Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 74 references

Dark Matter Escaping Direct Detection Runs into Higgs Mass Hierarchy Problem

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Heavy Higgs-portal dark matter is ruled out by its own Higgs-mass loop corrections.

desk verdict Solid two-loop bounds, but the 'ruled out' headline only holds under a naturalness prior, not from data. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13301 v1 pith:Y65D2BRX submitted 2024-12-17 hep-ph astro-ph.COastro-ph.HEhep-ex

Praveen Bharadwaj , Ranjeet Kumar , Hemant Kumar Prajapati , Rahul Srivastava , Sushant Yadav This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.COastro-ph.HEhep-ex PACS 95.35.+d14.80.Bn
keywords darkmatterHiggsportalWIMPmasscorrectionnaturalnessdirectdetectionsingletscalarinertdoubletmodel
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the heavy-mass region of Higgs-portal dark matter, which direct detection experiments struggle to probe because event rates are tiny, can already be excluded by a different route: the same Higgs-dark-matter coupling that sets the relic abundance generates loop corrections to the Higgs mass that grow with the dark matter mass. For a broad class of scalar, vector, and fermionic dark matter models that couple to the Higgs, the paper computes these corrections and shows that relic-consistent dark matter heavier than roughly 5 to 9 TeV would push the loop-corrected Higgs mass above its measured value of 125.20 ± 0.11 GeV, even after the tree-level Higgs quartic is tuned to its most favorable (conformal) limit. It then shows for three concrete models that combining this Higgs-mass bound with the latest LZ (2024) limit rules out the entire parameter space of real and complex singlet scalar dark matter except a narrow window near $M_h/2$, while the inert doublet model retains a viable region up to about 4.4 TeV thanks to co-annihilation. A sympathetic reader would care because this converts an untestable heavy-WIMP regime into a closed one using existing collider data, and it makes a sharp, checkable prediction about where Higgs-portal dark matter may still hide.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the DM-induced shift in the Higgs mass, $\delta m_h^2$, computed from the Coleman-Weinberg effective potential; for a scalar DM it is proportional to $\lambda_{HS} f(m_S^2) + (v\lambda_{HS})^2 \log(m_S^2/\mu^2)$, so it grows with both the Higgs-DM coupling and the DM mass. The paper's chain is: relic abundance fixes $\lambda_{HS}$ as a function of $m_{\rm DM}$; this fixes the size of the loop correction; and the observed Higgs mass, together with the allowed range $\lambda_H \in [0,4\pi]$, sets the maximum DM mass once the tree-level contribution $m_h^2 = \lambda_H v^2$ is reduced to its conformal limit $m_h \to 0$. The surviving funnel around $M_h/2$ is the narrow window where annihilation through the Higgs is resonantly enhanced, so the required coupling—and hence the loop correction—stays small.

What would settle it

A concrete falsifier would be an explicit relic-density-consistent benchmark of the real singlet scalar model with $m_{\rm DM} = 10$ TeV in which the two-loop MS-corrected Higgs mass equals 125.20 GeV with $\lambda_H \in [0,4\pi]$ and without needing to push $m_h$ to zero; the paper's method excludes such a point, so its existence would refute the claimed upper bound.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, this paper establishes that DM-induced radiative corrections to the Higgs mass place an upper bound of a few TeV on any non-supersymmetric dark matter candidate whose annihilation is controlled by a Higgs-portal coupling. The logic is a chain of constraints: the observed relic density fixes the Higgs-DM coupling for each DM mass; that coupling, together with the DM mass, fixes the size of the one-loop (and in the detailed models, two-loop) correction to the Higgs mass; and the requirement that the corrected Higgs mass stay at 125.20 ± 0.11 GeV, with the tree-level quartic $\lambda_H$ allowed only in $[0, 4\pi]$ and the conformal limit $m_h \to 0$ as the last stopping point, sets a maximum DM mass. For the real singlet scalar this maximum is 9.3 TeV (7.4 TeV if the DM self-coupling is maximal); for the complex singlet scalar it is 5.1 TeV; for the inert doublet it is 4.4 TeV. Combined with the 2024 LZ direct detection limit, the real and complex singlet scalar models are left only with a narrow band around $M_h/2$, while the inert doublet also keeps a 0.5–4.4 TeV region through co-annihilation.

