark Matter by Rγγ and WMAP data. J. High Energy Phys. 2013, 9, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Ginzburg, I.F. Measuring mass and spin of Dark Matter particles with the aid energy spectra of single lepton and dijet at the e+e Linear Collider. J. Mod. Phys. 2014, 5, 1036–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Belanger, G.; Dumont, B.; Goudelis, A.; Herrmann, B.; Kraml, S.; Sengupta, D. Dilepton constraints in the Inert Doublet Model from Run 1 of the LHC. Phys. Rev. D 2015, 91, 115011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Blinov, N.; Kozaczuk, J.; Morrissey, D.E.; de la Puente, A. Compressing the Inert Doublet Model. Phys. Rev. D 2016, 93, 35020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Ilnicka, A.; Krawczyk, M.; Robens, T. Inert Doublet Model in light of LHC Run I and astrophysical data. Phys. Rev. 2016, D93, 55026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Hashemi, M.; Krawczyk, M.; Najjari, S.; Żarnecki, A.F. Production of Inert Scalars at the high energy e+e colliders. J. High Energy Phys. 2016, 2, 187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Arhrib, A.; Benbrik, R.; El Falaki, J.; Jueid, A. Radiative corrections to the Triple Higgs Coupling in the Inert Higgs Doublet Model. J. High Energy Phys. 2015, 12, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Poulose, P.; Sahoo, S.; Sridhar, K. Exploring the Inert Doublet Model through the dijet plus missing transverse energy channel at the LHC. Phys. Lett. B 2017, 765, 300–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Datta, A.; Ganguly, N.; Khan, N.; Rakshit, S. Exploring collider signatures of the inert Higgs doublet model. Phys. Rev. D 2017, 95, 15017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Hashemi, M.; Najjari, S. Observability of Inert Scalars at the LHC. Eur. Phys. J. C 2017, 77, 592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kanemura, S.; Kikuchi, M.; Sakurai, K. Testing the dark matter scenario in the inert doublet model by future precision measurements of the Higgs boson couplings. Phys. Rev. D 2016, 94, 115011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Akeroyd, A.G.; Hernandez-Sanchez, J.; Mahmoudi, F.; Santos, R.; Akeroyd, A.; Moretti, S.; Yagyu, K.; Yildirim, E.; Khater, W.; Krawczyk, M.; et al. Prospects for charged Higgs searches at the LHC. Eur. Phys. J. C 2017, 77, 276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Biondini, S.; Laine, M. Re-derived overclosure bound for the inert doublet model. J. High Energy Phys. 2017, 8, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Wan, N.; Li, N.; Zhang, B.; Yang, H.; Zhao, M.F.; Song, M.; Li, G.; Guo, J.Y. Searches for Dark Matter via Mono-W Production in Inert Doublet Model at the LHC. Commun. Theor. Phys. 2018, 69, 617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ilnicka, A.; Robens, T.; Stefaniak, T. Constraining Extended Scalar Sectors at the LHC and beyond. Mod. Phys. Lett. A 2018, 33, 1830007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Belyaev, A.; Fernandez Perez Tomei, T.R.; Mercadante, P.G.; Moon, C.S.; Moretti, S.; Novaes, S.F.; Panizzi, L.; Rojas, F.; Thomas, M. Advancing LHC probes of dark matter from the inert two-Higgs-doublet model with the monojet signal. Phys. Rev. D 2019, 99, 15011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Kalinowski, J.; Kotlarski, W.; Robens, T.; Sokolowska, D.; Zarnecki, A.F. Benchmarking the Inert Doublet Model for e+e colliders. J. High Energy Phys. 2018, 12, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Kalinowski, J.; Kotlarski, W.; Robens, T.; Sokolowska, D.; Zarnecki, A.F. Exploring Inert Scalars at CLIC. J. High Energy Phys. 2019, 7, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Dercks, D.; Robens, T. Constraining the Inert Doublet Model using Vector Boson Fusion. Eur. Phys. J. C 2019, 79, 924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bhardwaj, A.; Konar, P.; Mandal, T.; Sadhukhan, S. Probing the inert doublet model using jet substructure with a multivariate analysis. Phys. Rev. D 2019, 100, 55040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Kanemura, S.; Kikuchi, M.; Mawatari, K.; Sakurai, K.; Yagyu, K. Full next-to-leading-order calculations of Higgs boson decay rates in models with non-minimal scalar sectors. Nucl. Phys. B 2019, 949, 114791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Banerjee, S.; Boudjema, F.; Chakrabarty, N.; Chalons, G.; Sun, H. Relic density of dark matter in the inert doublet model beyond leading order: The heavy mass case. Phys. Rev. D 2019, 100, 95024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Tsai, Y.L.S.; Tran, V.Q.; Lu, C.T. Confronting dark matter co-annihilation of Inert two Higgs Doublet Model with a compressed mass spectrum. J. High Energy Phys. 2020, 6, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Braathen, J.; Kanemura, S. On two-loop corrections to the Higgs trilinear coupling in models with extended scalar sectors. Phys. Lett. B 2019, 796, 38–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Braathen, J.; Kanemura, S. Leading two-loop corrections to the Higgs boson self-couplings in models with extended scalar sectors. Eur. Phys. J. C 2020, 80, 227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Guo-He, Y.; Mao, S.; Gang, L.; Yu, Z.; Jian-You, G. Searches for dark matter via charged Higgs pair production in the Inert Doublet Model at γγ collider. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2006.06216. [Google Scholar]
  42. Abouabid, H.; Arhrib, A.; Benbrik, R.; Falaki, J.E.; Gong, B.; Xie, W.; Yan, Q.S. One-loop radiative corrections to e+eZh0/H0A0 in the Inert Higgs Doublet Model. J. High Energy Phys. 2021, 5, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Fabian, S.; Goertz, F.; Jiang, Y. Dark Matter and Nature of Electroweak Phase Transition with an Inert Doublet. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2012.12847. [Google Scholar]
  44. Basu, R.; Banerjee, S.; Pandey, M.; Majumdar, D. Lower bounds on dark matter annihilation cross-sections by studying the fluctuations of 21-cm line with dark matter candidate in inert doublet model (IDM) with the combined effects of dark matter scattering and annihilation. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2010.11007. [Google Scholar]
  45. Jangid, S.; Bandyopadhyay, P. Distinguishing Inert Higgs Doublet and Inert Triplet Scenarios. Eur. Phys. J. C 2020, 80, 715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Banerjee, S.; Boudjema, F.; Chakrabarty, N.; Sun, H. Relic density of dark matter in the inert doublet model beyond leading order for the low mass region: 1. Renormalisation and constraints. arXiv 2021, arXiv:2101.02165. [Google Scholar]
  47. Banerjee, S.; Boudjema, F.; Chakrabarty, N.; Sun, H. Relic density of dark matter in the inert doublet model beyond leading order for the low mass region: 2. Co-annihilation. arXiv 2021, arXiv:2101.02166. [Google Scholar]
  48. Banerjee, S.; Boudjema, F.; Chakrabarty, N.; Sun, H. Relic density of dark matter in the inert doublet model beyond leading order for the low mass region: 3. Annihilation in 3-body final state. arXiv 2021, arXiv:2101.02167. [Google Scholar]
  49. Banerjee, S.; Boudjema, F.; Chakrabarty, N.; Sun, H. Relic density of dark matter in the inert doublet model beyond leading order for the low mass region: 4. The Higgs resonance region. arXiv 2021, arXiv:2101.02170. [Google Scholar]
  50. Yang, F.X.; Han, Z.L.; Jin, Y. Same-Sign Dilepton Signature in the Inert Doublet Model. Chin. Phys. C 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. De Blas, J.; Franceschini, R.; Riva, F.; Roloff, P.; Schnoor, U.; Spannowsky, M.; Wells, J.D.; Wulzer, A.; Zupan, J.; Alipour-Fard, S.; et al. The CLIC Potential for New Physics. arXiv 2018, arXiv:1812.02093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Alwall, J.; Herquet, M.; Maltoni, F.; Mattelaer, O.; Stelzer, T. MadGraph 5: Going Beyond. J. High Energy Phys. 2011, 6, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Available online: https://feynrules.irmp.ucl.ac.be/wiki/ModelDatabaseMainPage (accessed on 18 December 2020).
