SciPost Submission Page
A study of collider signatures for two Higgs doublet models with a Pseudoscalar mediator to Dark Matter
by J. M. Butterworth, M. Habedank, P. Pani, A. Vaitkus
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Jonathan Butterworth · Martin Habedank · Andrius Vaitkus |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.02220v3 (pdf) |
| Date accepted: | 2021-02-10 |
| Date submitted: | 2021-01-12 15:39 |
| Submitted by: | Habedank, Martin |
| Submitted to: | SciPost Physics Core |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Physics |
| Specialties: |
|
| Approaches: | Computational, Phenomenological |
Abstract
Two Higgs doublet models with an additional pseudoscalar particle coupling to the Standard Model and to a new stable, neutral particle, provide an attractive and fairly minimal route to solving the problem of Dark Matter. They have been the subject of several searches at the LHC. We study the impact of existing LHC measurements on such models, first in the benchmark regions addressed by searches and then after relaxing some of their assumptions and broadening the parameter ranges considered. In each case we study how the new parameters change the potentially visible signatures at the LHC, and identify which of these signatures should already have had a significant impact on existing measurements. This allows us to set some first constraints on a number of so far unstudied scenarios.
Author comments upon resubmission
We thank the referee for the detailed report and helpful comments and suggestions. We have addressed these as discussed below.
We disagree with the referee to some extent, in that our work goes beyond a demonstration or status report of the Contur method (which we agree has already been done). We present new constraints on previously unexplored parameter regions of a high profile model, which we think are of significant interest. However, we accept that this is not a comprehensive survey of all constraints on the model, and if that is what would be required for SciPost Physics, we are content to be published in Scipost Physics Core.
We would like to address the other comments and requested changes in the following: 1) It is not obvious, no, and we should have been clearer, thanks for raising the question. We kept sin(theta)=0.35 as this is a conventional choice by the experiments, but in fact for this value the EW constraints exclude much of the plane for MA above about MA=200GeV with an allowed region at lower MH extending up to MA~1TeV. Our limits exclude the remaining allowed space. We have added a comment and the contours in the corresponding plane. 3) It is indeed meant A→ah here as g_Aah increases with decreasing MH. This can be seen from eq. 4.12 in 1701.07427. 4) We have added some clarification text and a further reference, which we hope addresses this without repeating a large amount of text from other sources. All other points raised, in particular in 2), 3), 5) and 6), are very good spots or suggestions and have been implemented.
List of changes
Resulting from the discussion above, we have introduced the following changes:
In the introduction, a comment has been added to point out the particular relevancy for pseudoscalar mediation in DM models probed at colliders.
We have added the contours from EW constraints in Section 4, case 3 (MA=MH±) for non-degenerate masses to Fig. 4 and a comment in the corresponding text.
To clarify the problematic model-dependencies of existing WW measurements, we have added a remark in the conclusion and extended the footnote in Section 3.
In addition, we have added further references where appropriate and fixed the typos pointed out by the referee.
Published as SciPost Phys. Core 4, 003 (2021)
Reports on this Submission
Anonymous Report 1 on 2021-2-4 (Invited Report)
- Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:2009.02220v3, delivered 2021-02-04, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.2508
Report
In this resubmitted version the authors have addressed, minimally but satisfactorily, all comments and questions contained in my first report. Therefore, in my view the manuscript is now suitable for acceptance in SciPost Physics Core. There remain just a few typos in the text, listed below, which could be corrected at the proofreading stage.
Requested changes
- footnote 2 is missing a full stop at its end;
- both in footnote 6 and in the now-extended Conclusions, in a few cases b-jet $\to b$-jet, WW $\to WW$ and so on;
- in Ref. [21] the names of some authors are repeated.