Load-bearing premise

The exclusion holds only if the tree-level Higgs self-coupling $\lambda_H$ is required to stay in $[0,4\pi]$ and the computation is stopped at the conformal limit $m_h \to 0$; admitting a negative or fine-tuned $\lambda_H$ would let the same relic-consistent dark matter be heavier than a few TeV.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the real singlet scalar model, relic-consistent dark matter above 9.3 TeV ($\lambda_S \approx 0$) or 7.4 TeV ($\lambda_S = \sqrt{4\pi}$) is excluded by the Higgs mass bound alone.
  • Adding the LZ (2024) limit closes the real and complex singlet scalar parameter space except for a narrow resonance window near $M_h/2$.
  • The complex singlet scalar upper bound falls from about 30 TeV (naive perturbativity) to about 5.1 TeV once two-loop Higgs mass corrections are imposed.
  • The inert doublet model keeps a viable high-mass region, roughly 0.5–4.4 TeV, because W and Z co-annihilation channels relax the required Higgs-DM coupling; above 4.4 TeV even co-annihilation cannot save it.
  • For any non-SUSY Higgs-portal DM (scalar, vector, or fermion) whose relic density is set by the same coupling, the generic DM mass ceiling is a few TeV—much stricter than the unitarity ceiling of ~100 TeV or perturbativity ceilings of 30–40 TeV.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: the 'ruled out' claim is a naturalness statement. If one allows a negative tree-level Higgs quartic or quantifies fine-tuning instead of forbidding it, relic-consistent Higgs-portal DM above a few TeV reappears; the exclusion would then become a tuning bound rather than an absolute one.
  • Beyond the paper: the same loop-correction logic should apply to any new scalar, vector, or fermion with sizable Higgs coupling, so the bound can be extended model-by-model as a quick diagnostic before full relic computations are run.
  • Beyond the paper: the surviving $M_h/2$ window is a concrete target—a future direct detection experiment with sensitivity at the resonance mass, or a precise Higgs invisible-width measurement, can test whether that window is populated or empty.
  • Beyond the paper: the authors' focus on non-SUSY models suggests a natural counter-check, namely that supersymmetric spectra with cancellations between fermion and scalar loops would evade the bound, making the mechanism a potential discriminator between SUSY and non-SUSY Higgs-portal dark matter.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper argues that for Higgs-portal dark matter models, the requirement of thermal relic abundance forces the Higgs-DM coupling to grow with DM mass, and the resulting loop corrections to the Higgs mass become so large above a few TeV that the observed Higgs mass 125.20 GeV cannot be reproduced. Using the SARAH/SPheno two-loop spectrum generator and micrOMEGAs, the authors obtain maximum DM masses of about 9.3 TeV (real singlet scalar), 5.1 TeV (complex singlet scalar), and 4.4 TeV (inert doublet), and they claim that, combined with the 2024 LZ limit, the real and complex singlet scalar models are completely ruled out except for a narrow window near M_h/2. The paper explicitly frames the bound as coming from stopping the tree-level Higgs mass at the conformal limit m_h -> 0 with λ_H restricted to [0,4π].