  54. Zyla, P.A.; Barnett, R.M.; Beringer, J.; Dahl, O.; Dwyer, D.A.; Groom, D.E.; Lin, C.-J.; Lugovsky, K.S.; Pianori, E.; Robinson, D.J.; et al. Review of Particle Physics. Progress Theor. Exp. Phys. 2020, 2020, 83C01. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Available online: https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/AtlasPublic/SupersymmetryPublicResults (accessed on 26 April 2021).
  56. Available online: https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/CMSPublic/PhysicsResultsSUS (accessed on 26 April 2021).
  57. Ipek, S.; McKeen, D.; Nelson, A.E. A Renormalizable Model for the Galactic Center Gamma Ray Excess from Dark Matter Annihilation. Phys. Rev. D 2014, 90, 55021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. No, J.M. Looking through the pseudoscalar portal into dark matter: Novel mono-Higgs and mono-Z signatures at the LHC. Phys. Rev. D 2016, 93, 31701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Goncalves, D.; Machado, P.A.N.; No, J.M. Simplified Models for Dark Matter Face their Consistent Completions. Phys. Rev. D 2017, 95, 55027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Bauer, M.; Haisch, U.; Kahlhoefer, F. Simplified dark matter models with two Higgs doublets: I. Pseudoscalar mediators. J. High Energy Phys. 2017, 5, 138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Tunney, P.; No, J.M.; Fairbairn, M. Probing the pseudoscalar portal to dark matter via b¯ bZ(→ )+¬ ET: From the LHC to the Galactic Center excess. Phys. Rev. D 2017, 96, 95020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Abe, T.; Afik, Y.; Albert, A.; Anelli, C.R.; Barak, L.; Bauer, M.; Behr, J.K.; Bell, N.F.; Boveia, A.; Brandt, O.; et al. LHC Dark Matter Working Group: Next-generation spin-0 dark matter models. Phys. Dark Univ. 2020, 27, 100351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Robens, T. The THDMa revisited—A preview. arXiv 2021, arXiv:2105.06231. [Google Scholar]
  64. Ginzburg, I.F.; Kanishev, K.A.; Krawczyk, M.; Sokolowska, D. Evolution of Universe to the present inert phase. Phys. Rev. D 2010, 82, 123533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. The ATLAS Collaboration. Measurement of the Higgs boson mass in the HZZ*→4 and Hγγ channels with s=13 TeV pp collisions using the ATLAS detector. Phys. Lett. B 2018, 784, 345–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Mondal, K. Measurements of Higgs Boson Production and Properties in Di-photon Decay Channel Using Data Collected by CMS Detector at Center of Mass Energy of 13 TeV. Springer Proc. Phys. 2018, 203, 201–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Sirunyan, A.M.; Tumasyan, A.; Adam, W.; Ambrogi, F.; Asilar, E.; Bergauer, T.; Brandstetter, J.; Dragicevic, M.; Erö, J.; Escalante Del Valle, A.; et al. Measurements of the Higgs boson width and anomalous HVV couplings from on-shell and off-shell production in the four-lepton final state. Phys. Rev. D 2019, 99, 112003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. The ATLAS Collaboration. Combination of Searches for Invisible Higgs Boson Decays with the ATLAS Experiment; Technical Report ATLAS-CONF-2020-052; CERN: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  69. Bechtle, P.; Heinemeyer, S.; Stal, O.; Stefaniak, T.; Weiglein, G. HiggsSignals: Confronting arbitrary Higgs sectors with measurements at the Tevatron and the LHC. Eur. Phys. J. C 2014, 74, 2711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Bechtle, P.; Heinemeyer, S.; Klingl, T.; Stefaniak, T.; Weiglein, G.; Wittbrodt, J. HiggsSignals-2: Probing new physics with precision Higgs measurements in the LHC 13 TeV era. Eur. Phys. J. C 2021, 81, 145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Altarelli, G.; Barbieri, R. Vacuum polarization effects of new physics on electroweak processes. Phys. Lett. B 1991, 253, 161–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Peskin, M.E.; Takeuchi, T. A New constraint on a strongly interacting Higgs sector. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1990, 65, 964–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  73. Peskin, M.E.; Takeuchi, T. Estimation of oblique electroweak corrections. Phys. Rev. D 1992, 46, 381–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Maksymyk, I.; Burgess, C.P.; London, D. Beyond S, T and U. Phys. Rev. D 1994, 50, 529–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Available online: http://project-gfitter.web.cern.ch/project-gfitter/ (accessed on 26 April 2021).
