Heavy Dark Mesons and Composite Dark Matter¶
Daniel Baig, Jon Butterworth, Louie Corpe, Xiangchen Kong, Suchita Kulkarni, Marion Thomas
A composite dark matter model for Gaugephobic and Gaugephilic \(SU(N_D) \,\,;\,N_D\in\{2,4\}\) was analysed using CONTUR and data as background in New sensitivity of LHC measurements to Composite Dark Matter Models [137].
The following heatmaps show new constraints using the Standard Model as background (SMBG) (black contours) in the SU(2) case. Additionally, the expected exclusion (black dotted contours) and data as background exclusion (white contours) are shown. The solid and dashed lines represent the 95% and 68% exclusion respectively.
All plots used data from \(\sqrt{s} =\) 7,8 and 13 TeV.
Legend.
Gaugephilic L¶
(Top row) heatmaps showing the dominant pools from the previous paper for the Gaugephilic \(SU(2)_L\) model. (Bottom row) new dominant pools.
Example histogram for point (\(m_{\pi_D}=521\), \(\eta=0.35\)) in the Gaugephilic \(SU(2)_L\) model.
From the above figures there is a large disparity between the expected exclusion and the SMBG exclusion. This can be explained by the standard model prediction already being above the data as shown in the histogram and the beyond the Standard Model contribution moving the prediction even further from the data. The histogram is from the set of the most sensitive subpool–that is, the set of orthogonal (no overlapping data) histograms that mainly contribute to the exclusion. However, there are other histograms which also contribute leading to a 99.05% exclusion with SMBG, which is much larger than the expected 41.94% due to the aforementioned reason.
Gaugephobic L¶
(Top row) heatmaps showing the dominant pools from the previous paper for the Gaugephobic \(SU(2)_L\) model. (Bottom) new dominant pools.
Example histogram for point (\(m_{\pi_D}=468\), \(\eta=0.35\)) in the Gaugephobic \(SU(2)_L\) model.
Again there is a large disparity between the expected exclusion and the SMBG exclusion due to the same reason as before, as evidenced by the above histogram. Likewise, this is only one histogram from the most sensitive subpool. The others in the same subpool that contribute to this exclusion lead to a 98.18% combined exclusion, much larger than the expected 38.53%.