Significance. The computation is transparent and uses standard, machine-checked tools: SARAH, SPheno, and micrOMEGAs, which is a strength of the paper. If the underlying naturalness prior were accepted, the result would sharply constrain a broad class of popular DM models and would be of considerable phenomenological interest. However, the central claim that the heavy DM mass range is 'ruled out' is not a direct consequence of the measured Higgs mass; it is conditional on the prior that the tree-level quartic λ_H must remain non-negative and that no fine-tuned cancellation is allowed. The paper itself concedes in Sec. 6 that SUSY or tuned loop cancellations evade the bound. The analysis of the scalar models at two loops is solid, but the extension to vector and fermionic DM is only at one-loop level with a non-renormalizable operator, so the 'all types of DM' claim is not backed by the same machinery. The result is best read as a naturalness-based upper limit rather than an empirical exclusion.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 6, 'Before ending...'] The central bound is set by the stopping rule 'We stop when we reach the conformal limit of m_h -> 0' combined with the restriction λ_H ∈ [0,4π] stated after Eq. (5). This is a naturalness prior, not an experimental constraint. For m_DM above the quoted limits, one can keep the two-loop pole mass at 125.20 GeV by choosing a negative tree-level λ_H; the measured Higgs mass does not forbid this because λ_H is an unmeasured renormalized parameter. The tree-level boundedness condition λ_H ≥ 0 is not mandatory once the DM one-loop contribution to the effective potential is included, since a positive h^4 log(h^2) term can stabilize the potential even for λ_H < 0. Thus the abstract's 'ruled out in its entirety' overstates what the data imply; the paper actually establishes an upper bound under an explicit no-fine-tuning assumption. This needs to be stated as the first sentence of the abstract and conclusions, and a quantitative fine-tuning measure should be provided so the reader can judge how much of the excluded region is prior-driven.
  2. [Sec. 6, paragraph 2] The paper concedes that 'the obvious exception will be the case of SUSY models' and that fine-tuned cancellations between fermionic and scalar loop contributions can evade the bound. This concession substantially weakens the universality claim made in the abstract that the limit 'is applicable to all types of dark matter i.e. scalar, vector, and fermionic, provided they couple directly with Higgs.' Since the paper's own text admits exceptions that are not exotic, the word 'ruled out' should be replaced by 'constrained under the stated naturalness assumptions,' and the exceptions should be quantified rather than relegated to a closing remark.
  3. [Sec. 3.2 and Sec. 4] The analysis of fermionic DM in Sec. 3.2 is performed only at one loop with a fixed renormalization scale μ = m_t and a non-renormalizable operator, while the scalar DM models are treated at two loops with RGE improvement in Sec. 4. The paper's claim that the same limit applies to all DM types is therefore not supported by the same calculational standard. Either the fermionic and vector cases must be run through the same SARAH/SPheno procedure (or an equivalent higher-order treatment), or the claim of universal applicability should be explicitly downgraded to a qualitative expectation. As written, the reader cannot verify that the one-loop, fixed-scale treatment in Fig. 7 is stable under the two-loop corrections that are central to the scalar analysis.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4, Eq. (13)] The vector DM one-loop expression in Eq. (13) contains terms of the form -2m_V^2 + 2v^2 λ_HV with a log term 3(2m_V^2 + v^2 λ_HV) log(m_V^2/μ^2); the sign of the finite part relative to the log term should be checked or a reference given, since for large m_V the log term is positive and the finite part is negative, which may affect the direction of the correction.
  2. [Sec. 2, Fig. 2] The caption of Fig. 2 says the left panel shows 'W (co-annihilation)- and Z-mediated channels'; the text describes W-mediated processes as annihilation rather than co-annihilation. Please clarify the terminology.
  3. [Sec. 5.1, Eq. (33)] The notation for the Higgs-DM coupling alternates between λ_HS, λ_HDM, λ_Hζ, and λ_345 across figures and equations; a single consistent notation with a table of definitions would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: relic-fitted Higgs-DM couplings are used to compute Higgs mass corrections and are then compared with the externally measured Higgs mass.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained rather than circular. The chain is: (i) relic density fixes the Higgs-DM coupling as a function of DM mass via micrOMEGAs; (ii) that same coupling enters the one-loop effective-potential expressions in Eq. (13) and the SARAH/SPheno two-loop Higgs mass calculation; (iii) the resulting loop-corrected Higgs mass is compared with the external PDG value 125.20 +/- 0.11 GeV [33]. The loop correction is not fitted to the Higgs mass; instead the tree-level quartic lambda_H is adjusted, and the paper explicitly discloses this freedom: "Since the Higgs self-quartic coupling lambda_H is not yet measured, we use this freedom to adjust its tree-level value such that the two-loop corrected Higgs mass M_h is always within its experimentally measured value." The numerical upper bounds (9.3, 5.1, 4.4 TeV) follow from the stated stopping rule "We stop when we reach the conformal limit of m_h->0," which is an input convention (a naturalness and boundedness prior) rather than a quantity derived from itself. That convention affects the robustness of the exclusion claim but does not make the derivation circular or reduce a prediction to a fit. The Sec. 6 concession that SUSY models, or tuned cancellations between fermionic and scalar loop contributions, evade the bound is a scope limitation, not a circular step. Self-citations in the paper (e.g., [12], [24]) are illustrative examples and are not load-bearing for the main argument; no uniqueness theorem is imported, and no known result is merely renamed. Therefore no circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, symmetries or mediators are introduced. The three benchmark models, real singlet scalar, complex singlet scalar and inert doublet, are standard in the cited literature. The free parameters are the couplings and scale choices required to scan these models, and the key ad hoc input is the naturalness stopping rule that converts radiative corrections into an exclusion.

free parameters (4)
  • λ_HS, λ_Hζ, λ_345 (Higgs-DM couplings) = fixed per m_DM by relic density; not quoted globally
    These couplings control both the relic abundance and the DM-induced Higgs mass correction. They are scanned as functions of DM mass to satisfy the Planck relic range.
  • Tree-level Higgs self-quartic λ_H = adjusted per DM mass to keep M_h=125.20 GeV until λ_H=0
    The paper uses the freedom in λ_H to absorb radiative corrections, and the bound is defined by the DM mass at which this adjustment becomes impossible under the λ_H≥0 convention.
  • DM self-quartic couplings λ_S, λ_ζ, λ_2 = scan endpoints 0 and sqrt(4π)
    These couplings contribute at two loops and are scanned at two extreme values; the choice shifts the upper bounds by about 0.2 to 1.9 TeV.
  • Renormalization scale μ = set to the top quark mass (SPheno default)
    The MS scheme corrections depend on μ; the paper fixes μ at the top mass and does not vary it, despite noting that running couplings would compensate the variation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Thermal freeze-out with Planck relic range 0.1126 ≤ Ωh² ≤ 0.1246 determines the Higgs-DM coupling.
    Used in Sec. 4 to fix λ_HDM as a function of m_DM. If non-thermal production or asymmetric dark matter is assumed, the coupling is no longer fixed by relic density.
  • domain assumption In the TeV regime, the Higgs-mediated channel dominates the relic density for the considered models.
    Justified in Sec. 2 using Fig. 2 for the inert doublet, and true by construction for the singlet models. If co-annihilation or other channels dominate, the coupling and the bound weaken.
  • ad hoc to paper The tree-level Higgs quartic must satisfy 0 ≤ λ_H < 4π, and the stop point is the conformal limit m_h→0.
    This naturalness criterion is what converts large loop corrections into exclusions. Without it, the parameters can be retuned to keep the physical Higgs mass at 125 GeV.
  • standard math The MS two-loop Higgs mass from SARAH and SPheno approximates the physical pole mass sufficiently well.
    The authors state that the scheme difference is small and negligible for their conclusions; this is a standard assumption of the computational framework.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dark Matter Escaping Direct Detection Runs into Higgs Mass Hierarchy Problem." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y65D2BRX