  76. Haller, J.; Hoecker, A.; Kogler, R.; Moenig, K.; Peiffer, T.; Stelzer, J. Update of the global electroweak fit and constraints on two-Higgs-doublet models. Eur. Phys. J. C 2018, 78, 675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Eriksson, D.; Rathsman, J.; Stål, O. 2HDMC: Two-Higgs-Doublet Model Calculator Physics and Manual. Comput. Phys. Commun. 2010, 181, 189–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Pierce, A.; Thaler, J. Natural Dark Matter from an Unnatural Higgs Boson and New Colored Particles at the TeV Scale. J. High Energy Phys. 2007, 8, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Heisig, J.; Kraml, S.; Lessa, A. Constraining new physics with searches for long-lived particles: Implementation into SModelS. Phys. Lett. B 2019, 788, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Belyaev, A.; Prestel, S.; Rojas-Abbate, F.; Zurita, J. Probing Dark Matter with Disappearing Tracks at the LHC. Phys. Rev. D 2021, 103, 95006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Bechtle, P.; Brein, O.; Heinemeyer, S.; Weiglein, G.; Williams, K.E. HiggsBounds: Confronting Arbitrary Higgs Sectors with Exclusion Bounds from LEP and the Tevatron. Comput. Phys. Commun. 2010, 181, 138–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Bechtle, P.; Brein, O.; Heinemeyer, S.; Weiglein, G.; Williams, K.E. HiggsBounds 2.0.0: Confronting Neutral and Charged Higgs Sector Predictions with Exclusion Bounds from LEP and the Tevatron. Comput. Phys. Commun. 2011, 182, 2605–2631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Bechtle, P.; Brein, O.; Heinemeyer, S.; Stål, O.; Stefaniak, T.; Weiglein, G.; Williams, K.E. HiggsBounds-4: Improved Tests of Extended Higgs Sectors against Exclusion Bounds from LEP, the Tevatron and the LHC. Eur. Phys. J. C 2014, 74, 2693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Bechtle, P.; Heinemeyer, S.; Stål, O.; Stefaniak, T.; Weiglein, G. Applying Exclusion Likelihoods from LHC Searches to Extended Higgs Sectors. Eur. Phys. J. C 2015, 75, 421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Bechtle, P.; Dercks, D.; Heinemeyer, S.; Klingl, T.; Stefaniak, T.; Weiglein, G.; Wittbrodt, J. HiggsBounds-5: Testing Higgs Sectors in the LHC 13 TeV Era. Eur. Phys. J. C 2020, 80, 1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Aghanim, N.; Akrami, Y.; Ashdown, M.; Aumont, J.; Baccigalupi, C.; Ballardini, M.; Banday, A.J.; Barreiro, R.B.; Bartolo, N.; Basak, S.; et al. Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. Astron. Astrophys. 2020, 641, A6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Aprile, E.; Aalbers, J.; Agostini, F.; Alfonsi, M.; Althueser, L.; Amaro, F.D.; Anthony, M.; Arneodo, F.; Baudis, L.; XENON Collaboration; et al. Dark Matter Search Results from a One Tonne×Year Exposure of XENON1T. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2018, 121, 111302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  88. Belyaev, A.; Blandford, J.; Locke, D. PhenoData Database. January 2017. Available online: https://hepmdb.soton.ac.uk/phenodata (accessed on 26 April 2021).
  89. Belanger, G.; Boudjema, F.; Goudelis, A.; Pukhov, A.; Zaldivar, B. micrOMEGAs5.0: Freeze-in. Comput. Phys. Commun. 2018, 231, 173–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Belanger, G.; Mjallal, A.; Pukhov, A. Recasting direct detection limits within micrOMEGAs and implication for non-standard Dark Matter scenarios. Eur. Phys. J. C 2021, 81, 239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Belyaev, A.; Cacciapaglia, G.; Ivanov, I.P.; Rojas-Abatte, F.; Thomas, M. Anatomy of the Inert Two Higgs Doublet Model in the light of the LHC and non-LHC Dark Matter Searches. Phys. Rev. D 2018, 97, 35011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Lopez Honorez, L.; Yaguna, C.E. A new viable region of the inert doublet model. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2011, 1101, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Hambye, T.; Ling, F.S.; Lopez Honorez, L.; Rocher, J. Scalar Multiplet Dark Matter. J. High Energy Phys. 2009, 7, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Twiki for HL/HE-LHC Physics Workshop. Available online: https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCPhysics/HLHELHCWorkshop (accessed on 26 April 2021).
  95. Abada, A.; Abbrescia, M.; AbdusSalam, S.S.; Abdyukhanov, I.; Abelleira Fernandez, J.; Abramov, A.; Aburaia, M.; Acar, A.O.; Adzic, P.R.; Agrawal, P.; et al. HE-LHC: The High-Energy Large Hadron Collider. Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 2019, 228, 1109–1382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Abada, A.; Abbrescia, M.; AbdusSalam, S.S.; Abdyukhanov, I.; Abelleria Fernandez, J.A.; Abramov, A.; Aburaia, M.; Acar, A.O.; Adzic, P.R.; Agrawal, P.; et al. FCC-hh: The Hadron Collider. Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 2019, 228, 755–1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Ellis, R.K.; Heinemann, B.; de Blas, J.; Cepeda, M.; Grojean, C.; Maltoni, F.; Nisati, A.; Petit, E.; Rattazzi, R.; Verkerke, W.; et al. Physics Briefing Book: Input for the European Strategy for Particle Physics Update 2020. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1910.11775. [Google Scholar]
  98. Adamczyk, L.; Banaś, E.; Brandt, A.; Bruschi, M.; Grinstein, S.; Lange, J.; Rijssenbeek, M.; Sicho, P.; Staszewski, R.; Sykora, T.; et al. Technical Design Report for the ATLAS Forward Proton Detector; Technical Report, CERN-LHCC-2015-009, ATLAS-TDR-024; CERN: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  99. Albrow, M.; Arneodo, M.; Avati, V.; Baechler, J.; Cartiglia, N.; Deile, M.; Gallinaro, M.; Hollar, J.; Lo Vetere, M.; Oesterberg, K.; et al. CMS-TOTEM Precision Proton Spectrometer; Technical Report, CERN-LHCC-2014-021, TOTEM-TDR-003, CMS-TDR-13; CERN: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  100. CMS Collaboration. The CMS Precision Proton Spectrometer at the HL-LHC—Expression of Interest. arXiv 2021, arXiv:2103.02752. [Google Scholar]
  101. First Collaboration Meeting on Physics and Experiments at a Muon Collider. Available online: https://indico.cern.ch/event/939986/ (accessed on 26 April 2021).