@misc{pith2026241213301,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dark Matter Escaping Direct Detection Runs into Higgs Mass Hierarchy Problem},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y65D2BRX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13301}
}
abstract

The current generation of Dark Matter Direct Detection Experiments has ruled out a large region of parameter space for dark matter, particularly in the ($10 - 1000$) GeV mass range. However, due to very low event rates, searching for dark matter in the heavy mass range, $\mathcal{O}$(TeV), is a daunting task requiring even larger volume detectors and long exposure times. We show that for a broad class of dark matter models of the type that these experiments are searching, including some of the most popular candidates, the heavy dark matter mass range can be ruled out in its entirety once we take into account the large corrections to Higgs mass imparted by such heavy dark matter. We show that such a limit is applicable to all types of dark matter i.e. scalar, vector, and fermionic, provided they couple directly with Higgs. By taking some simple and well studied dark matter models we show that the latest LZ limits can completely rule out such a dark matter except in a narrow range around $M_h/2$ mass.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13301 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: DM annihilation via Higgs mediated channel. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: DM relic density as a function of DM mass. The left panel shows contributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Diagram responsible for the direct detection of the DM. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: WIMP-nucleon scattering cross-section as a function of DM mass for real singlet [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: One-loop corrections to Higgs mass due to SM particles and DM. Note that for a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: , we have taken the scale to be fixed at top mass, i.e. µ = mt . In principle, variations in the renormalization scale are compensated by the scale dependence of the running quartic couplings. However, for simplicity, we currently disregard the running of couplings and…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: One-loop corrected Higgs mass for the fermionic DM case. The blue and red lines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: DM relic density (left panel) and the Higgs-DM coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: DM relic density as a function of loop corrected DM mass for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: DM relic density as a function of DM mass. The color code is the same as Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: DM relic density as a function of loop corrected DM mass for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Relic density vs mass of neutral doublet scalar where Higgs mass is computed at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Relic density vs mass of neutral doublet scalar where Higgs mass is computed at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Spin-independent nucleon-DM scattering cross-section as a function of the DM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: Spin-independent nucleon-DM scattering cross-section as a function of DM mass. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16: Spin-independent nucleon-DM scattering cross-section as a function of DM mass. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    freeze-out

    INTRODUCTION Observations from cosmology and astrophysics consistently suggest the presence of a non-baryonic form of matter [1–4], commonly referred to as dark matter (DM). The long- standing challenge of understanding the nature and existence of DM provides a compelling justification for the investigation of physics beyond the Standard Model (SM). It is...

    work page

  2. [2]

    For a large class of models, the Higgs acts as a mediator connecting SM particles and DM, as shown in Fig

    ROLE OF HIGGS-DM INTERACTION: DM RELIC DENSITY AND DIRECT DETECTION Let us begin by examining the crucial role of the Higgs-DM interaction plays in determin- ing DM relic abundance. For a large class of models, the Higgs acts as a mediator connecting SM particles and DM, as shown in Fig. 1. DM annihilation into SM particles as shown in h DM DM SM SM vλHDM...

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    naive perturbativity

    EFFECTIVE POTENTIAL AND ESTIMA TE OF DM-INDUCED HIGGS MASS CORRECTION As discussed before, in the high mass region of DM, specifically when ( MDM >∼ O(1) TeV), the Higgs-mediated channel plays a substantial role in satisfying the relic density of DM. This motivates our focus on scenarios where DM interacts with the visible sector via the Higgs. We begin b...

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    freeze-out

    INTERPLA Y BETWEEN DM RELIC DENSITY AND DM-INDUCED HIGGS MASS CORRECTION In the early universe, particles in the dark sector maintain thermal equilibrium with SM particles due to a balance between production and annihilation processes. As the universe expanded and cooled, the temperature eventually dropped below the mass of dark sector particles. At this ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Tree-Level

    We first compute the DM relic density as a function of tree-level DM mass mDM keeping tree-level Higgs mass mh at its experimentally measured value [33], see plots for “Tree-Level” computations. For each value of DM mass, we compute the Higgs-DM coupling strength λHDM, for example, see Fig. 8

    work page

  6. [6]

    The procedure for these computations is already explained in the previous section

    We use these values to compute, within MS scheme, the two-loop corrections to the Higgs mass ∆2 h = M 2 h − m2 h and one-loop corrections to DM mass ∆ 2 DM = M 2 DM − m2 DM as well as RGE for all SM and BSM parameters. The procedure for these computations is already explained in the previous section. Here, mi and Mi; i = {h, DM} denote the tree-level and ...

    work page

  7. [7]

    This means that the tree-level value mh is changed appropriately with changing DM mass

    Since the Higgs self-quartic coupling λH is not yet measured, we use this freedom to adjust its tree-level value such that the two-loop corrected Higgs mass Mh is always within its experimentally measured value. This means that the tree-level value mh is changed appropriately with changing DM mass

    work page

  8. [8]

    Loop-Level

    We use these values to again compute DM relic density with changing loop corrected DM mass MDM but now using loop corrected masses and RGE evolved couplings, see “Loop-Level” plots

    work page

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    naive perturbative

    We stop when we reach the conformal limit of mh → 0 where the loop contribution equals the experimentally observed Higgs mass 6. 5 As discussed before, we ignore the small difference between two-loop Higgs mass obtained usingMS scheme and the pole mass. This small difference h...

    2024

  2. [10]

    In this section, we look at its impact on the DM search in the direct detection experiments

    DIRECT DETECTION OF WIMP-NUCLEON SCA TTERING In the previous section, we discussed that parameter space satisfying correct relic density for DM masses more than a few TeVs is ruled out by Higgs mass constraints. In this section, we look at its impact on the DM search in the di...

  3. [11]

    S = −0.04 ± 0.10, T = 0.01 ± 0.12, U= −0.01 ± 0.09

    We are imposing the constraints from the oblique parameters at the 1 σ level, as pro- vided by the PDG [33]. S = −0.04 ± 0.10, T = 0.01 ± 0.12, U= −0.01 ± 0.09. (32)

  4. [12]

    Br(h → DM DM) < 0.107, from the recent LHC data [57]

    We are imposing the bound on the branching ratio of Higgs invisible decay to the dark sector particles i.e. Br(h → DM DM) < 0.107, from the recent LHC data [57]

  5. [13]

    25 Let us now look at the implications of imposing all these constraints on the three models discussed in the previous section

    For the inert doublet DM case, we also impose the LEP constraints on the neutral and charged components of the doublet scalar, as detailed in [58, 59]. 25 Let us now look at the implications of imposing all these constraints on the three models discussed in the previous sectio...

    2023

  6. [14]

    Our results are based on two key observations: First, in many DM models, the Higgs-mediated channel significantly contributes to satisfying the DM relic density

    CONCLUSIONS In this work, we have analyzed the constraints on DM mass coming from DM-induced loop corrections to the Higgs mass. Our results are based on two key observations: First, in many DM models, the Higgs-mediated channel significantly contributes to satisfying the DM r...

    2024

  7. [15]

    Werner Porod for many helpful discussions and for clarifying comments on the SARAH and SPheno prescriptions as well as the manuscript

    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are greatly indebted to Prof. Werner Porod for many helpful discussions and for clarifying comments on the SARAH and SPheno prescriptions as well as the manuscript. His insights and helpful comments have been instrumental in enhancing our clarity and helping...

  8. [16]

    Die Rotverschiebung von extragalaktischen Nebeln,

    F. Zwicky, “Die Rotverschiebung von extragalaktischen Nebeln,” Helv. Phys. Acta6 (1933) 110–127

    1933

  9. [17]

    Rotation of the Andromeda Nebula from a Spectroscopic Survey of Emission Regions,

    V. C. Rubin and W. K. Ford, Jr., “Rotation of the Andromeda Nebula from a Spectroscopic Survey of Emission Regions,” Astrophys. J. 159 (1970) 379–403

    1970

  10. [18]

    Rotational properties of 21 SC galaxies with a large range of luminosities and radii, from NGC 4605 /R = 4kpc/ to UGC 2885 /R = 122 kpc/,

    V. C. Rubin, N. Thonnard, and W. K. Ford, Jr., “Rotational properties of 21 SC galaxies with a large range of luminosities and radii, from NGC 4605 /R = 4kpc/ to UGC 2885 /R = 122 kpc/,” Astrophys. J. 238 (1980) 471

    1980

  11. [19]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim et al., “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,” Astron. Astrophys.641 (2020) A6, arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]. [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    On the Relic, Cosmic Abundance of Stable Weakly Interacting Massive Particles,

    R. J. Scherrer and M. S. Turner, “On the Relic, Cosmic Abundance of Stable Weakly Interacting Massive Particles,” Phys. Rev. D33 (1986) 1585. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 34, 31 3263 (1986)]

    1986

  13. [21]

    Large scale structure tests of warm dark matter,

    S. Colombi, S. Dodelson, and L. M. Widrow, “Large scale structure tests of warm dark matter,” Astrophys. J. 458 (1996) 1, arXiv:astro-ph/9505029

    1996 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Warm dark matter as a solution to the small scale crisis: New constraints from high redshift Lyman- α forest data,

    M. Viel, G. D. Becker, J. S. Bolton, and M. G. Haehnelt, “Warm dark matter as a solution to the small scale crisis: New constraints from high redshift Lyman- α forest data,” Phys. Rev. D88 (2013) 043502, arXiv:1306.2314 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Unitarity Limits on the Mass and Radius of Dark Matter Particles,

    K. Griest and M. Kamionkowski, “Unitarity Limits on the Mass and Radius of Dark Matter Particles,” Phys. Rev. Lett.64 (1990) 615