  102. Chakrabarty, N.; Han, T.; Liu, Z.; Mukhopadhyaya, B. Radiative Return for Heavy Higgs Boson at a Muon Collider. Phys. Rev. D 2015, 91, 15008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Delahaye, J.P.; Diemoz, M.; Long, K.; Mansoulié, B.; Pastrone, N.; Rivkin, L.; Schulte, D.; Skrinsky, A.; Wulzer, A. Muon Colliders. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1901.06150. [Google Scholar]
  104. Zarnecki, A.F.; Kalinowski, J.; Klamka, J.; Sopicki, P.; Kotlarski, W.; Robens, T.; Sokolowska, D. Searching Inert Scalars at Future e+e Colliders. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Future Linear Colliders (LCWS 2019) Sendai, Miyagi, Japan, 28 October–1 November 2019. [Google Scholar]
  105. Zarnecki, A.F.; Kalinowski, J.; Klamka, J.; Sopicki, P.; Kotlarski, W.; Robens, T.N.; Sokolowska, D. Searching inert scalars at future e+e colliders. PoS 2020, CORFU2019, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Klamka, J.F. Searching for Inert Doublet Model scalars at high energy CLIC. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland, 1 July 2020. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Distribution of benchmark candidate points (green) in the ( M H + M H ; M A M H ) plane, after all constraints are taken into account, as well as selected benchmark points (red) in the same plane. The dashed lines indicate the electroweak gauge boson masses that distinguish between on- and off-shell decays of dark scalars. The relatively narrow band stems mainly from electroweak precision constraints. Plot was shown previously in [32].
Figure 1. Distribution of benchmark candidate points (green) in the ( M H + M H ; M A M H ) plane, after all constraints are taken into account, as well as selected benchmark points (red) in the same plane. The dashed lines indicate the electroweak gauge boson masses that distinguish between on- and off-shell decays of dark scalars. The relatively narrow band stems mainly from electroweak precision constraints. Plot was shown previously in [32].
Symmetry 13 00991 g001
Figure 2. Production cross sections for benchmarks from Table 1 and Table 2 as a function of the produced scalar mass sum, for on-shell scalar pair-production at 13 TeV LHC. Horizontal dashed lines indicate minimal cross sections required to produce 1000 events at LHC Run 2 and HL-LHC (see text for details).
Figure 2. Production cross sections for benchmarks from Table 1 and Table 2 as a function of the produced scalar mass sum, for on-shell scalar pair-production at 13 TeV LHC. Horizontal dashed lines indicate minimal cross sections required to produce 1000 events at LHC Run 2 and HL-LHC (see text for details).
Symmetry 13 00991 g002
Figure 3. Ratio of production cross sections for all production channels specified with at least one unstable new scalar at the 27 TeV HE-LHC and current center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. While in the low energy range, cross sections are enhanced roughly by a factor 3 , for higher masses they can change by an order of magnitude. Scenarios with cross-section value smaller than 10 3 fb at 13 TeV are not indicated.
Figure 3. Ratio of production cross sections for all production channels specified with at least one unstable new scalar at the 27 TeV HE-LHC and current center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. While in the low energy range, cross sections are enhanced roughly by a factor 3 , for higher masses they can change by an order of magnitude. Scenarios with cross-section value smaller than 10 3 fb at 13 TeV are not indicated.
Symmetry 13 00991 g003
Figure 4. Production cross sections for benchmarks from Table 1 and Table 2 as a function of the produced scalar mass sum, for selected scalar pair-production channels, for 13 TeV, 27 TeV and 100 TeV proton collider options. Horizontal dashed lines indicate minimal cross sections required to produce 1000 events at the respective energy, assuming design luminosity.
Figure 4. Production cross sections for benchmarks from Table 1 and Table 2 as a function of the produced scalar mass sum, for selected scalar pair-production channels, for 13 TeV, 27 TeV and 100 TeV proton collider options. Horizontal dashed lines indicate minimal cross sections required to produce 1000 events at the respective energy, assuming design luminosity.
Symmetry 13 00991 g004
Figure 5. Ratio of production cross sections for all production channels specified with at least one unstable new scalar at the 100 TeV pp collider and the LHC with a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. Production cross sections are enhanced roughly by one to two orders of magnitude.
Figure 5. Ratio of production cross sections for all production channels specified with at least one unstable new scalar at the 100 TeV pp collider and the LHC with a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. Production cross sections are enhanced roughly by one to two orders of magnitude.
Symmetry 13 00991 g005
Figure 6. Production cross sections for benchmarks from Table 1 and Table 2 as a function of the produced scalar mass sum, for VBF production channels, for 13 TeV, 27 TeV and 100 TeV proton collider options. Horizontal dashed lines indicate minimal cross sections required to produce 1000 events at the respective energy, assuming design luminosity.
Figure 6. Production cross sections for benchmarks from Table 1 and Table 2 as a function of the produced scalar mass sum, for VBF production channels, for 13 TeV, 27 TeV and 100 TeV proton collider options. Horizontal dashed lines indicate minimal cross sections required to produce 1000 events at the respective energy, assuming design luminosity.
Symmetry 13 00991 g006
Figure 7. Enhancement of A A production cross sections at pp colliders with various center-of-mass energies when VBF-type topologies are included. Only points with minimal cross-section requirements as specified in the text are shown. See detailed discussion in main body of paper.
Figure 7. Enhancement of A A production cross sections at pp colliders with various center-of-mass energies when VBF-type topologies are included. Only points with minimal cross-section requirements as specified in the text are shown. See detailed discussion in main body of paper.
Symmetry 13 00991 g007
Figure 8. Production cross sections for benchmarks from Table 1 and Table 2 as a function of the produced scalar mass sum, for A A and H + H production at 10 TeV and 30 TeV muon collider. Horizontal dashed lines indicate minimal cross sections required to produce 1000 events at the respective energy, assuming 5 year integrated design luminosity.
Figure 8. Production cross sections for benchmarks from Table 1 and Table 2 as a function of the produced scalar mass sum, for A A and H + H production at 10 TeV and 30 TeV muon collider. Horizontal dashed lines indicate minimal cross sections required to produce 1000 events at the respective energy, assuming 5 year integrated design luminosity.
Symmetry 13 00991 g008
Table 1. In all benchmarks M h = 125.1 GeV. Bold font denotes BP with 100% DM relic density. Note that BP5 and BP17 were excluded by the updated XENON1T limits [87]. Taken from [32], with adjustments for λ 345 as discussed in [33] and updated relic density values using micOMEGAS_5.0.4.
Table 1. In all benchmarks M h = 125.1 GeV. Bold font denotes BP with 100% DM relic density. Note that BP5 and BP17 were excluded by the updated XENON1T limits [87]. Taken from [32], with adjustments for λ 345 as discussed in [33] and updated relic density values using micOMEGAS_5.0.4.