    1990

  16. [24]

    TeV-Scale Thermal WIMPs: Unitarity and its Consequences,

    J. Smirnov and J. F. Beacom, “TeV-Scale Thermal WIMPs: Unitarity and its Consequences,” Phys. Rev. D100 no. 4, (2019) 043029, arXiv:1904.11503 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Update on scalar singlet dark matter,

    J. M. Cline, K. Kainulainen, P. Scott, and C. Weniger, “Update on scalar singlet dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D88 (2013) 055025, arXiv:1306.4710 [hep-ph]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 92, 039906 (2015)]

    2013 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Singlet-catalyzed electroweak phase transitions and precision Higgs boson studies,

    S. Profumo, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, C. L. Wainwright, and P. Winslow, “Singlet-catalyzed electroweak phase transitions and precision Higgs boson studies,” Phys. Rev. D91 no. 3, (2015) 035018, arXiv:1407.5342 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  19. [27]

    B − L model in light of the CDF II result,

    S. Mandal, H. Prajapati, and R. Srivastava, “ B − L model in light of the CDF II result,” arXiv:2301.01522 [hep-ph]

  20. [28]

    Pattern of Symmetry Breaking with Two Higgs Doublets,

    N. G. Deshpande and E. Ma, “Pattern of Symmetry Breaking with Two Higgs Doublets,” Phys. Rev. D18 (1978) 2574

    1978

  21. [29]

    Radiative seesaw mechanism at weak scale,

    Z.-j. Tao, “Radiative seesaw mechanism at weak scale,” Phys. Rev. D54 (1996) 5693–5697, arXiv:hep-ph/9603309

    1996 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Verifiable radiative seesaw mechanism of neutrino mass and dark matter,

    E. Ma, “Verifiable radiative seesaw mechanism of neutrino mass and dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D73 (2006) 077301, arXiv:hep-ph/0601225

    2006 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Simplest Scoto-Seesaw Mechanism,

    N. Rojas, R. Srivastava, and J. W. F. Valle, “Simplest Scoto-Seesaw Mechanism,” Phys. Lett. B789 (2019) 132–136, arXiv:1807.11447 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    A theory for scotogenic dark matter stabilised by residual gauge symmetry,

    J. Leite, O. Popov, R. Srivastava, and J. W. F. Valle, “A theory for scotogenic dark matter stabilised by residual gauge symmetry,” Phys. Lett. B802 (2020) 135254, arXiv:1909.06386 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Minimal scoto-seesaw mechanism with spontaneous CP violation,

    D. M. Barreiros, F. R. Joaquim, R. Srivastava, and J. W. F. Valle, “Minimal scoto-seesaw mechanism with spontaneous CP violation,” JHEP 04 (2021) 249, arXiv:2012.05189 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    The simplest scoto-seesaw model: WIMP dark matter phenomenology and Higgs vacuum stability,

    S. Mandal, R. Srivastava, and J. W. F. Valle, “The simplest scoto-seesaw model: WIMP dark matter phenomenology and Higgs vacuum stability,” Phys. Lett. B819 (2021) 136458, arXiv:2104.13401 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    CDF-II W-boson mass anomaly in the canonical Scotogenic neutrino–dark matter model,

    A. Batra, S. K. A, S. Mandal, H. Prajapati, and R. Srivastava, “CDF-II W-boson mass anomaly in the canonical Scotogenic neutrino–dark matter model,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A38 no. 18n19, (2023) 2350090, arXiv:2204.11945 [hep-ph]. 32

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    CDF-II W boson mass in the Dirac Scotogenic model,

    S. Centelles Chuli´ a, R. Srivastava, and S. Yadav, “CDF-II W boson mass in the Dirac Scotogenic model,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A38 no. 7, (2023) , arXiv:2206.11903 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Predictions from scoto-seesaw with A4 modular symmetry,

    R. Kumar, P. Mishra, M. K. Behera, R. Mohanta, and R. Srivastava, “Predictions from scoto-seesaw with A4 modular symmetry,” Phys. Lett. B853 (2024) 138635, arXiv:2310.02363 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Cutting the scotogenic loop: adding flavor to dark matter,

    R. Kumar, N. Nath, and R. Srivastava, “Cutting the scotogenic loop: adding flavor to dark matter,” JHEP 12 (2024) 036, arXiv:2406.00188 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Comprehensive Phenomenology of the Dirac Scotogenic Model: Novel Low Mass Dark Matter,

    S. Centelles Chuli´ a, R. Srivastava, and S. Yadav, “Comprehensive Phenomenology of the Dirac Scotogenic Model: Novel Low Mass Dark Matter,” arXiv:2409.18513 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    Dirac Neutrinos and Dark Matter Stability from Lepton Quarticity,

    S. Centelles Chuli´ a, E. Ma, R. Srivastava, and J. W. F. Valle, “Dirac Neutrinos and Dark Matter Stability from Lepton Quarticity,” Phys. Lett. B767 (2017) 209–213, arXiv:1606.04543 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  33. [41]