No. M H M A M H ± Z
on shell
W
on shell
DM
>50%
λ 2 λ 345 Ω H h 2
BP172.77107.803114.639 1.44513 0.00440723 0.11998
BP26571.525112.85 0.7791150.00040.07076
BP367.0773.22296.73 00.007380.06159
BP473.68100.112145.728 2.08602 0.00440723 0.089114
BP672.14109.548154.761 0.0125664 0.00234 0.117
BP776.55134.563174.367 1.947790.00440.031381
BP870.91148.664175.89 0.4398230.00580.12207
BP956.78166.22178.240.5026550.003380.081243
BP2362.69162.397190.8222.638940.00560.065
BP1076.69154.579163.045 3.920710.00960.028125
BP1198.88155.037155.438 1.18124 0.0628 0.002735
BP1258.31171.148172.96 0.5403540.007620.0064104
BP1399.65138.484181.321 2.463010.05320.0012541
BP1471.03165.604175.9710.3392920.005960.11833
BP1571.03217.656218.7380.7665490.002140.12217
BP1671.33203.796229.0921.03044 0.00122 0.12205
BP18147194.647197.403 0.387 0.018 0.0017711
BP19165.8190.082195.999 2.7675 0.004 0.0028308
BP20191.8198.376199.721 1.50750.0080.0084219
BP2157.475288.031299.5360.9299110.001920.11942
BP2271.42247.224258.3821.04301 0.0032 0.12206
Table 2. High-mass benchmark points (HPs) accessible at colliders with O TeV center-of-mass energies. M h = 125.1 GeV for all points. HP10 provides exact relic density. Taken from [32], with adjustments for λ 345 as discussed in [33] and updated relic density values using micOMEGAS_5.0.4.
Table 2. High-mass benchmark points (HPs) accessible at colliders with O TeV center-of-mass energies. M h = 125.1 GeV for all points. HP10 provides exact relic density. Taken from [32], with adjustments for λ 345 as discussed in [33] and updated relic density values using micOMEGAS_5.0.4.
No. M H M A M H ± Z
on-shell
W
on-shell
DM
>50%
λ 2 λ 345 Ω H h 2
HP1176291.36311.96 1.4895 0.1035 0.00072692
HP2557562.316565.417 4.0455 0.1385 0.07163
HP3560616.32633.48 3.3795 0.0895 0.0011357
HP4571676.534682.54 1.98 0.471 0.00056712
HP5671688.108688.437 1.377 0.1455 0.024523
HP6713716.444723.045 2.880.28850.035145
HP7807813.369818.001 3.66750.2990.032488
HP8933939.968943.787 2.9745 0.2435 0.09637
HP9935986.22987.975 2.484 0.5795 0.0028109
HP10990992.36998.12 3.3345 0.040 0.12215
HP11250.5265.49287.226 3.90814 0.150071 0.0053534
HP12286.05294.617332.457 3.292390.1121240.002771
HP13336353.264360.568 2.48814 0.106372 0.009366
HP14326.55331.938381.773 0.0251327 0.0626727 0.0035646
HP15357.6399.998402.568 2.06088 0.237469 0.0034553
HP16387.75406.118413.464 0.816814 0.208336 0.01158
HP17430.95433.226440.624 3.003360.0829910.032697
HP18428.25453.979459.696 3.87044 0.281168 0.0085817
HP19467.85488.604492.329 4.12177 0.252036 0.013879
HP20505.2516.58543.794 2.53841 0.354 0.0088693
Table 3. Production cross sections in fb for low-mass benchmark points from Table 1, for different on-shell scalar pair-production channels at 13 TeV LHC. Bold font denotes benchmark points for which H completely saturates DM relic density.
Table 3. Production cross sections in fb for low-mass benchmark points from Table 1, for different on-shell scalar pair-production channels at 13 TeV LHC. Bold font denotes benchmark points for which H completely saturates DM relic density.
No. M H M A M H ± HA H H + H H AH + A H H + H AA
BP172.77107.803114.63932230418316998.21330.925
BP26571.525112.8510203632203231951411.46
BP367.0773.22296.739095053114442722430.939
BP473.68100.112145.72837716696.411565.756.30.757
BP672.14109.548154.76131414483.590.050.045.50.912
BP776.55134.563174.36717399.156.250.927.729.30.491
BP870.91148.664175.8914410358.642.823.028.60.500
BP956.78166.22178.2412511666.434.518.327.30.683
BP1076.69154.579163.04512011967.846.425.237.30.489
BP1198.88155.037155.43887.710157.250.527.544.00.278
BP1258.31171.148172.9611312571.734.618.430.30.554
BP1399.65138.484181.32111368.838.244.924.225.00.209
BP1471.03165.604175.97110610358.535.618.928.60.650
BP1571.03217.656218.73846.954.630.014.27.1412.90.502
BP1671.33203.796229.09257.347.325.814.67.3610.90.536
BP18147194.647197.40329.234.018.121.311.017.90.112
BP19165.8190.082195.99925.228.615.022.611.718.30.0362
BP20191.8198.376199.72117.721.411.020.110.316.90.00305
BP2157.475288.031299.53620.621.811.44.442.064.090.345
BP2271.42247.224258.38231.332.517.38.043.897.000.381
BP2362.69162.397190.82212588.950.231.316.521.10.545
Table 4. Production cross sections in fb for high-mass benchmark points from Table 2, for different on-shell scalar pair-production channels at the 13 TeV LHC. Dashes ( - ) indicate cross-section values smaller than 10 3 fb . For the HP10 scenario (bold) H completely saturates DM relic density.
Table 4. Production cross sections in fb for high-mass benchmark points from Table 2, for different on-shell scalar pair-production channels at the 13 TeV LHC. Dashes ( - ) indicate cross-section values smaller than 10 3 fb . For the HP10 scenario (bold) H completely saturates DM relic density.
No. M H M A M H ± HA H H + H H AH + AH H + H AA
HP1176291.36311.968.338.764.273.991.843.120.132
HP2557562.316565.4170.1840.2590.09930.2530.09700.190-
HP3560616.32633.480.1430.1910.07180.1530.05650.1150.00273
HP4571676.534682.540.1050.1490.05520.09910.03580.08300.00512
HP5671688.108688.4370.06720.09900.03580.09270.03340.0690-
HP6713716.444723.0450.05110.07400.02630.07300.02600.0529-
HP7807813.369818.0010.02530.03750.01290.03670.01260.0265-
HP8933939.968943.7870.01060.01610.005300.01570.005180.0113-
HP9935986.22987.9750.009040.01390.004530.01180.003830.00883-
HP10990992.36998.120.007420.01130.003660.01120.003630.00794-
HP11250.5265.49287.2265.826.303.005.662.684.03-
HP12286.05294.617332.4573.593.601.643.411.562.230.00337
HP13336353.264360.5681.732.210.9771.990.8741.540.00135
HP14326.55331.938381.7732.112.050.9021.990.8721.23-
HP15357.6399.998402.5681.141.520.6551.210.5120.9550.00556
HP16387.75406.118413.4640.9311.210.5151.100.4640.840-
HP17430.95433.226440.6240.6320.8370.3470.8280.3420.627-
HP18428.25453.979459.6960.5750.7690.3180.6780.2760.517-
HP19467.85488.604492.3290.3940.5410.2170.4900.1960.374-
HP20505.2516.58543.7940.2870.3570.1400.3400.1320.233-
Table 5. Production cross sections for BPs from Table 1 in fb for for on-shell scalar pair-production at 27 TeV HE-LHC.
Table 5. Production cross sections for BPs from Table 1 in fb for for on-shell scalar pair-production at 27 TeV HE-LHC.
No. M H M A M H ± HA H H + H H AH + A H H + H AA
BP172.77107.803114.6398467705164412893683.84
BP26571.525112.8525409106148145473875.23
BP367.0773.22296.732270125084911007506453.39
BP473.68100.112145.7289824322843081991663.06
BP672.14109.548154.7618243802482411541373.81
BP776.55134.563174.36747026617214389.491.72.22
BP870.91148.664175.8939627617812275.590.52.34
BP956.78166.22178.2434730920010061.287.03.35
BP1076.69154.579163.04533231620513181.91142.33
BP1198.88155.037155.43824927117514288.81311.33
BP1258.31171.148172.9631333121510061.594.72.76
BP1399.65138.484181.32131618912012779.079.10.954
BP1471.03165.604175.97129727617810363.190.33.19
BP1571.03217.656218.73813815295.644.326.045.02.78
BP1671.33203.796229.09216713383.245.426.838.92.87
BP18147194.647197.40389.698.560.464.038.457.80.590
BP19165.8190.082195.99978.483.951.167.540.658.50.188
BP20191.8198.376199.72156.764.338.660.736.454.40.0161
BP2157.475288.031299.53664.665.039.215.58.6217.52.21
BP2271.42247.224258.38294.994.057.826.415.126.92.25
BP2362.69162.397190.82234824115491.255.969.32.66
Table 6. Production cross sections for HPs from Table 2 in fb for high-mass benchmark points for scalar pair-production at the 27 TeV HE-LHC.
Table 6. Production cross sections for HPs from Table 2 in fb for high-mass benchmark points for scalar pair-production at the 27 TeV HE-LHC.
No. M H M A M H ± HA H H + HH AH + AH H + H AA
HP1176291.36311.9628.728.516.414.17.7912.90.850
HP2557562.316565.4171.071.360.6501.340.6371.11-
HP3560616.32633.480.8711.060.4980.8860.4100.7870.0311
HP4571676.534682.540.6780.8710.4020.6300.2840.6420.0644
HP5671688.108688.4370.4740.6290.2840.5980.2690.4880.00151
HP6713716.444723.0450.3810.4990.2220.4940.2200.395-
HP7807813.369818.0010.2190.2940.1260.2890.1230.230-
HP8933939.968943.7870.1130.1550.06340.1520.06230.118-
HP9935986.22987.9750.09990.1380.05630.1230.04960.1030.00364
HP10990992.36998.120.08610.1190.04790.1180.04760.0910-
HP11250.5265.49287.22620.921.212.019.310.815.10.00521
HP12286.05294.617332.45713.612.97.0712.36.729.090.0219
HP13336353.264360.5687.188.394.497.674.086.490.00980
HP14326.55331.938381.7738.537.864.197.654.075.43-
HP15357.6399.998402.5685.006.073.194.972.574.350.0440
HP16387.75406.118413.4644.205.002.594.602.373.850.00448
HP17430.95433.226440.6243.023.641.853.611.833.01-
HP18428.25453.979459.6962.783.391.723.051.532.570.00756
HP19467.85488.604492.3292.022.521.252.321.141.950.00385
HP20505.2516.58543.7941.551.780.8621.710.8241.32-
Table 7. Production cross sections for BPs from Table 1 in pb for for on-shell scalar pair-production at a 100 TeV FCC.
Table 7. Production cross sections for BPs from Table 1 in pb for for on-shell scalar pair-production at a 100 TeV FCC.
No. M H M A M H ± HA H H + H H AH + A H H + H AA
BP172.77107.803114.6394.003.472.652.061.551.850.0337
BP26571.525112.8511.24.073.123.672.801.940.0380
BP367.0773.22296.7310.15.474.224.883.753.090.0249
BP473.68100.112145.7284.612.021.521.471.100.9010.0260
BP672.14109.548154.7613.911.791.341.170.8710.7630.0336
BP776.55134.563174.3672.311.290.9570.7220.5290.5300.0215
BP870.91148.664175.891.971.330.9920.6220.4530.5330.0238
BP956.78166.22178.241.741.471.100.5170.3750.5170.0359
BP1076.69154.579163.0451.671.511.130.6680.4880.6410.0241
BP1198.88155.037155.4381.281.310.9750.7180.5250.7150.0137
BP1258.31171.148172.961.581.571.180.5190.3760.5500.0299
BP1399.65138.484181.3211.600.9370.6910.6470.4720.4590.00938
BP1471.03165.604175.9711.511.330.9890.5310.3850.5320.0341
BP1571.03217.656218.7380.7420.7630.5600.2440.1730.3010.0341
BP1671.33203.796229.0920.8820.6740.4930.2500.1770.2680.0341
BP18147194.647197.4030.4990.5110.3700.3430.2460.3370.00685
BP19165.8190.082195.9990.4410.4410.3180.3610.2590.3360.00216
BP20191.8198.376199.7210.3290.3450.2470.3270.2340.3110.000189
BP2157.475288.031299.5360.3670.3460.2490.09410.06460.1530.0319
BP2271.42247.224258.3820.5240.4870.3530.1520.1060.2040.0296
BP2362.69162.397190.8221.741.170.8670.4760.3450.4250.0280
Table 8. Production cross sections for HPs from Table 2 in fb for high-mass benchmark points for scalar pair-production at a 100 TeV FCC.
Table 8. Production cross sections for HPs from Table 2 in fb for high-mass benchmark points for scalar pair-production at a 100 TeV FCC.
No. M H M A M H ± HA H H + H H AH + A H H + H AA
HP1176291.36311.9617616311486.459.210312.3
HP2557562.316565.4179.8911.17.0010.96.8810.1-
HP3560616.32633.488.329.015.627.724.779.270.781
HP4571676.534682.546.767.604.705.793.539.131.76
HP5671688.108688.4375.025.783.525.543.375.190.0421
HP6713716.444723.0454.214.792.894.752.864.390.0185
HP7807813.369818.0012.693.111.843.071.812.850.0210
HP8933939.968943.7871.591.871.071.851.061.66-
HP9935986.22987.9751.451.710.9781.560.8861.720.150
HP10990992.36998.121.291.520.8631.520.8561.36-
HP11250.5265.49287.22613212586.611579.299.10.0714
HP12286.05294.617332.45789.979.554.376.151.965.60.320
HP13336353.264360.56851.054.236.450.133.646.70.160
HP14326.55331.938381.77359.451.234.349.933.542.20.00751
HP15357.6399.998402.56837.240.727.034.122.533.70.781
HP16387.75406.118413.46431.834.322.631.820.929.60.0805
HP17430.95433.226440.62423.926.017.025.716.823.70.0180
HP18428.25453.979459.69622.324.415.922.214.420.90.147
HP19467.85488.604492.32916.918.812.117.511.216.50.0795
HP20505.2516.58543.79413.514.08.8713.58.5412.1-
Table 9. Production cross sections for BPs from Table 1 in fb for X + dijet at proton-proton colliders for varying center-of-mass energies. No VBF cuts were applied.