    CP violation from flavor symmetry in a lepton quarticity dark matter model,

    S. Centelles Chuli´ a, R. Srivastava, and J. W. F. Valle, “CP violation from flavor symmetry in a lepton quarticity dark matter model,” Phys. Lett. B761 (2016) 431–436, arXiv:1606.06904 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Generalized Bottom-Tau unification, neutrino oscillations and dark matter: predictions from a lepton quarticity flavor approach,

    S. Centelles Chuli´ a, R. Srivastava, and J. W. F. Valle, “Generalized Bottom-Tau unification, neutrino oscillations and dark matter: predictions from a lepton quarticity flavor approach,” Phys. Lett. B773 (2017) 26–33, arXiv:1706.00210 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Testing a lepton quarticity flavor theory of neutrino oscillations with the DUNE experiment,

    R. Srivastava, C. A. Ternes, M. T´ ortola, and J. W. F. Valle, “Testing a lepton quarticity flavor theory of neutrino oscillations with the DUNE experiment,” Phys. Lett. B778 (2018) 459–463, arXiv:1711.10318 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  36. [44]

    The Dark HyperCharge Symmetry,

    H. Prajapati and R. Srivastava, “The Dark HyperCharge Symmetry,” arXiv:2411.02512 [hep-ph]

  37. [45]

    Detectability of Certain Dark Matter Candidates,

    M. W. Goodman and E. Witten, “Detectability of Certain Dark Matter Candidates,” Phys. Rev. D31 (1985) 3059

    1985

  38. [46]

    PandaX-xT—A deep underground multi-ten-tonne liquid xenon observatory,

    P ANDA-X, PandaXCollaboration, A. Abdukerim et al., “PandaX-xT—A deep underground multi-ten-tonne liquid xenon observatory,” Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.68 no. 2, (2025) 221011, arXiv:2402.03596 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  39. [47]

    The XLZD Design Book: Towards the Next-Generation Liquid Xenon Observatory for Dark Matter and Neutrino Physics,

    XLZD Collaboration, J. Aalbers et al., “The XLZD Design Book: Towards the Next-Generation Liquid Xenon Observatory for Dark Matter and Neutrino Physics,” arXiv:2410.17137 [hep-ex]

  40. [48]

    Review of particle physics,

    Particle Data GroupCollaboration, S. Navas et al., “Review of particle physics,” Phys. Rev. D110 no. 3, (2024) 030001

    2024

  41. [49]

    Unitarity constraints on general scalar couplings with sarah,

    M. D. Goodsell and F. Staub, “Unitarity constraints on general scalar couplings with sarah,” The European Physical Journal C78 no. 8, (Aug., 2018) . http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6127-z

    2018 doi

  42. [50]

    First Dark Matter Search with Nuclear Recoils from the XENONnT Experiment,

    XENON Collaboration, E. Aprile et al., “First Dark Matter Search with Nuclear Recoils from the XENONnT Experiment,” Phys. Rev. Lett.131 no. 4, (2023) 041003, 33 arXiv:2303.14729 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Dark Matter Search Results from 1.54 Tonne ·Year Exposure of PandaX-4T,

    PandaX Collaboration, Z. Bo et al., “Dark Matter Search Results from 1.54 Tonne ·Year Exposure of PandaX-4T,” arXiv:2408.00664 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    First Dark Matter Search Results from the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment,

    LZ Collaboration, J. Aalbers et al., “First Dark Matter Search Results from the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment,” Phys. Rev. Lett.131 no. 4, (2023) 041002, arXiv:2207.03764 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Dark Matter Search Results from 4.2 Tonne-Years of Exposure of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment,

    LZ Collaboration Collaboration, J. Aalbers et al., “Dark Matter Search Results from 4.2 Tonne-Years of Exposure of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment,” arXiv:2410.17036 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  46. [54]

    Vector Higgs-portal dark matter and the invisible Higgs,

    O. Lebedev, H. M. Lee, and Y. Mambrini, “Vector Higgs-portal dark matter and the invisible Higgs,” Phys. Lett. B707 (2012) 570–576, arXiv:1111.4482 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Can wimp dark matter overcome the nightmare scenario?,

    S. Kanemura, S. Matsumoto, T. Nabeshima, and N. Okada, “Can wimp dark matter overcome the nightmare scenario?,” Phys. Rev. D82 (Sep, 2010) 055026. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.82.055026

    2010 doi

  48. [56]

    Implications of LHC searches for Higgs–portal dark matter,

    A. Djouadi, O. Lebedev, Y. Mambrini, and J. Quevillon, “Implications of LHC searches for Higgs–portal dark matter,” Phys. Lett. B709 (2012) 65–69, arXiv:1112.3299 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Dark Matter through the Higgs portal,

    G. Arcadi, A. Djouadi, and M. Raidal, “Dark Matter through the Higgs portal,” Phys. Rept. 842 (2020) 1–180, arXiv:1903.03616 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Radiative Corrections as the Origin of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking,