Table 9. Production cross sections for BPs from Table 1 in fb for X + dijet at proton-proton colliders for varying center-of-mass energies. No VBF cuts were applied.
No. M H M A M H ± ( AA ) 13 ( AA ) 27 ( AA ) 100 ( H + H ) 13 ( H + H ) 27 ( H + H ) 100
BP172.77107.803114.6390.7503.1127.533.51371070
BP26571.525112.8518.952.025034.81421120
BP367.0773.22296.733.8711.158.955.52171660
BP473.68100.112145.7282.999.4456.516.070.9606
BP672.14109.548154.7611.335.0238.013.561.4536
BP776.55134.563174.3670.9884.4342.59.2243.5420
BP870.91148.664175.890.9824.7851.39.3642.8419
BP956.78166.22178.241.015.3463.89.1143.8424
BP1076.69154.579163.0450.8194.1747.911.351.6478
BP1198.88155.037155.4380.4222.0823.012.555.3484
BP1258.31171.148172.960.9375.1363.79.6645.5448
BP1399.65138.484181.3210.8883.7833.47.8737.3373
BP1471.03165.604175.9710.8754.6355.09.3644.9418
BP1571.03217.656218.7380.7884.8467.75.1227.7298
BP1671.33203.796229.0920.8955.1566.04.4925.0280
BP18147194.647197.4030.2401.3015.95.5726.8258
BP19165.8190.082195.9990.1330.6466.675.5026.0246
BP20191.8198.376199.7210.06530.2842.325.0523.9223
BP2157.475288.031299.5360.7565.2985.52.3715.2231
BP2271.42247.224258.3820.7775.0474.33.3118.8248
BP2362.69162.397190.8221.065.4261.57.2135.7372
Table 10. Production cross sections for HPs from Table 2 in fb for X + dijet at proton-proton colliders for varying center-of-mass energies. No VBF cuts were applied.
Table 10. Production cross sections for HPs from Table 2 in fb for X + dijet at proton-proton colliders for varying center-of-mass energies. No VBF cuts were applied.
No. M H M A M H ± ( AA ) 13 ( AA ) 27 ( AA ) 100 ( H + H ) 13 ( H + H ) 27 ( H + H ) 100
HP1176291.36311.960.3192.2034.41.479.57136
HP2557562.316565.4170.001450.01120.1430.07690.67410.2
HP3560616.32633.480.01070.1263.120.06430.71815.8
HP4571676.534682.540.01690.2346.900.05870.75119.9
HP5671688.108688.437-0.01050.2390.02950.3205.71
HP6713716.444723.045-0.007620.1490.02300.2664.99
HP7807813.369818.001-0.005530.1370.01170.1603.37
HP8933939.968943.787-0.001650.03400.004920.08211.94
HP9935986.22987.975-0.01620.6960.004820.09453.00
HP10990992.36998.12-0.001310.02750.003490.06401.61
HP11250.5265.49287.2260.04230.2001.641.397.7684.4
HP12286.05294.617332.4570.1750.7725.890.8535.2966.0
HP13336353.264360.5680.01360.08291.000.5653.5642.1
HP14326.55331.938381.7730.2160.9597.000.4993.3845.7
HP15357.6399.998402.5680.02000.1572.770.3752.5734.0
HP16387.75406.118413.4640.007680.04980.6220.3182.1828.0
HP17430.95433.226440.6240.004900.03160.3610.2401.7222.5
HP18428.25453.979459.6960.006400.04860.7560.2031.5220.8
HP19467.85488.604492.3290.003960.03110.4840.1481.1716.4
HP20505.2516.58543.7940.005500.03880.3970.09820.85213.3
Table 11. Production cross sections for BPs from Table 1 in fb for X p p at a 13 and 100 TeV pp collider. No cuts are applied on the scattered proton kinematics.
Table 11. Production cross sections for BPs from Table 1 in fb for X p p at a 13 and 100 TeV pp collider. No cuts are applied on the scattered proton kinematics.
No. M H M A M H ± ( H + H ) 13 ( H + H ) 100
BP172.77107.803114.6390.4042.63
BP26571.525112.850.4252.74
BP367.0773.22296.730.6954.14
BP473.68100.112145.7280.1841.37
BP672.14109.548154.7610.1501.16
BP776.55134.563174.3670.1000.833
BP870.91148.664175.890.09710.817
BP956.78166.22178.240.09270.786
BP1076.69154.579163.0450.1261.00
BP1198.88155.037155.4380.1481.15
BP1258.31171.148172.960.1030.855
BP1399.65138.484181.3210.08750.750
BP1471.03165.604175.9710.09700.814
BP1571.03217.656218.7380.04550.440
BP1671.33203.796229.0920.03840.388
BP18147194.647197.4030.06510.592
BP19165.8190.082195.9990.06670.604
BP20191.8198.376199.7210.06250.572
BP2157.475288.031299.5360.01430.181
BP2271.42247.224258.3820.02480.277
BP2362.69162.397190.8220.07340.651
Table 12. Production cross sections for HPs from Table 2 in fb for X p p at a 13 and 100 TeV pp collider. No cuts are applied on the scattered proton kinematics.
Table 12. Production cross sections for HPs from Table 2 in fb for X p p at a 13 and 100 TeV pp collider. No cuts are applied on the scattered proton kinematics.
No. M H M A M H ± ( H + H ) 13 ( H + H ) 100
HP1176291.36311.960.01220.161
HP2557562.316565.4170.001060.0276
HP3560616.32633.48-0.0194
HP4571676.534682.54-0.0154
HP5671688.108688.437-0.0150
HP6713716.444723.045-0.0128
HP7807813.369818.001-0.00868
HP8933939.968943.787-0.00547
HP9935986.22987.975-0.00471
HP10990992.36998.12-0.00457
HP11250.5265.49287.2260.01670.205
HP12286.05294.617332.4570.009580.134
HP13336353.264360.5680.006990.106
HP14326.55331.938381.7730.005570.0895
HP15357.6399.998402.5680.004500.0766
HP16387.75406.118413.4640.004030.0709
HP17430.95433.226440.6240.003100.0587
HP18428.25453.979459.6960.002610.0514
HP19467.85488.604492.3290.001950.0420
HP20505.2516.58543.7940.001270.0310
Table 13. Production cross sections for BPs from Table 1 in fb for X ν μ ν ¯ μ at a 10 and 30 TeV muon-collider.