    S. R. Coleman and E. J. Weinberg, “Radiative Corrections as the Origin of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking,” Phys. Rev. D7 (1973) 1888–1910

    1973

  51. [59]

    Electroweak Higgs Potentials and Vacuum Stability,

    M. Sher, “Electroweak Higgs Potentials and Vacuum Stability,” Phys. Rept. 179 (1989) 273–418

    1989

  52. [60]

    The Lightest Higgs boson mass in the minimal supersymmetric standard model,

    J. A. Casas, J. R. Espinosa, M. Quiros, and A. Riotto, “The Lightest Higgs boson mass in the minimal supersymmetric standard model,” Nucl. Phys. B436 (1995) 3–29, arXiv:hep-ph/9407389. [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 439, 466–468 (1995)]

    1995 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Electroweak symmetry breaking induced by dark matter,

    T. Hambye and M. H. G. Tytgat, “Electroweak symmetry breaking induced by dark matter,” Phys. Lett. B659 (2008) 651–655, arXiv:0707.0633 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Weak Interactions at Very High-Energies: The Role of the Higgs Boson Mass,

    B. W. Lee, C. Quigg, and H. B. Thacker, “Weak Interactions at Very High-Energies: The Role of the Higgs Boson Mass,” Phys. Rev. D16 (1977) 1519

    1977

  55. [63]

    Lectures on perturbative unitarity and decoupling in Higgs physics,

    H. E. Logan, “Lectures on perturbative unitarity and decoupling in Higgs physics,” arXiv:2207.01064 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  56. [64]

    SARAH 4 : A tool for (not only SUSY) model builders,

    F. Staub, “SARAH 4 : A tool for (not only SUSY) model builders,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 185 (2014) 1773–1790, arXiv:1309.7223 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Exploring new models in all detail with SARAH,

    F. Staub, “Exploring new models in all detail with SARAH,” Adv. High Energy Phys.2015 (2015) 840780, arXiv:1503.04200 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  58. [66]

    SPheno, a program for calculating supersymmetric spectra, SUSY particle decays and SUSY particle production at e+ e- colliders,

    W. Porod, “SPheno, a program for calculating supersymmetric spectra, SUSY particle decays and SUSY particle production at e+ e- colliders,” Comput. Phys. Commun.153 (2003) 275–315, arXiv:hep-ph/0301101. 34

    2003 arXiv

  59. [67]

    SPheno 3.1: Extensions including flavour, CP-phases and models beyond the MSSM,

    W. Porod and F. Staub, “SPheno 3.1: Extensions including flavour, CP-phases and models beyond the MSSM,” Comput. Phys. Commun.183 (2012) 2458–2469, arXiv:1104.1573 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  60. [68]

    micrOMEGAs4.1: two dark matter candidates,

    G. B´ elanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov, and A. Semenov, “micrOMEGAs4.1: two dark matter candidates,” Comput. Phys. Commun.192 (2015) 322–329, arXiv:1407.6129 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Improved predictions for intermediate and heavy Supersymmetry in the MSSM and beyond,

    F. Staub and W. Porod, “Improved predictions for intermediate and heavy Supersymmetry in the MSSM and beyond,” Eur. Phys. J. C77 no. 5, (2017) 338, arXiv:1703.03267 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Supersymmetric and non-supersymmetric models without catastrophic Goldstone bosons,

    J. Braathen, M. D. Goodsell, and F. Staub, “Supersymmetric and non-supersymmetric models without catastrophic Goldstone bosons,” Eur. Phys. J. C77 no. 11, (2017) 757, arXiv:1706.05372 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Vacuum Stability of a General Scalar Potential of a Few Fields,

    K. Kannike, “Vacuum Stability of a General Scalar Potential of a Few Fields,” Eur. Phys. J. C 76 no. 6, (2016) 324, arXiv:1603.02680 [hep-ph]. [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 78, 355 (2018)]

    2016 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Combination of searches for invisible decays of the Higgs boson using 139 fb −1 of proton-proton collision data at s=13 TeV collected with the ATLAS experiment,

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al., “Combination of searches for invisible decays of the Higgs boson using 139 fb −1 of proton-proton collision data at s=13 TeV collected with the ATLAS experiment,” Phys. Lett. B842 (2023) 137963, arXiv:2301.10731 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Anatomy of the Inert Two Higgs Doublet Model in the light of the LHC and non-LHC Dark Matter Searches,

    A. Belyaev, G. Cacciapaglia, I. P. Ivanov, F. Rojas-Abatte, and M. Thomas, “Anatomy of the Inert Two Higgs Doublet Model in the light of the LHC and non-LHC Dark Matter Searches,” Phys. Rev. D97 no. 3, (2018) 035011, arXiv:1612.00511 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Observing the Dark Scalar Doublet and its Impact on the Standard-Model Higgs Boson at Colliders,

    Q.-H. Cao, E. Ma, and G. Rajasekaran, “Observing the Dark Scalar Doublet and its Impact on the Standard-Model Higgs Boson at Colliders,” Phys. Rev. D76 (2007) 095011, arXiv:0708.2939 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.