Table 13. Production cross sections for BPs from Table 1 in fb for X ν μ ν ¯ μ at a 10 and 30 TeV muon-collider.
No. M H M A M H ± ( AA ) 10 ( H + H ) 10 ( AA ) 30 ( H + H ) 30
BP172.77107.803114.6390.4760.8280.7321.03
BP26571.525112.850.6780.7141.001.09
BP367.0773.22296.730.4260.8250.6411.22
BP473.68100.112145.7280.7980.5491.220.946
BP672.14109.548154.7610.9540.5511.470.834
BP776.55134.563174.3670.7870.4511.240.767
BP870.91148.664175.890.7140.4631.150.807
BP956.78166.22178.240.8130.6001.330.921
BP1076.69154.579163.0450.5210.5150.8370.857
BP1198.88155.037155.4380.2860.4520.4640.698
BP1258.31171.148172.960.6000.5640.9840.969
BP1399.65138.484181.3210.5670.3660.9040.680
BP1471.03165.604175.9710.7540.6011.230.860
BP1571.03217.656218.7380.8800.6101.510.919
BP1671.33203.796229.0921.170.5191.980.817
BP18147194.647197.4030.2140.2960.3620.515
BP19165.8190.082195.9990.1210.2470.2090.442
BP20191.8198.376199.7210.05860.2100.1060.385
BP2157.475288.031299.5361.450.5952.671.14
BP2271.42247.224258.3821.050.5041.850.931
BP2362.69162.397190.8221.410.4782.130.832
Table 14. Production cross sections for HPs from Table 2 in fb for X ν μ ν ¯ μ at a 10 and 30 TeV muon-collider.
Table 14. Production cross sections for HPs from Table 2 in fb for X ν μ ν ¯ μ at a 10 and 30 TeV muon-collider.
No. M H M A M H ± ( AA ) 10 ( H + H ) 10 ( AA ) 30 ( H + H ) 30
HP1176291.36311.960.6910.2401.280.470
HP2557562.316565.4170.008920.02650.02110.0639
HP3560616.32633.480.1430.05060.3560.128
HP4571676.534682.540.2290.07770.6020.206
HP5671688.108688.4370.01030.01840.02680.0473
HP6713716.444723.0450.01100.01810.02950.0474
HP7807813.369818.0010.009100.01440.02630.0397
HP8933939.968943.7870.003240.007920.009860.0226
HP9935986.22987.9750.02970.01440.1030.0460
HP10990992.36998.120.003120.006950.009910.0201
HP11250.5265.49287.2260.07600.1160.1410.230
HP12286.05294.617332.4570.1700.09960.3200.204
HP13336353.264360.5680.03920.07220.07850.152
HP14326.55331.938381.7730.1510.07460.2950.159
HP15357.6399.998402.5680.06770.06780.1390.145
HP16387.75406.118413.4640.02910.05330.06090.117
HP17430.95433.226440.6240.02030.04730.04380.105
HP18428.25453.979459.6960.03080.04350.06690.0979
HP19467.85488.604492.3290.02080.03680.04640.0849
HP20505.2516.58543.7940.03590.03260.08240.0773
Table 15. Transition between BP21 and HP11, including different contributions from gauge-invariant sets of diagrams with W W (GI I) and W μ (GI II) fusion, for H + H production in the VBF-like mode at a muon collider with 30 TeV center-of-mass energy. Masses are in GeV and cross sections in fb. See text for details.
Table 15. Transition between BP21 and HP11, including different contributions from gauge-invariant sets of diagrams with W W (GI I) and W μ (GI II) fusion, for H + H production in the VBF-like mode at a muon collider with 30 TeV center-of-mass energy. Masses are in GeV and cross sections in fb. See text for details.
BP21HP11HP11bHP11c
M H + 299.536287.226299.536299.536
M H 57.475250.5250.557.475
M A 288.031265.49265.49265.49
GI I19.01(7)19.69(8)18.04(6)18.76(7)
GI II17.89(5)19.43(5)17.83(5)17.86(6)
Equation (14)1.12 (9)0.23(9)0.21(7)0.90(9)
GI I + GI II1.129(3)0.2293(6)0.2274(7)0.973(3)
total1.144(5)0.2297(7)0.2276(8)0.968(3)
Table 16. Comparison of different contributions to A A final state in the VBF-like production mode at a muon collider with the center-of-mass energy of 30 TeV. Masses are given in GeVand cross sections in fb.
Table 16. Comparison of different contributions to A A final state in the VBF-like production mode at a muon collider with the center-of-mass energy of 30 TeV. Masses are given in GeVand cross sections in fb.
HP4HP5
M A 676.534688.108
M H + 682.54688.437
M H 571671
λ ¯ 345 3.880.62
h-exchange only0.510(2)0.01259(4)
all others0.01625(4)0.01347(5)
interference0.078(4)0.0008(1)
total0.604(3)0.02686(9)
Table 17. Comparison of different contributions to A A final state in the VBF-like production mode at a muon collider with the center-of-mass energy of 30 TeV. Masses are given in GeV and cross sections in fb.
Table 17. Comparison of different contributions to A A final state in the VBF-like production mode at a muon collider with the center-of-mass energy of 30 TeV. Masses are given in GeV and cross sections in fb.
BP21HP12BP21bBP21c
M A 288.031294.617288.031288.031
M H + 299.536332.457329.536329.536
M H 57.475286.0557.475280.031
λ ¯ 345 2.630.2772.630.152
h-exchange only2.25(1)0.2155(8)2.067(8)0.00689(3)
all others0.00706(2)0.1899(5)0.2223(7)0.2216(8)
interference0.36(1)0.1094(9)1.19(1)0.067(1)
total2.68(1)0.3208(8)3.48(1)0.295(1)
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kalinowski, J.; Robens, T.; Sokołowska, D.; Żarnecki, A.F. IDM Benchmarks for the LHC and Future Colliders. Symmetry 2021, 13, 991. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13060991

AMA Style

Kalinowski J, Robens T, Sokołowska D, Żarnecki AF. IDM Benchmarks for the LHC and Future Colliders. Symmetry. 2021; 13(6):991. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13060991

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kalinowski, Jan, Tania Robens, Dorota Sokołowska, and Aleksander Filip Żarnecki. 2021. "IDM Benchmarks for the LHC and Future Colliders" Symmetry 13, no. 6: 991. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13060991

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop