1: %\usepackage{graphicx}

2: % Also, \varepsilon

3: %      \varphi

4: % Also, \varkappa (see below)

5: %\def{\l}{\lambda}

6: % Also, \varpi

7: %     \vartheta

8: %     \varrho

9: %     \varsigma

10: % overwritten by \nabla

11: % \setcounter{MaxMatrixCols}{30}

12: %\usepackage{showkeys}

13: 

14: \documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}%

15: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts}

16: \usepackage{graphicx,epsfig}

17: \usepackage{hyperref}

18: \usepackage{color}

19: \usepackage{amsmath}

20: \usepackage{amsfonts}

21: \usepackage{amssymb}

22: \usepackage{graphicx}%

23: \setcounter{MaxMatrixCols}{30}

24: %TCIDATA{OutputFilter=latex2.dll}

25: %TCIDATA{Version=5.00.0.2552}

26: %TCIDATA{LastRevised=Wednesday, June 21, 2006 11:46:42}

27: %TCIDATA{<META NAME="GraphicsSave" CONTENT="32">}

28: %TCIDATA{<META NAME="SaveForMode" CONTENT="1">}

29: \setlength{\textwidth}{17.5cm} \setlength{\textheight}{22.1cm}

30: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-0.5cm}

31: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{1cm} \setlength{\headheight}{0cm}

32: \setlength{\headsep}{0cm} \setlength{\topmargin}{0cm}

33: \setlength{\footskip}{1.5cm}

34: \baselineskip 0.6cm

35: \begin{document}

36: \begin{titlepage}

37: \begin{flushright}

38: UCB-PTH-06/04\\

39: LBNL-59894

40: \end{flushright}

41: \vskip 1.0cm

42: \begin{center}

43: {\Large \bf Improved Naturalness with a Heavy Higgs: \\An Alternative Road to LHC Physics}

44: \vskip 1.0cm

45: {\large Riccardo Barbieri$^a$, Lawrence J.~Hall$^b$ and Vyacheslav S.~Rychkov$^a$}\\[1cm]

46: {\it $^a$ Scuola Normale Superiore and INFN, Piazza dei Cavalieri 7, I-56126 Pisa, Italy} \\[5mm]

47: {\it $^b$ Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, and\\

48: Theoretical Physics Group, LBNL, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA}\\[5mm]

49: \vskip 1.0cm

50: \abstract{The quadratic divergences of the Higgs mass may be cancelled either

51: accidentally or by the exchange of some new particles.

52: Alternatively its impact on naturalness may be weakened by raising

53: the Higgs mass, which requires changing the Standard Model below its natural

54: cut-off. We show in detail how this can be achieved, while

55: preserving perturbativity and consistency with the electroweak

56: precision tests, by extending the Standard Model to include a

57: second Higgs doublet that has neither a vev nor couplings to

58: quarks and leptons. This Inert Doublet Model yields a perturbative

59: and completely natural description of electroweak physics at all

60: energies up to 1.5 TeV. The discrete symmetry that yields the

61: Inert Doublet is unbroken, so that Dark Matter may be composed of

62: neutral inert Higgs bosons, which may have escaped detection at

63: LEP2. Predictions are given for multilepton events with missing

64: transverse energy at the Large Hadron Collider, and for the direct detection of dark

65: matter. }

66: \end{center}

67: \end{titlepage}

68: 

69: 

70: %\tableofcontents

71: 

72: 

73: %\begin{abstract}

74: %The Standard Model Higgs, if light as suggested by ElectroWeak

75: %Precision Tests, gives rise to quadratic divergences that should be cut-off

76: %by new physics, which naturalness dictates will be light enough to be

77: %explored at the Large Hadron Collider. Alternatively, if the Higgs mass is raised, this

78: %new physics can be made heavier, and may lie outside the LHC reach.

79: %This may be accomplished, while satisfying ElectroWeak Precision Tests

80: %and preserving perturbativity, by extending the SM to include a second

81: %Higgs doublet that has neither a vev nor couplings to quarks and

82: %leptons. The discrete symmetry that yields such an Inert Doublet is

83: %unbroken, so that Dark Matter may be composed of neutral inert Higgs

84: %bosons, which may have escaped detection at LEP2. Predictions are

85: %given for multilepton events with missing transverse energy at the

86: %LHC, and for the direct detection of dark matter.

87: %\end{abstract}

88: 

89: 

90: \section{Introduction}

91: 

92: Unification, likely supersymmetric, as developed in the seventies and

93: eighties, is the most appealing and coherent picture that we have for physics

94: beyond the Standard Model. Clear experimental evidence for it would represent

95: a major breakthrough in physics and could orient the search for further

96: informative signals. Yet the current situation is ambiguous. From the

97: experimental viewpoint, on the positive side one has the unification of gauge

98: couplings and, with less numerical significance, the size of the neutrino

99: masses. On the negative side, however, one must consider the failure to find

100: any supersymmetric particle, any non-SM effect in flavour physics, any

101: evidence of proton decay, or, finally, a light Higgs boson. While there are

102: many explanations for the absence of these signals so far, and searches for

103: these phenomena should and will continue, we find it justified to consider

104: possible alternative roads for physics beyond the SM. Especially, although not

105: only, in these respects, the Large Hadron Collider should play a crucial role.

106: This is the general background behind this work.

107: 

108: Our expectations for the LHC are based on two observations: 1) the Higgs mass

109: gets quadratically divergent contributions, the dominant one being due to

110: virtual top quarks, which become comparable to the physical mass for the

111: cutoff $\Lambda_{t}\lesssim3.5 \; m_{h},$ and need to be cancelled by new

112: physics to avoid unnatural fine-tuning. 2) ElectroWeak Precision Tests (EWPT)

113: indicate that the SM Higgs is light, $m_{h}<186$ GeV at 95\% CL \cite{LEPEWWG}%

114: , with a central value considerably below the lower bound of 114 GeV from

115: direct searches. From 1) and 2) the standard view emerges, that the

116: divergence-cancelling physics, whatever it is (supersymmetry, Little Higgs,

117: \ldots) should be accessible at the LHC.

118: 

119: In this paper we consider the alternative possibility that the Higgs is heavy,

120: say $500$ GeV. In this case, the above conclusion does not apply, since the

121: naturalness cutoff from 1) is now raised to $\sim1.5$ TeV. Instead of

122: focussing on the new physics which cancels the top quark divergence (squarks,

123: vector quarks, \ldots), we must consider the modified electroweak theory below

124: $\Lambda_{t}$, that allows the heavy Higgs to pass the EWPT. Admittedly, to

125: guess which physics may render a Heavy Higgs compatible with the EWPT is not

126: easy. Some examples exist in the literature, starting from the work of

127: Einhorn, Jones and Veltman\cite{Einhorn:1981cy} and recently reviewed by

128: Peskin and Wells \cite{Peskin}. We postpone a few comments on this until

129: Section 4. Here we argue that the most obvious way to do this, while keeping

130: both naturalness and perturbativity, may reside in introducing an Inert

131: Doublet (ID) scalar, i.e.~a second Higgs without a vev or couplings to matter.

132: 

133: In the ID Model (IDM), the spectrum of the scalars, other than the true Higgs,

134: of mass $m_{h}$, consists of a charged state, of mass $m_{H}$, and of two

135: neutral states, of mass $m_{\text{L}}$ (L for lightest) and $m_{\text{NL}}$

136: (NL for next-to-lightest). The relation between these masses imposed by the

137: EWPT is fully analogous to the one that relates the Higgs mass and the Z mass

138: in the SM. In the entire perturbative regime of the IDM, we find that the

139: range of the radiative correction effects has a large overlap with the

140: corrections required to fit the precision data. We claim therefore that these

141: data do not prefer the light Higgs of the SM over the Heavy Higgs of the IDM.

142: On the other hand, in the IDM it is possible to raise the naturalness cut-off

143: to about $1.5$ TeV without fine tunings. Other than consequences for the LHC

144: mentioned above, this certainly ameliorates the problem posed by the

145: \textquotedblleft LEP paradox"\cite{paradox}, reducing by one order of

146: magnitude the fine tuning apparently needed to fix it. Indeed, this

147: improvement in naturalness is a major motivation for raising the Higgs boson

148: mass, and occurs more readily than in 2 Higgs doublet models with a light

149: Higgs \cite{BH}, and more simply than in ``Little Higgs'' models\footnote{A

150: possible connection between the fine tuning and the Higgs mass has also been

151: considered in ``Little Higgs'' models. See, e.g., Ref \cite{Gregoire:2003kr}%

152: .}. Furthermore, preliminary results from the TeVatron indicate a somewhat

153: lighter top quark, strengthening the upper bound on the SM Higgs mass, and

154: weakening the improved naturalness of the 2 Higgs doublet model with a light Higgs.

155: 

156: In most 2 Higgs doublet models a parity symmetry is introduced to ensure that

157: Higgs exchange does not give too large flavour changing amplitudes. In the IDM

158: the parity acts only on the inert doublet, and ensures that the doublet is

159: inert. Unlike conventional 2 Higgs doublet models, the parity is not

160: spontaneously broken by doublet vevs, and hence the Lightest Inert Particle,

161: or LIP, is stable. In much of the parameter space the LIP contributes only a

162: small fraction to the Dark Matter of the universe. But if there is a mild

163: degree of cancellation in the LIP mass, so that it is in the range of 70 GeV,

164: all DM can be accounted for by a neutral inert Higgs boson.

165: 

166: In Section 2 we set the stage by revisiting the SM with a heavy Higgs, paying

167: special attention to the improved naturalness, the triviality bound on the

168: Higgs mass, and to its incompatibility with EWPT constraints. In Section 3 we

169: present the IDM, discussing in detail all the analogous constraints. In the

170: same section we give a first description of the LHC signals of the IDM and we

171: discuss the properties of the LIP as a Dark Matter candidate. In Section 4 we

172: make a few comments on alternative models to render a heavy Higgs compatible

173: with the EWPT. Summary and Conclusions are given in Section 5.

174: 

175: \section{Standard Model with a Heavy Higgs}

176: 

177: \label{SM}

178: 

179: \subsection{Improved naturalness}

180: 

181: \label{SM.natur}

182: 

183: The SM is unnatural as a fundamental theory: the quadratic divergence of the

184: Higgs mass makes the electroweak scale highly sensitive to the UV cutoff.

185: Presumably, this quadratic divergence should be cancelled in the theory that

186: extends the SM to higher energy scales. Two known mechanisms for accomplishing

187: this are supersymmetry and realizing the Higgs as a pseudo-Goldstone boson.

188: Searching for such mechanisms amounts to what we might call the

189: \textit{qualitative} use of the naturalness principle. However, the principle

190: has also its other, \textit{quantitative} side. Namely, it can be used to

191: predict the energy scale by which the divergence-cancelling physics is

192: expected to appear. Such a prediction follows from comparing the size of the

193: one-loop quadratic divergence to the physical mass.

194: 

195: The quadratic divergence is given by ($v=174$ GeV)%

196: \begin{equation}

197: \delta m_{h}^{2}=\alpha_{t}\Lambda_{t}^{2}+\alpha_{g}\Lambda_{g}^{2}%

198: +\alpha_{h}\Lambda_{h}^{2} \label{quad}%

199: \end{equation}

200: where

201: \begin{equation}

202: \alpha_{t}=\frac{3m_{t}^{2}}{4\pi^{2}v^{2}},\;\;\alpha_{g}=-\frac{6m_{W}%

203: ^{2}+3m_{Z}^{2}}{16\pi^{2}v^{2}},\;\;\alpha_{h}=-\frac{3m_{h}^{2}}{16\pi

204: ^{2}v^{2}} \label{alphat}%

205: \end{equation}

206: and $\Lambda_{i}$ are the cutoffs on the momenta of the virtual top quarks,

207: gauge bosons, and the Higgs itself. We keep these cutoffs separate, because

208: generally there is no reason to expect that the physics cancelling all three

209: divergences will appear at exactly the same scale. In a more fundamental

210: theory, the various $\Lambda_{i}$ may be correlated, but if we do not specify

211: the theory which extends the SM\ and cancels the quadratic divergences, the

212: relative weight of the various terms in (\ref{quad}) cannot be

213: determined\footnote{Lumping all terms in (\ref{quad}) together with a common

214: value of $\Lambda_{i}=\Lambda$, one arrives at the conclusion that the SM has

215: no 1-loop fine-tuning problem provided that the quadratic divergences in

216: (\ref{quad}) cancel, which occurs for $m_{h}\approx300$ GeV (the so-called

217: Veltman condition \cite{Veltman}). For the reasons mentioned, we do not accept

218: this argument.}.

219: 

220: Knowing (\ref{quad}), we can compute the sensitivity of the Higgs mass to the

221: scale $\Lambda_{i}$ by the formula%

222: \begin{equation}

223: D_{i}(m_{h})\equiv\left\vert \frac{\partial\log m_{h}^{2}}{\partial\log

224: \Lambda_{i}^{2}}\right\vert \,=\frac{|\alpha_{i}|\Lambda_{i}^{2}}{m_{h}^{2}}.

225: \label{Di}%

226: \end{equation}

227: The meaning of this quantity is that if $D_{i}>1$, the theory needs

228: fine-tuning of 1 part in $D_{i}$. The no fine-tuning condition $D_{i}\approx1$

229: is equivalent to demanding that quadratic contributions in (\ref{quad}) (taken

230: separately) do not exceed the physical mass squared. Using precise values of

231: $\alpha_{i}$ given in (\ref{quad}), we obtain three no fine-tuning scales (for

232: $D_{i}>1$ these scales should be multiplied by $\sqrt{D_{i}}$):%

233: \begin{align}

234: \Lambda_{t}  &  \approx3.5 \, m_{h}\nonumber\\

235: \Lambda_{g}  &  \approx9 \, m_{h}>\Lambda_{t}\\

236: \Lambda_{h}  &  \approx1.3\text{ TeV} . \nonumber\label{Li}%

237: \end{align}

238: These equations are the quantitative outcome of the naturalness

239: analysis---they bound the expected scale of the divergence-cancelling physics.

240: Not surprisingly, the precise value of this scale crucially depends on the

241: assumed value of the Higgs mass. The prevalent assumption nowadays is that the

242: Higgs is light, with $m_{h}$ close to the $114$ GeV limit from the direct

243: searches, so that the low value of $\Lambda_{t}$ makes us reasonably sure that

244: at least the physics cancelling the virtual top divergence should be seen at

245: the LHC.

246: 

247: But what if the Higgs is heavy, say $m_{h}\gtrsim400$ GeV? The scale

248: $\Lambda_{t}$ is raised above 1.4 TeV (``improved naturalness''), and since

249: $\Lambda_{h}$ is also rather large, we can no longer be certain that the

250: physics cancelling these divergences will be observable at the LHC. While

251: $\Lambda_{i}$ only provide upper bounds on the scale of the cancellation

252: physics, in the absence of supersymmetry, given the LEP paradox, it is likely

253: that these bounds are saturated. What will the LHC see in this case? This is

254: the question we would like to address.

255: 

256: \subsection{Perturbativity, or how heavy is heavy?}

257: 

258: \label{SM.p}How high up in $m_{h}$ can one go? As the Higgs mass is increased

259: so the quartic scalar interaction becomes stronger, and the maximum scale at

260: which perturbation theory is useful, $\Lambda_{P}$, is decreased. Our aim is

261: to have a natural theory up to energies of 1.5 TeV, hence we must require that

262: $\Lambda_{P} >$ 1.5 TeV, placing an upper bound on the Higgs mass.

263: %The upper bound can be

264: %determined from the requirement that the theory be perturbative up to a

265: %reasonably high scale, which we will put at 1.5 TeV.

266: If this requirement is fulfilled, we can reasonably assume that the

267: divergence-cancelling physics, which is expected to appear just around that

268: scale

269: %(and presumably is unaccessible to the LHC)

270: will also be able to stop the growth of the Higgs quartic coupling and prevent

271: the Landau pole from appearing. The RG evolution of the Higgs quartic coupling

272: is reviewed in Appendix \ref{SM.pert}. The results of that discussion can be

273: summarized in terms of two scales: the one-loop Landau pole scale $\Lambda

274: _{L}$, and the perturbativity scale $\Lambda_{P}$ at which the quartic

275: coupling grows by 30\% from its value in the IR. The values of these two

276: scales for $m_{h}=400,500,600$ GeV are given in Table 1. We see that in all

277: cases $\Lambda_{P}$ is above 1.5 TeV, while $\Lambda_{L}$ is $5-30$ times

278: higher. The conclusion is that all masses in the $400-600$ GeV range are

279: suitable for the implementation of the improved naturalness idea.

280: \begin{table}[h]

281: \begin{center}%

282: \begin{tabular}

283: [c]{l|l|l}%

284: $m_{h},$GeV & $\Lambda_{P},$TeV & $\Lambda_{L}$,TeV\\\hline

285: 400 & 2.4 & 80\\

286: 500 & 1.8 & 16\\

287: 600 & 1.6 & 7.5

288: \end{tabular}

289: \end{center}

290: \caption{{}Heavy Higgs perturbativity scale $\Lambda_{P}$ and Landau pole

291: $\Lambda_{L}$.}%

292: \end{table}

293: 

294: \subsection{ElectroWeak Precision Tests}

295: 

296: \label{SM.EWPT} At this point the reader should ask: but what about the EWPT,

297: which \textit{predict} that the Higgs is light? The answer of course is that

298: this `prediction' is true only in the absence of new physics, which may

299: contribute to the EWPT observables, but has nothing to do with cancelling the

300: quadratic divergences of the Higgs mass. Indeed, the Higgs mass influences the

301: EWPT via the logarithmic contributions to $T$ and $S$:%

302: \begin{align}

303: T  &  \approx-\frac{3}{8\pi c^{2}}\ln\frac{m_{h}}{m_{Z}}\\

304: S  &  \approx\frac{1}{6\pi}\ln\frac{m_{h}}{m_{Z}}. \label{ST}%

305: \end{align}

306: For large $m_{h}$ these contributions violate experimental constraints (see

307: Fig. \ref{STU}). Assuming that no new physics influences the EWPT, one obtains

308: $m_{h}=91_{-32}^{+45}$ GeV, with the upper bound $m_{h}<186$ GeV at 95\% CL

309: \cite{LEPEWWG}. In particular $m_{h}=400$ GeV is excluded at 99.9\% CL.

310: 

311: However, looking at Fig. \ref{STU} one immediately sees that the heavy Higgs

312: \textit{can} be consistent with the EWPT if there is new physics producing a

313: compensating positive $\Delta T$. If at the same time the $\Delta S$

314: contribution of this new physics is not too large, a good fit could be

315: obtained. For $m_{h}=400-600$ GeV (black band in Fig. \ref{STU}) the needed

316: compensating $\Delta T$ is

317: \begin{equation}

318: \Delta T\approx0.25\pm0.1, \label{need}%

319: \end{equation}

320: which would bring us near the central point of the 68\% CL ellipse (the

321: uncertainty in this number is mostly due to the experimental error on $T$).

322: Rather than making a careful fit, in this paper we will be content with this

323: rough estimate. \begin{figure}[ptb]

324: \begin{center}

325: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{STU_2}

326: \end{center}

327: \caption{(Adapted from \cite{Plot}.) Dependence of the $S,T$ parameters on the

328: Higgs mass. The thick black band marks $m_{h}=400-600$ GeV.}%

329: \label{STU}%

330: \end{figure}

331: 

332: Thus the answer to the question of what the LHC will see is: If the Higgs is

333: heavy, there must be new physics producing a positive $\Delta T$, and it is

334: this new physics that the LHC will study.

335: 

336: \section{The Inert Doublet Model}

337: 

338: \label{our}

339: 

340: In this section we will present what seems to us the most attractive

341: realization of the improved naturalness idea. Some alternatives are described

342: in Section \ref{alt}.

343: 

344: \subsection{The Model}

345: 

346: \label{our.1}

347: 

348: We consider the most general two-Higgs doublet model that possesses the

349: parity

350: \begin{equation}

351: H_{2} \rightarrow- H_{2} \label{parity}%

352: \end{equation}

353: with all other fields invariant. This parity imposes natural flavor

354: conservation in the Higgs sector\cite{GW}\footnote{In standard nomenclature

355: this would be called Type I 2HDM, except that we reverse the usual roles of

356: $H_{1}$ and $H_{2}$.}, implying that only $H_{1}$ couples to matter. The

357: scalar potential is

358: \begin{align}

359: V  &  =\mu_{1}^{2}|H_{1}|^{2}+\mu_{2}^{2}|H_{2}|^{2}+\lambda_{1}|H_{1}%

360: |^{4}+\lambda_{2}|H_{2}|^{4}+\lambda_{3}|H_{1}|^{2}|H_{2}|^{2}\nonumber\\

361: &  \quad+\lambda_{4}|H_{1}^{\dagger}H_{2}|^{2}+\frac{\lambda_{5}}{2}%

362: [(H_{1}^{\dagger}H_{2})^{2}+\text{h.c.}]. \label{pot}%

363: \end{align}

364: We assume that the parameters of this potential yield an asymmetric phase:

365: $H_{1}$ acquires a vev but $H_{2}$ does not\footnote{This phase of the

366: unbroken parity was considered recently in \cite{Ma} motivated by neutrino

367: physics. We thank E.~Ma for bringing this to our attention.} This is not the

368: well-studied standard phase of the theory that has both vevs non-zero, and it

369: cannot be obtained as the small $\tan\beta$ limit of the standard phase, which

370: is a fine tuned limit. Rather, the asymmetric phase results in a parameter

371: region of comparable size to the standard phase, depending essentially on the

372: sign of $\mu_{2}^{2}$. The doublet $H_{1}$ is identified as essentially the SM

373: Higgs doublet---it gets a vev and gives masses to $W,Z$ and fermions. On the

374: other hand, $H_{2}$ \textit{does not} couple to fermions and \textit{does not}

375: get a vev. We will call it the inert doublet, although of course it does have

376: weak interactions and quartic interactions.

377: %The $H_{1}$ is naturally identified with the SM Higgs doublet---it gets a vev

378: %and gives masses to all the fermions. On the other hand, we assume that

379: %$H_{2}$ is `inert': it \textit{does not} couple to fermions and \textit{does

380: %not} get a vev. The first assumption is one of the two standard ways to

381: %naturally preserve flavor\cite{GW}. Although the second assumption is less standard, it is

382: %generic---once the $H_{2}$ is assumed to exist, the chance for it to get a vev

383: %is roughly 50\%, depending essentially on the sign of $\mu_{2}^{2}$.

384: 

385: 

386: The scalar spectrum of the theory is obtained by expanding the potential

387: around the minimum

388: \begin{equation}

389: H_{1}=(0,v),\quad H_{2}=(0,0). \label{min1}%

390: \end{equation}

391: The physical fields appear in the parametrizaton of the doublets as follows:%

392: \begin{equation}

393: H_{1}=\left(

394: \begin{array}

395: [c]{c}%

396: \phi^{+}\\

397: v+(h+i\chi)/\sqrt{2}%

398: \end{array}

399: \right)  ,\qquad H_{2}=\left(

400: \begin{array}

401: [c]{c}%

402: H^{+}\\

403: (S+iA)/\sqrt{2}%

404: \end{array}

405: \right)  . \label{param}%

406: \end{equation}

407: Here the Goldstones $\phi^{+},\chi$ can be put to zero by choosing the unitary

408: gauge; they are included for future reference. The usual Higgs boson is $h$,

409: which we take to be heavy:

410: \begin{equation}

411: m_{h}\approx400-600~\text{GeV\quad(}\lambda_{1}=m_{h}^{2}/4v^{2}\approx2).

412: \label{assumed}%

413: \end{equation}

414: In addition, we have three \textquotedblleft inert\textquotedblright%

415: \ particles---a charged scalar $H^{+}$ and two neutrals $S,A$ with masses:%

416: \begin{align}

417: m_{I}^{2}  &  =\mu_{2}^{2}+\lambda_{I}v^{2},\quad I=\{H,S,A\}\label{masses}\\

418: \lambda_{H}  &  =\lambda_{3}\nonumber\\

419: \lambda_{S}  &  =\lambda_{3}+\lambda_{4}+\lambda_{5}\nonumber\\

420: \lambda_{A}  &  =\lambda_{3}+\lambda_{4}-\lambda_{5}.\nonumber

421: \end{align}

422: We assume that the potential (\ref{pot}) is bounded from below, which happens

423: if and only if%

424: \begin{equation}

425: \lambda_{1,2}>0;\qquad\lambda_{3},\lambda_{\text{L}}\equiv\lambda_{3}%

426: +\lambda_{4}-|\lambda_{5}|>-2(\lambda_{1}\lambda_{2})^{1/2}. \label{stab}%

427: \end{equation}

428: Under this assumption, the minimum (\ref{min1}) is stable and global, as long

429: as all masses squared (\ref{masses}) are positive.

430: 

431: The way to visualize the parameter space of the 7 parameters of the potential

432: (\ref{pot}) is as follows. These 7 parameters can be traded for the four

433: physical scalar masses, $m_{h},m_{H},m_{A},m_{S}$, the vev $v$ (or the Z-mass)

434: and the two quartic couplings, $\lambda_{2}$ and $\lambda_{3}$. The EWPT imply

435: a relation between the 5 parameters with dimension of mass, analogous to the

436: relation between $m_{h}$ and $m_{Z}$ in the SM. Since the inert parity,

437: (\ref{parity}), is unbroken, the lightest inert particle (LIP) will be stable

438: and will contribute to the Dark Matter density. It may in fact constitute all

439: of the DM if the parameters have the right value, although the typical

440: fraction is small. In any case, to avoid conflicting with the stringent limits

441: on charged relics \cite{charged}, we will always assume that \textit{the LIP

442: is neutral}\footnote{This can be avoided only by considering the parity

443: (\ref{parity}) to be an approximate symmetry.}. In the limit of Peccei-Quinn

444: symmetry, $\lambda_{5}\rightarrow0$, the neutral inert scalars $S$ and $A$

445: become degenerate. Direct detection of halo dark matter places a limit on this

446: degeneracy \cite{CDMS}, because the mass difference must be sufficient to

447: kinematically suppress the scattering of galactic LIPs on nuclei via

448: tree-level Z boson exchange.

449: 

450: %Moreover, if we impose the constraints of naturalness and perturbativity, the

451: %allowed splitting between $m_{S}$ and $m_{A}$ will be not too large,

452: %signalling an approximate Peccei-Quinn symmetry. However, this splitting

453: %should be nonzero ($\lambda_{5}\neq0$), so that the scattering of LIP in our

454: %galactic halo on nuclei by tree-level $Z$-exchange be kinematically forbidden.

455: %Otherwise we would be in conflict with existing limits on the spin-independent

456: %DM cross section on nuclei.

457: 

458: 

459: Of the two dimensionless couplings, $\lambda_{2}$ only affects the

460: self-interactions between the inert particles. It is difficult to even

461: conceive how it could be measured. To avoid additional problems with

462: perturbativity, we assume that it is quite small,

463: \begin{equation}

464: \lambda_{2}\lesssim1\,. \label{l2}%

465: \end{equation}

466: On the contrary, $\lambda_{3}$ may affect some significant observables, like

467: the width of $h$ (see Eq. (\ref{incr})) and (if parameters take values to

468: allow LIP DM) the interaction cross section of the DM with nuclei (see Eq.

469: (\ref{higgsexch})).

470: %The range of values that the couplings can

471: %take is summarized in Section \ref{summary}.

472: 

473: 

474: Analogously to the SM case, in the next sub-sections we discuss constraints

475: imposed on the IDM parameters by perturbativity, naturalness, and the EWPT,

476: and we summarize the allowed regions of couplings in Section \ref{summary}. In

477: a large region of parameter space we will find that the heavy Higgs has

478: naturalness and perturbativity properties very similar to the SM heavy Higgs

479: described in section 2. The advantage of the IDM is that the mass splittings

480: within the inert doublet allow a satisfactory $T$ parameter.

481: 

482: \subsection{Perturbativity}

483: 

484: \label{our.pert}Let us begin with perturbativity. The RG equations satisfied

485: by the two-Higgs doublet model couplings are given in Appendix \ref{2HDM.rg}.

486: To determine the exact high-energy behavior, one would have to find precise

487: initial conditions for all couplings, similarly to what we have done for the

488: SM in Appendix \ref{SM.pert}. Here we will be content with deriving some

489: sufficient conditions for perturbativity. First let us look at $\lambda_{1}$,

490: whose beta-function equation is%

491: \begin{equation}

492: 16\pi^{2}\frac{d\lambda_{1}}{d\log\Lambda}=24\lambda_{1}^{2}+2\lambda_{3}%

493: ^{2}+2\lambda_{3}\lambda_{4}+\lambda_{4}^{2}+\lambda_{5}^{2}. \label{rg1}%

494: \end{equation}

495: As we discussed in Section \ref{SM.p}, the SM with a 500 GeV Higgs stays

496: perturbative up to a reasonably high scale $\sim1.8$ TeV. In order that this

497: conclusion be preserved in our model, we will impose a requirement that the

498: sum the of extra terms in the RHS of (\ref{rg1}) not exceed 50\% of the

499: SM\ term $24\lambda_{1}^{2}$. Thus we get a constraint (see Eq. (\ref{assumed}%

500: ))%

501: \begin{equation}

502: |2\lambda_{3}(\lambda_{3}+\lambda_{4})+\lambda_{4}^{2}+\lambda_{5}%

503: ^{2}|\lesssim50\text{ \ \ \ (perturbativity).} \label{cp}%

504: \end{equation}

505: How large can the couplings become consistent with this inequality? One

506: possibility is that $|\lambda_{4}|$ becomes large, while $\lambda_{5}$ stays

507: relatively small. In this case we must have $\lambda_{4}<0$ for the LIP to be

508: neutral. This implies that $\lambda_{3}$ must also become large, $\lambda

509: _{3}\gtrsim|\lambda_{4}|$, to ensure the vacuum stability (\ref{stab})

510: (remember that $\lambda_{2}$ is assumed to be small.) The critical region is

511: when $\lambda_{3}\sim|\lambda_{4}|$ so that the first term in (\ref{cp})

512: vanishes. This way we get the bound

513: \begin{equation}

514: |\lambda_{4}|\lesssim\lambda_{3}\lesssim7\quad(\lambda_{4}<0\text{, }%

515: \lambda_{5}\text{ small).} \label{pert1}%

516: \end{equation}

517: 

518: 

519: The other possibility is that, on the contrary, it is $\lambda_{5}$ which

520: becomes large, while $\lambda_{4}$ is small. In this case, the vacuum

521: stability condition (\ref{stab}) implies $\lambda_{3}\gtrsim|\lambda_{5}|$,

522: leading to a stricter bound

523: \begin{equation}

524: |\lambda_{5}|\lesssim\lambda_{3}\lesssim4\text{\qquad(}\lambda_{4}\text{

525: small).} \label{pert2}%

526: \end{equation}

527: 

528: 

529: As we will see in Section \ref{our.EWPT} below, it is only the first

530: possibility that will lead to $\Delta T>0$, as needed to compensate for the

531: heavy Higgs. However, for the time being we want to explore all possibilities

532: so that we can understand the typical range of $\Delta T$ allowed in our model.

533: 

534: Finally, we have checked that, in the region allowed by the constraints

535: (\ref{pert1}) or (\ref{pert2}), the evolution of the remaining couplings does

536: not lead to any additional restrictions. Essentially this happens because we

537: assume that $\lambda_{2}$ is sufficiently small and because $\lambda_{3,4,5}$

538: evolve slower than $\lambda_{1}$ due to the smaller RG

539: coefficients\footnote{Also, in the first case, $\lambda_{3}$ grows faster than

540: $|\lambda_{4}|$ in the UV, and thus the vacuum stability is preserved.}.

541: 

542: \subsection{Naturalness}

543: 

544: \label{our.natur}

545: 

546: Like the SM, the IDM is a natural effective theory only up to some cutoff,

547: which is determined by the quadratic divergences in the dimensional

548: parameters. For the IDM there are two mass parameters, $\mu_{1,2}^{2}$, and we

549: must study naturalness for each separately, obtaining conditions that allow

550: the theory to be natural for energies up to 1.5 TeV.

551: 

552: Since $\mu_{1}^{2}$ is linear in the Higgs mass squared, as in the SM case it

553: is convenient to study the corrections to $m_{h}^{2}$. Introducing separate

554: cutoffs for loops of virtual $H_{1}$ and $H_{2}$ particles, $\Lambda_{H_{1,2}%

555: }$, we find a result similar to (\ref{quad})

556: \begin{equation}

557: \delta m_{h}^{2}=\alpha_{t}\Lambda_{t}^{2}+\alpha_{g}\Lambda_{g}^{2}%

558: +\alpha_{11}\Lambda_{H_{1}}^{2}+\alpha_{12}\Lambda_{H_{2}}^{2} \label{quad2}%

559: \end{equation}

560: where

561: \begin{equation}

562: \alpha_{11}=-\frac{3\lambda_{1}}{4\pi^{2}},\;\;\alpha_{12}=-\frac{2\lambda

563: _{3}+\lambda_{4}}{8\pi^{2}} \label{alpha11}%

564: \end{equation}

565: and $\alpha_{t,g}$ are as in (\ref{alphat}). The first three terms lead to the

566: bounds of (\ref{Li}), except that it is now $\Lambda_{H_{1}}$, rather than

567: $\Lambda_{h}$, that is limited by 1.3 TeV. This last bound cannot be avoided

568: without changing or cancelling the effect of the usual Higgs quartic, which

569: the IDM does not do. This is why we content ourselves with a theory that is

570: natural up to about 1.5 TeV. The scales $\Lambda_{t,g}$ are raised to 1.5 TeV

571: or more by taking the Higgs mass heavier than 400 GeV. Requiring that the last

572: term of (\ref{quad2}) not exceed the physical Higgs mass squared gives the

573: additional constraint

574: \begin{equation}

575: |2\lambda_{3}+\lambda_{4}|\lesssim9. \label{nat1}%

576: \end{equation}

577: 

578: 

579: The one-loop quadratic divergences to $\mu_{2}^{2}$ are

580: \begin{equation}

581: \delta\mu_{2}^{2} = - \frac{1}{2} \left(  \alpha_{g} \Lambda_{g}^{2}%

582: +\alpha_{22} \Lambda_{H_{2}}^{2} + \alpha_{21} \Lambda_{H_{1}}^{2} \right)

583: \label{quadmu2}%

584: \end{equation}

585: where

586: \begin{equation}

587: \alpha_{22} = -\frac{3 \lambda_{2}}{4 \pi^{2}}, \; \; \; \; \alpha_{21} =

588: -\frac{2 \lambda_{3} + \lambda_{4}}{8 \pi^{2}}. \label{alpha22}%

589: \end{equation}

590: Requiring each of these three corrections to be smaller than the tree-level

591: value, leads to the three naturalness constraints

592: \begin{equation}

593: \mu_{2} \gtrsim\left(  1,\; 2.5 \sqrt{\lambda_{2}}, \; \sqrt{|2\lambda_{3} +

594: \lambda_{4}|} \right)  120 \, \mbox{GeV} \label{mu2nat}%

595: \end{equation}

596: respectively.

597: 

598: We have required that our model is a natural effective field theory in the

599: sense that the sensitivity of Lagrangian parameters to variations in the

600: cutoff is small: $D_{i}(\mu_{1,2}^{2})\lesssim1$. We do not attempt to impose

601: the stronger condition that all observables have small such sensitivities. It

602: may be that some observables are small because of cancelling contributions

603: within the effective theory. For example, from (\ref{masses}) we see that a

604: LIP mass $m_{\text{L}}\ll\mu_{2}$ requires a cancellation between $\mu_{2}%

605: ^{2}$ and $\lambda_{3,4,5}v^{2}$ terms. Another example is the Z boson mass in

606: the minimal supersymmetric standard model with a heavy top squark. While these

607: cancellations should also be avoided, they differ from the cancellations at

608: the cutoff that are required between tree and loop contributions to Lagrangian

609: parameters. In particular they become acceptable if it is possible to measure

610: sufficient quantities to demonstrate that such cancellations occur in the low

611: energy theory. Given the expression (\ref{masses}) for the inert scalar

612: masses, it is natural to expect that some inert scalars could be somewhat

613: lighter than $\mu_{2}$, and some could be heavier. Since it is reasonable that

614: the terms in (\ref{masses}) for the LIP do not all have the same sign, it is

615: certainly natural for the LIP to be lighter than $\mu_{2}$. We consider

616: $m_{\text{L}}$ to be natural if

617: \begin{equation}

618: m_{\text{L}}\gtrsim\frac{\mu_{2}}{2}. \label{mL}%

619: \end{equation}

620: 

621: 

622: \subsection{ElectroWeak Precision Tests}

623: 

624: \label{our.EWPT}Finally, let us evaluate the IDM from the EWPT viewpoint. The

625: heavy Higgs contributions to $T$ is given in (\ref{ST}) and is to be

626: compensated by the contribution from the inert doublet, which is computed in

627: Appendix \ref{App.EWPT} to be

628: \begin{align}

629: \Delta T  &  =\frac{1}{32\pi^{2}\alpha v^{2}}[F(m_{H},m_{A})+F(m_{H,}%

630: m_{S})-F(m_{A},m_{S})],\label{extra}\\

631: &  F(m_{1},m_{2})=\frac{m_{1}^{2}+m_{2}^{2}}{2}-\frac{m_{1}^{2}m_{2}^{2}%

632: }{m_{1}^{2}-m_{2}^{2}}\ln\frac{m_{1}^{2}}{m_{2}^{2}}.

633: \end{align}

634: This contribution comes from the $\lambda_{4,5}$ terms in the potential, since

635: these are the terms breaking the custodial symmetry. From (\ref{masses}), it

636: is clear that the same terms are responsible for the mass splitting among the

637: inert scalars. The function $F(m_{1},m_{2})$ is positive, symmetric, vanishes

638: for $m_{1}=m_{2}$ and monotonically increases for $m_{1}\geq m_{2}$. Moreover,

639: to high accuracy, 2$\ldots$5\% for $1\leq m_{1}/m_{2}\leq2\ldots3$, we have

640: \begin{equation}

641: F(m_{1},m_{2})\approx\frac{2}{3}(m_{1}-m_{2})^{2}.

642: \end{equation}

643: For our purposes it will always be sufficient to use this approximation,

644: allowing (\ref{extra}) to be simplified

645: \begin{equation}

646: \Delta T\approx\frac{1}{24\pi^{2}\alpha v^{2}}(m_{H}-m_{A})(m_{H}-m_{S}).

647: \label{dT1}%

648: \end{equation}

649: Requiring this $\Delta T$ be in the range (\ref{need}), we find a constraint

650: on the spectrum

651: \begin{equation}

652: (m_{H}-m_{S})(m_{H}-m_{A})=M^{2},\qquad M=120_{-30}^{+20}\text{ GeV}\,.

653: \label{pred}%

654: \end{equation}

655: Since the LIP is neutral, we see that $H$ should be heavier than both $S$ and

656: $A$ to have $\Delta T>0$.

657: 

658: The contribution of the inert doublet to $S$ is also given in Appendix

659: \ref{App.EWPT}, Eq. (\ref{dS}). It depends on the inert particle masses only

660: logarithmically, and remains small ($|\Delta S|\lesssim0.04$) for the whole

661: range of parameters considered below$.$ Thus its effect on the EWPT fit can be neglected.

662: 

663: To evaluate the success of the IDM in compensating for the heavy Higgs, it is

664: important to know the typical range of $\Delta T$ allowed by naturalness and

665: perturbativity. The relevant constraints on the parameters are (\ref{stab}%

666: ,\ref{l2},\ref{pert1},\ref{pert2},\ref{mu2nat},\ref{mL}). The resulting

667: $\Delta T$ range is shown as a function of $m_{\text{L}}$ in Fig.~\ref{range}.

668: For $m_{\text{L}}\gtrsim300$ GeV the perturbativity constraints (\ref{pert1}%

669: ,\ref{pert2}) are more restrictive, while for smaller $m_{\text{L}}$ the

670: naturalness constraints become crucial. The maximal $\Delta T>0$ occurs when

671: $\lambda_{4}$ is large and negative, while $\lambda_{5}$ remains small. The

672: maximal $\Delta T<0$ is achieved in the opposite regime of $\lambda_{4}$

673: small, $\lambda_{5}$ large. We see that $\Delta T$ is predominantly positive

674: and is of the typical size needed to compensate for the heavy Higgs in a large

675: region of the parameter space. We conclude that the success of our model is

676: \textit{not} accidental. If it had turned out that the needed $\Delta T$ was

677: much smaller than the typical value, then we would have imposed approximate

678: custodial symmetry on the potential. But we see that little, if any,

679: suppression from custodial symmetry is needed in most of the range of

680: $m_{\text{L}}$\footnote{If we, say, insist on a stricter upper bound

681: $|\lambda_{4}|\lesssim2$, then $\Delta T_{\max}$ is lowered to $0.6.$}.

682: 

683: \begin{figure}[ptb]

684: \begin{center}

685: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{dTmax}

686: \end{center}

687: \caption{{}The maximal and minimal $\Delta T$ allowed by naturalness and

688: perturbativity as a function of $m_{L}$. The horizontal grey band marks the

689: range needed to compensate for the heavy Higgs.}%

690: \label{range}%

691: \end{figure}

692: 

693: \subsection{Summary of constraints on the spectrum and couplings}

694: 

695: \label{summary} Preparing for the discussion of signals, let us describe the

696: region of parameter space that leads to a natural, perturbative effective

697: theory up to 1.5 TeV and that satisfies the EWPT constraint (\ref{pred}). It

698: is convenient to use a parametrization in terms of the masses of the two

699: neutral inert particles, $m_{\text{L}}$ for the lightest and $m_{\text{NL}}$

700: for the next-to-lightest. We consider the general case when $\Delta

701: m=m_{\text{NL}}-m_{\text{L}}$ can be sizeable. The charged scalar is always

702: heavier than both neutrals, and using (\ref{pred}), the second splitting can

703: be expressed in terms of $\Delta m$ and $M$

704: \begin{equation}

705: m_{H}-m_{\text{NL}}=\sqrt{M^{2}+\frac{(\Delta m)^{2}}{4}}-\frac{\Delta m}{2}

706: \label{*}%

707: \end{equation}

708: and is shown in Fig.~\ref{spacings} for the range $M= 120^{+20}_{-30}$ GeV.

709: 

710: \begin{figure}[ptb]

711: \begin{center}

712: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{spacings}

713: \end{center}

714: \caption{The relation between the first and the second spacing in the inert

715: particle spectrum following from the EWPT constraint (\ref{pred}). }%

716: \label{spacings}%

717: \end{figure}

718: 

719: The couplings $\lambda_{4,5}$ can be also expressed via $m_{\text{L}%

720: },m_{\text{NL}}$ using (\ref{*}) and (\ref{masses}), giving%

721: \begin{align}

722: \lambda_{4}  &  =-\frac{1}{v^{2}}\left(  M^{2}+(m_{\text{L}}+m_{\text{NL}%

723: })\sqrt{M^{2}+\frac{(\Delta m)^{2}}{4}}\right)  <0\label{l4}\\

724: |\lambda_{5}|  &  =\frac{m_{\text{NL}}^{2}-m_{\text{L}}^{2}}{2v^{2}}%

725: <|\lambda_{4}|. \label{l5}%

726: \end{align}

727: The sign of $\lambda_{5}$ depends on whether it is the scalar $S$ or the

728: pseudoscalar $A$ which is the heavier.

729: 

730: The coupling $\lambda_{3}$ (or $\lambda_{\text{L}}\equiv\lambda_{3}%

731: +\lambda_{4}-|\lambda_{5}|$) is the only free parameter; it should be chosen

732: in agreement with the perturbativity (\ref{l2},\ref{pert1}), naturalness

733: (\ref{nat1},\ref{mu2nat},\ref{mL}), and vacuum stability (\ref{stab})

734: constraints. These constraints can be used to derive a range of allowed

735: values:%

736: \begin{equation}

737: \lambda_{\text{L}}^{\min}(m_{\text{L}})\lesssim\lambda_{\text{L}}%

738: \lesssim\lambda_{\text{L}}^{\max}(m_{\text{L}},\Delta m) \label{range1}%

739: \end{equation}

740: The (iso)plots of $\lambda_{4,5}$ $\lambda_{\text{L}}^{\min},\lambda

741: _{\text{L}}^{\max}$ are given in Fig.~\ref{lambda45},\ref{Dminmax}. The white

742: region has $\lambda_{\text{L}}^{\min}>\lambda_{\text{L}}^{\max}$ or

743: $|\lambda_{4}|>7$ and is disfavored by naturalness and/or perturbativity.

744: 

745: Thus we conclude that the IDM is a fully natural effective field theory up to

746: 1.5 TeV for a large region of parameter space where the Higgs is heavy and

747: EWPT are satisfied. Of the 7 parameters in the potential, $\mu_{1}^{2}$ and

748: $\lambda_{1}$ can be traded for $v$ and $m_{h}$, while $\mu_{2}^{2}$ and

749: $\lambda_{3,4,5}$ can be traded for $m_{\text{L}},m_{\text{NL}},m_{H},$ and

750: $\lambda_{\text{L}}$. EWPT constrains $m_{\text{H}}-m_{\text{NL}}$ as shown in

751: Figure 3. The allowed ranges of $m_{\text{L}}$ and $\Delta m$ are shown shaded

752: in Figure 4, and the allowed range of $\lambda_{\text{L}}$ is shown in Figure

753: 5. From perturbativity, $\lambda_{2} \lesssim1$.

754: 

755: \begin{figure}[ptb]

756: \begin{minipage}[c]{0.5\linewidth}

757: \centering

758: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{lambda4range}

759: \end{minipage}

760: \begin{minipage}[c]{0.5\linewidth}

761: \centering

762: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{lambda5range}

763: \end{minipage}

764: \caption{ $\lambda_{4,5}$ in the allowed region as functions of $m,\Delta m$

765: computed from (\ref{l4}), (\ref{l5}) with $M=120$ GeV. }%

766: \label{lambda45}%

767: \end{figure}

768: 

769: \begin{figure}[ptb]

770: \begin{minipage}[c]{0.5\linewidth}

771: \centering

772: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{Dmin}

773: \end{minipage}

774: \begin{minipage}[c]{0.5\linewidth}

775: \centering

776: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{Dmax}

777: \end{minipage}

778: \caption{ $\lambda_{\text{L}}^{\min}$ and $\lambda_{\text{L}}^{\max}$ \ for

779: $M=120$ GeV. Notice that $\lambda_{\text{L}}^{\min}$ depends only on

780: $m_{\text{L}}$ and is constant for $m_{\text{L}}\gtrsim180$ GeV. }%

781: \label{Dminmax}%

782: \end{figure}

783: 

784: \subsection{Dark Matter}

785: 

786: \label{our.DM}

787: 

788: We now begin the discussion of signals. As we already mentioned, the LIP is

789: stable, and thus provides a cold Dark Matter candidate\footnote{A possibility

790: also mentioned in \cite{Ma}.}. Here we will estimate its relic abundance and

791: discuss prospects for direct detection.

792: 

793: \subsubsection{Relic abundance}

794: 

795: \textbf{Case I:} $m_{\text{L}}\gtrsim m_{W}$

796: 

797: This case is of significant interest, since it includes most of the region of

798: parameter space preferred by naturalness. The dominant annihilation process is

799: into gauge bosons, with \textit{s}-wave cross section $\sigma_{\text{ann}%

800: }v_{\text{rel}}\sim130$ pb for $m_{\text{L}}\sim m_{W}$, decreasing to

801: $\sim10$ pb for $m_{\text{L}}\sim400$ GeV (see Appendix \ref{DM.1}). A

802: particular feature of our model is that the cross section does not decrease

803: further due to the contribution of the longitudinal final states. Using the

804: standard formalism \cite{KT}, we find the relic density $\Omega_{\text{DM}%

805: }h^{2}\lesssim0.02$ in the whole range of $m_{\text{L}}$, decreasing to

806: $0.002$ for $m_{\text{L}}\sim m_{W}$. This number can be trusted as an order

807: of magnitude estimate all the way down to the $WW$ production threshold. Since

808: this is much lower than the observed $\Omega_{\text{DM}}h^{2}\sim0.1$, we

809: conclude that in this region of parameter space the LIP provides only a

810: sub-dominant component of the Dark Matter.

811: 

812: \textbf{Case II:} $m_{\text{L}}<m_{W}$

813: 

814: Let us focus on the region $m_{\text{L}}= (60 \text{--} 80)$ GeV. While some

815: cancellations in (\ref{masses}) for the LIP mass are required, they are mild

816: and satisfy (\ref{mL}).

817: 

818: As the temperature of the early universe falls well below $m_{L}$, thermal

819: equilibrium is maintained via \textit{p}-wave suppressed coannihilations of

820: $S$ and $A$ into fermions, and the relic abundance critically depends on

821: $\Delta m$. In appendix \ref{DM.2}, we find the thermally averaged cross

822: section, for $\Delta m\ll T_{\text{f}}\sim m/25$, to be $\langle

823: \sigma_{\text{coann}}v_{\text{rel}}\rangle\sim(60 \text{--} 15)$ pb, for

824: $m_{\text{L}}= (60 \text{--} 80)$ GeV. This leads to the relic density

825: $\Omega_{\text{DM}}h^{2}\approx(0.5 \text{--} 2.5) \times10^{-2}$, still below

826: the observed value. On the other hand, for $\Delta m\gtrsim T_{\text{f}}$ the

827: density of the heavier component is thermally suppressed and the

828: coannihilation rate decreases. A formalism to compute the relic abundance in

829: such non-standard situations was developed in \cite{Griest}. However, the

830: final result can be predicted without making difficult calculations. Roughly,

831: the resulting relic density will be a factor $\sim(1/2)\exp(\Delta

832: m/T_{\text{f}})$ larger than in the unsplit case, where $1/2$ takes into

833: account that only the lighter component now contributes to the final

834: abundancy. This way we deduce that $\Delta m_{\text{naive}}\approx8$ GeV

835: should be enough to yield the observed DM density.

836: 

837: The above naive argument can be expected to work at least for $m_{\text{L}%

838: }\lesssim m_{W}-3T_{\text{f}}/2\approx75$ GeV; for higher masses the

839: annihilation into $WW$ becomes thermally allowed and suppresses the relic

840: abundance. Using the above-mentioned formalism of \cite{Griest}, these numbers

841: can be confirmed (see Fig.~\ref{DMdiff}). In particular we find $\Delta

842: m\approx(8\mbox{--}9)$ GeV for $m_{\text{L}}=(60\mbox{--}73)$ GeV,

843: \ increasing to $12$ GeV for $m_{\text{L}}=75$ GeV, while for $m_{\text{L}%

844: }\geq76$ GeV no splitting gives the observed DM density.

845: 

846: \begin{figure}[ptb]

847: \centering

848: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{DM} \caption{ The mass splitting between the

849: neutral inert particles needed to get the observed DM abundance below the WW

850: threshold (obtained using the formalism from \cite{Griest}). For $m_{\text{L}%

851: }\geq76$ GeV no splitting works.}%

852: \label{DMdiff}%

853: \end{figure}

854: 

855: \subsubsection{Direct detection}

856: 

857: The $S$ and $A$ have a vector-like interaction with the $Z$-boson, which

858: produces a spin-independent elastic cross section on a nucleus $\mathcal{N}$%

859: \begin{equation}

860: \sigma_{Z}(\text{L\thinspace}\mathcal{N}\rightarrow\text{L}\,\mathcal{N}%

861: )=\frac{G^{2}_{\text{F}}m_{r}^{2}}{2\pi}[N-(1-4s_{\text{w}}^{2})Z]^{2}\text{,}

862: \label{Zexch}%

863: \end{equation}

864: where $N$ and $Z$ are the numbers of neutrons and protons in the nucleus, and

865: $m_{r}=m_{L}m_{\mathcal{N}}/(m_{L}+m_{\mathcal{N}})$ is the reduced mass. The

866: resulting per nucleon cross section is 8-9 orders of magnitude above the

867: existing limits \cite{CDMS}. Thus we have to assume that there exists a

868: non-zero splitting between $S$ and $A$ larger than the kinetic energy of

869: DM\ in our galactic halo, so that the process (\ref{Zexch}) is forbidden

870: kinematically. This constraint must be imposed whether $m_{\text{L}}$ is above

871: or below $m_{W}$---even though the LIP relic density for $m_{\text{L}}\gtrsim

872: m_{W}$ is small, it is still too large to allow elastic scattering from nuclei

873: via tree-level $Z$-exchange.

874: 

875: Tree-level $h$ exchange produces a spin-independent cross section

876: \cite{Barbieri:1988zs}:%

877: \begin{equation}

878: \sigma_{h}(\text{L\thinspace}\mathcal{N}\rightarrow\text{L\thinspace

879: }\mathcal{N})=\frac{m_{r}^{2}}{4\pi}\left(  \frac{\lambda_{\text{L}}%

880: }{m_{\text{L}}m_{h}^{2}}\right)  ^{2}f^{2}m_{\mathcal{N}}^{2}\text{,}

881: \label{higgsexch}%

882: \end{equation}

883: where $f\sim0.3$ is the usual nucleonic matrix element:%

884: \begin{equation}

885: \langle\mathcal{N}|\sum m_{q}q\bar{q}|\mathcal{N}\rangle=fm_{\mathcal{N}%

886: }\langle\mathcal{N}|\mathcal{N}\rangle.

887: \end{equation}

888: 

889: 

890: Another allowed process, the exchange of two gauge bosons at one loop, gives

891: an effective coupling to nucleons similar to the tree-level $h$ exchange (see

892: \cite{MDM} for a recent discussion). For $m_{\text{NL}}-m_{\text{L}}\ll m_{Z}%

893: $, the resulting spin-independent cross section is independent of $m_{\text{L

894: }}$and can be estimated as%

895: \begin{equation}

896: \sigma_{\text{VV}}(\text{L\thinspace}\mathcal{N}\rightarrow\text{L\thinspace

897: }\mathcal{N})\sim\frac{m_{r}^{2}}{4\pi}\left[  \frac{(g/2c_{\text{w}})^{4}%

898: }{16\pi^{2}m_{Z}^{3}}\right]  ^{2}f^{2}m_{\mathcal{N}}^{2}, \label{VV}%

899: \end{equation}

900: while for larger splittings a cross section estimate can be obtained by

901: replacing $m_{Z}^{3}$ in the amplitude by $m_{\text{L}}m_{Z}^{2}$.

902: 

903: The numerical value of the cross-section (\ref{higgsexch}) for scattering from

904: a proton is

905: \begin{equation}

906: \sigma_{h}(\text{L}p\rightarrow\text{L}p)\approx2\times10^{-9}%

907: \;\mbox{pb}\;\left(  \frac{\lambda_{L}}{0.5}\right)  ^{2}\left(  \frac{70 \,

908: \mbox{GeV}}{m_{L}}\right)  ^{2}\left(  \frac{500 \, \mbox{GeV}}{m_{h}}\right)

909: ^{4}. \label{higgsexchnum}%

910: \end{equation}

911: Our mass choices follow because the relic LIP abundance can yield the observed

912: DM for $m_{L}\approx$ 60--75 GeV, and the cutoff scales of the theory are

913: quite high if the Higgs is heavy, $m_{h}\approx$ 400--600 GeV. These ranges

914: for $m_{L}$ and $m_{h}$ do lot lead to a wide variation of $\sigma_{h}$. The

915: largest uncertainty in $\sigma_{h}$ arises from $|\lambda_{L}|=(\mu_{2}%

916: ^{2}-m_{L}^{2})/v^{2}$. From (\ref{mu2nat}) and (\ref{mL}) naturalness

917: suggests that, for this interesting case of a light LIP, $\mu_{2}$ should be

918: close to its lowest natural value of 120 GeV, giving $|\lambda_{L}|\approx

919: 0.5$, the value used in (\ref{higgsexchnum}). In this region of parameter

920: space, the cross section as estimated in (\ref{VV}) is typically an order of

921: magnitude smaller. Thus we expect a signal two orders of magnitude below the

922: present limit from Ge detectors \cite{CDMS} and within the sensitivity of

923: experiments currently under study.

924: 

925: Finally, for $m_{\text{L}}\gtrsim m_{W}$ we are penalized by a smaller relic

926: density and by the $m_{\text{L}}^{-2}$ decrease of (\ref{higgsexch}). The

927: prospects for near-future direct detection in this case are dim.

928: 

929: \subsection{Collider signals}

930: 

931: \subsubsection{Production and decay of the inert particles}

932: 

933: \label{coll}

934: 

935: The inert particles can be only pair-produced. If $m_{\text{L}}\approx70$ GeV

936: and $\Delta m$ is small, as preferred in the DM region, $SA$ pairs were

937: produced at LEP2. Assuming $\Delta m\ll m_{\text{L}}$, the production cross

938: section is%

939: \begin{equation}

940: \sigma(e^{+}e^{-}\rightarrow SA)=\left(  \frac{g}{2c_{\text{w}}}\right)

941: ^{4}\left(  \frac{1}{2}-2s_{\text{w}}^{2}+4s_{\text{w}}^{4}\right)  \frac

942: {1}{48\pi s}\frac{[1-4m^{2}/s]^{3/2}}{[1-m_{Z}^{2}/s]^{2}}\approx0.2\text{ pb}

943: \label{prod_lep}%

944: \end{equation}

945: for $\sqrt{s}=200$ GeV. The heavier state, which for definiteness we take to

946: be $A$, decays into the lighter plus $Z^{\ast}$. The resulting dilepton events

947: with missing energy were looked for in the context of searches for the

948: lightest superpartner. For small mass differences, $\Delta m\lesssim10$ GeV,

949: the production cross section (\ref{prod_lep}) is below the existing limits set

950: by the separate LEP collaborations \cite{limits}. However, our signal is close

951: to these limits, so that a combined reanalysis of the old data may be useful.

952: 

953: At the LHC pairs of inert particles will be produced by%

954: \begin{align}

955: pp  &  \rightarrow W^{\ast}\rightarrow HA\text{ or }HS\label{HS}\\

956: pp  &  \rightarrow Z^{\ast}(\gamma^{\ast})\rightarrow SA\text{ or }H^{+}H^{-}%

957: \end{align}

958: and will decay by%

959: \begin{align}

960: H  &  \rightarrow AW\text{ or }SW\label{Hd}\\

961: A  &  \rightarrow SZ^{(\ast)}. \label{Ad}%

962: \end{align}

963: One can thus imagine various decay chains, with final states containing

964: several leptons, jets and missing transverse energy.

965: 

966: For the purposes of detection, the events with charged leptons in the final

967: state seem most promising. In the region preferred by DM, the decay (\ref{Ad})

968: gives events having the lepton pair invariant mass sharply peaked at low

969: values, with a cutoff determined by $\Delta m\lesssim10$ GeV. An extra charged

970: lepton coming from $H$ via (\ref{Hd}) is likely needed to help discriminate

971: against the SM background. We have estimated the number of the inert particle

972: pair production events at the LHC with at least 3 charged leptons in the final

973: states using \textsc{PYTHIA }\cite{PYTHIA}. In the region preferred by DM, the

974: process (\ref{HS}) has cross section $\sim0.25$ pb, and a branching ratio (BR)

975: into at least 3 electrons or muons of $\sim1.5\%$. The effective cross section

976: of signal events with 3 charged leptons is thus estimated as

977: \begin{equation}

978: \sigma_{\text{signal}}\approx3.5\text{ fb}%

979: \end{equation}

980: The $H^{+}H^{-}$ pair production has cross section about an order of magnitude

981: smaller because of the higher mass. The dominant irreducible background is

982: likely to be the $WZ$ pair production with the $W$ decaying into electrons or

983: muons and the $Z$ into $\tau$-pairs, with the $\tau$'s also decaying into

984: electrons or muons. We assume that the background from direct decays of the

985: $Z$ into electrons or muons can be easily eliminated. In this case we estimate

986: the effective cross section of background events as

987: \begin{equation}

988: \sigma_{\text{bg}}\approx20\text{ fb}%

989: \end{equation}

990: An integrated luminosity $\mathcal{L}\sim30$ fb$^{-1}$ might therefore allow a

991: detection of the signal. It would be very interesting to perform a complete

992: study going beyond these rough estimates. We are aware of the problems that

993: might arise from other sources of backgrounds, like the production of

994: $t\bar{t}$ pairs, which has been studied in an analogous supersymmetric

995: context \cite{mangano}, or the $W \gamma^{\ast}$ production.

996: 

997: \subsubsection{The Higgs width}

998: 

999: The existence of the new states may be inferred indirectly from the increase

1000: of the width of the usual Higgs. The new decay channels are%

1001: \begin{equation}

1002: h\rightarrow SS,AA,H^{+}H^{-}%

1003: \end{equation}

1004: and the resulting increase in the width of $h$ is%

1005: \begin{equation}

1006: \Delta\Gamma=\frac{v^{2}}{16\pi m_{h}}\left[  \lambda_{S}^{2}\left(

1007: 1-\frac{4m_{S}^{2}}{m_{h}^{2}}\right)  ^{1/2}+\lambda_{A}^{2}\left(

1008: 1-\frac{4m_{A}^{2}}{m_{h}^{2}}\right)  ^{1/2}+2\lambda_{3}^{2}\left(

1009: 1-\frac{4m_{H}^{2}}{m_{h}^{2}}\right)  ^{1/2}\right]  \label{incr}%

1010: \end{equation}

1011: where $\lambda_{S,A}$ are given in (\ref{masses}).

1012: 

1013: The width of a 500 GeV Higgs in the SM is $\Gamma_{SM}\approx68$ GeV

1014: \cite{tome} (mostly due to decays into $WW$,$ZZ$ and $t$\thinspace$\bar{t}$).

1015: If $\Delta\Gamma$ reaches $0.1\,\Gamma_{SM}$, it can be seen with high

1016: luminosity at the LHC. The size of $\Delta\Gamma$ is uncertain, with strong

1017: dependence on $\lambda_{3}$ and on how many channels are open. The maximal

1018: $\Delta\Gamma$ attainable for a given $m_{\text{L }}$and $\Delta m$ is

1019: possible to estimate by letting $\lambda_{\text{L}}$ vary in the range

1020: (\ref{range1}) determined by the naturalness and perturbativity. The resulting

1021: $\Delta\Gamma_{\max}$ is plotted in Fig. \ref{width}. We see that there is a

1022: region where $\Delta\Gamma_{\max}\gtrsim7$ GeV with prospects for the LHC observation.

1023: 

1024: \begin{figure}[ptb]

1025: \begin{center}

1026: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{width}

1027: \end{center}

1028: \caption{{} Contours of the increase in the width of a 500 GeV Higgs,

1029: $\Delta\Gamma$, computed with the maximal couplings allowed by naturalness and

1030: perturbativity.}%

1031: \label{width}%

1032: \end{figure}

1033: 

1034: \section{Alternatives}

1035: 

1036: \label{alt}Given the indirect nature of the information contained in the EWPT,

1037: there may be and there are in fact other ways to make a heavy Higgs compatible

1038: with them. A discussion of some of the explored possibilities has been given

1039: in Ref. \cite{Peskin}. With reference to this discussion, we point out two

1040: related facts:

1041: 

1042: 1. If the new physics responsible for allowing a heavy Higgs brings in new

1043: 4-fermion interactions, it is crucial to check that such new interactions pass

1044: the constraints set by LEP2. A relevant example in this sense is provided by

1045: the way the Kaluza Klein excitations of the SM gauge bosons affect the EWPT.

1046: While their exchange gives effects that indeed allow a good fit of the EWPT

1047: with a heavy Higgs (up to 500 GeV) \cite{StrumiaKK}, this fit becomes

1048: disfavoured by the newer LEP2 data \cite{LEP2}.

1049: 

1050: 2. If one tries a fit of the EWPT with a heavy Higgs, including also the LEP2

1051: data, by adding, one at a time, the four dimension-6 operators involving the

1052: SM Higgs and gauge bosons, but not the fermions, a successful fit is obtained

1053: only from the 4-Higgs operator that corrects $T$ \cite{LEP2}

1054: \begin{equation}

1055: \mathcal{O}_{H}=|H^{\dagger}D_{\mu}H|^{2}.

1056: \end{equation}

1057: This may be of some significance, since this operator is the only one that

1058: breaks custodial symmetry. So it is relatively easier to correct $T$ only, by

1059: adjusting the symmetry breaking parameter(s) that control custodial symmetry,

1060: as we do in the Inert Doublet Model.

1061: 

1062: As already said, there are other ways of correcting only, or predominantly,

1063: $T$ by some perturbative new physics. As examples, we mention here two possibilities.

1064: 

1065: i) A scalar triplet of zero hypercharge, $\tau$, \cite{Forshaw:2001xq} coupled

1066: to the SM Higgs via the potential

1067: \begin{equation}

1068: \Delta V=M^{2}\tau^{2}-m\tau_{a}H^{\dagger}\sigma_{a}H.

1069: \end{equation}

1070: 

1071: 

1072: ii) A vector-like fermion doublet $F,F^{c}$ of hypercharge 1/2 and a singlet

1073: fermion $S$ with mass and interaction Lagrangian%

1074: \begin{equation}

1075: \Delta\mathcal{L}=\lambda FHS+\lambda^{c}F^{c}H^{\dagger}S+MFF^{c}+\mu S^{2}.

1076: \end{equation}

1077: 

1078: 

1079: Both these cases allow to correct predominantly $T$, so that a heavy Higgs

1080: becomes consistent with all current information. In our view, the drawback of

1081: the triplet model is that it corrects $T$ at tree level, so that, depending on

1082: the ratio $m/M$ all the extra particles can be hidden at inaccessible

1083: energies, up to 4-5 TeV. The fermionic example is definitely more constrained

1084: since $T$ receives one loop corrections. It also contains a DM candidate. We

1085: nevertheless find it less compelling than the IDM.

1086: 

1087: It is in fact natural at this point to ask how the IDM compares with the case

1088: where the second Higgs doublet acquires a non-zero vev. This can also be a way

1089: to improve naturalness \cite{BH}. It should be noted, however, that

1090: distributing the vevs among the 2 doublets, each smaller than $v$, strengthens

1091: the bounds on the cutoff of the loops induced by the quartic self-couplings.

1092: Furthermore, insisting on natural flavour conservation leads to unobserved

1093: massless Goldstone bosons in the limit of exact custodial symmetry. In

1094: particular, to make the charged scalar heavy enough not to conflict with

1095: direct bounds may lead to large contributions to the T parameter. A study of

1096: the consistency of the 2HDM with the EWPT in the space of its parameters has

1097: been discussed in Ref. \cite{Chankowski:2000an}.

1098: 

1099: \section{Conclusions}

1100: 

1101: The Large Hadron Collider will explore for the first time an energy domain

1102: well above the Fermi scale. Having in mind that $\Lambda_{QCD}$ is the only

1103: other fundamental scale known in particle physics, the importance of this fact

1104: cannot be overestimated. At the same time we are faced with the success of the

1105: SM, minimally extended to account for neutrino masses, in describing all known

1106: data in particle physics. Which physics will be revealed by the LHC?

1107: 

1108: Among the many lines of thought that have been followed to try to answer this

1109: question, on one view there is a quite general consensus: the SM is likely to

1110: be the low energy approximation of a more complete theory characterized by one

1111: or more higher physical scales. Is this telling us something about the

1112: complete theory itself? Not the least property of the SM is that its

1113: Lagrangian is the most general renormalizable one for the given gauge symmetry

1114: and particle content. Indeed this apparently allows the SM to be viewed as the

1115: infrared physics of a broad class of theories. All that one needs is to

1116: maintain gauge invariance and to produce a low energy spectrum that matches

1117: the degrees of freedom of the SM. Yet, this last property appears to be

1118: non-trivial due to the presence of the Higgs field. On one side the Higgs is

1119: crucial to the success of the SM in its perturbative description of the data.

1120: On the other side, well identified quantum corrections act to push away the

1121: Higgs from the low energy spectrum of the more complete theory. This is the

1122: naturalness problem of the SM. The problem is particularly compelling in view

1123: of the relatively large numerical size of the relevant quantum corrections,

1124: even cut off at an energy scale well inside the putative range of energies

1125: directly explorable at the LHC. Hence the effort to search for compensating

1126: effects that could be present in the complete theory, of which supersymmetry

1127: is the neatest example. In this view, the LHC will discover the new physics

1128: that cancels the leading quadratic divergences of the SM.

1129: 

1130: In this paper we have pursued a different line to attack the naturalness

1131: problem of the SM, more modest in scope but physically well motivated, we

1132: believe. The sensitivity of the Higgs mass to the cutoff is after all a

1133: quantitative issue, both for the impact on the physics expected at the LHC and

1134: in connection with the ``LEP paradox'' or the ``little hierarchy

1135: problem''\cite{paradox}. What then if a new physics effect exists which does

1136: not counteract the quadratic divergence of the Higgs mass but nevertheless

1137: relaxes the constraint on the cutoff that is inferred from it? We propose that

1138: such an effect may be due to the presence of a second Higgs doublet which,

1139: however, does not acquire a vev. We find this the simplest way to allow a

1140: heavier mass for the SM Higgs, between 400 and 600 GeV, while keeping full

1141: consistency with the EWPT. In turn a heavier Higgs makes the size of its

1142: quantum corrections less significant: the most important effect is no longer

1143: due to the top loop, as in the unmodified SM, but rather to the loop due to

1144: the Higgs self-coupling. As a consequence, strictly without any cancellation,

1145: the cutoff is pushed to about $1.5$ TeV, against a value of 400 GeV in the SM

1146: with a Higgs mass of 115 GeV. All this happens in a perfectly controllable

1147: perturbative regime for the entire extended model.

1148: 

1149: The potential of the extended Higgs sector, with a parity symmetry to keep

1150: natural flavour conservation, has 7 parameters, which can be traded for the Z

1151: mass (the vev of the SM Higgs), 4 masses of the scalar particles, 3 neutral

1152: and one charged, and 2 quartic couplings. This potential can support 2

1153: approximate global symmetries: a custodial symmetry, which controls the

1154: splittings among the 3 inert scalars, and a Peccei-Quinn symmetry, which

1155: governs specifically the splitting among the two neutral inert bosons. While

1156: the SM Higgs mass is between 400 and 600 GeV, the other scalars have a mass

1157: ranging from 60 GeV to about 1 TeV. They are always produced in pairs and do

1158: not couple to fermions. It is an interesting question to see if, in the low

1159: mass range, their signals can be seen above background at the LHC.

1160: 

1161: The lightest of the inert scalars is necessarily stable and is required by

1162: cosmology to be neutral. If the Dark Matter is fully accounted for by this

1163: scalar, its mass is predicted to be around 70 GeV, with a small splitting of

1164: 5--10 GeV, controlled by the Peccei-Quinn symmetry, relative to the other

1165: neutral inert scalar, of opposite parity. The pair production of these neutral

1166: bosons may have barely escaped detection at LEP2, due to the small mass

1167: splitting. The cross section on protons of the DM particle is predicted to be

1168: a few times $10^{-9}$ pb, giving a signal below the present limits on direct

1169: DM searches but within the sensitivity of experiments currently under study.

1170: 

1171: We have stated in the very first paragraph of the Introduction how we view the

1172: status of the EWSB problem in this last year of the pre-LHC era. The

1173: predominant picture, rooted on supersymmetry and theoretically very appealing,

1174: is not without problems. Even more importantly, we find it difficult to say

1175: anything new on it without further experimental inputs. On the other hand we

1176: wonder if alternative roads to LHC physics cannot still be explored. We have

1177: proposed one based on a fully explicit model.

1178: 

1179: \section*{Acknowledgments}

1180: 

1181: We would like to thank Alessandro Strumia for many useful conversations, and

1182: Rikard Enberg, Patrick Fox, Gerardo Ganis, Fabiola Gianotti, Jean-Francois

1183: Grivaz, Patric Janot, Tommaso Lari, Michelangelo Mangano, Michele Papucci and

1184: Roberto Tenchini for very useful exchanges concerning Section \ref{coll}. This

1185: work is supported by the EU under RTN contract MRTN-CT-2004-503369. R.B. is

1186: supported in part by MIUR, and L.H. in part by the US Department of Energy

1187: under Contracts DE-AC03-76SF00098, DE-FG03-91ER-40676 and by the National

1188: Science Foundation under grant PHY-00-98840. \appendix

1189: 

1190: 

1191: \section{Heavy Higgs RG flow}

1192: 

1193: \label{SM.pert}

1194: 

1195: Detailed treatments of the Landau pole constraint in the SM exist

1196: \cite{Hambye}. We will find it instructive to rederive some of the known

1197: results from first principles, focussing on the heavy Higgs case. The one-loop

1198: RG equation for the SM Higgs self-coupling is

1199: \begin{equation}

1200: \frac{d\lambda}{d\ln\Lambda}=\frac{3\lambda^{2}}{2\pi^{2}}+\ldots\text{,}

1201: \label{RG}%

1202: \end{equation}

1203: where \ldots\ stands for the gauge boson and top quark contributions, which

1204: are sub-dominant for heavy Higgs. As discussed below, the appropriate initial

1205: condition for the RG evolution is%

1206: \begin{equation}

1207: \lambda(1.36m_{h})=\frac{m_{h}^{2}}{4v^{2}}\equiv\lambda_{\text{phys}},

1208: \label{init}%

1209: \end{equation}

1210: where the physical Higgs mass $m_{h}$ and its vev $v$ are observable

1211: quantities. The coupling thus evolves as%

1212: \begin{equation}

1213: \lambda(\Lambda)=\frac{\lambda_{\text{phys}}}{1-\frac{3\lambda_{\text{phys}}%

1214: }{2\pi^{2}}\ln\frac{\Lambda}{1.36m_{h}}}\,

1215: \end{equation}

1216: and blows up at the Landau pole%

1217: \begin{equation}

1218: \Lambda_{L}=1.36m_{h}\exp\left(  \frac{2\pi^{2}}{3\lambda_{\text{phys}}%

1219: }\right)  \,.

1220: \end{equation}

1221: In practice, perturbation theory will break down before $\Lambda_{L}$ is

1222: reached. Let us therefore loosely define the perturbativity scale $\Lambda

1223: _{P}$ at which the one-loop correction to $\lambda$ reaches 30\% of the

1224: tree-level value:%

1225: \begin{equation}

1226: \Lambda_{P}=1.36m_{h}\exp\left(  0.3\frac{2\pi^{2}}{3\lambda_{\text{phys}}%

1227: }\right)  \,.

1228: \end{equation}

1229: The values of $\Lambda_{L,P}$ for the Higgs masses in the 400$-$600 GeV range

1230: are given in Table 1 and discussed in Section \ref{SM.p}.

1231: 

1232: Let us now derive the initial condition (\ref{init}) for the RG evolution

1233: (\ref{RG}). These initial conditions can be read off from the leading

1234: logarithmic dependence of the physical coupling $\lambda_{\text{phys }}$ on

1235: the bare parameters of the Lagrangian, provided that we take care to compute

1236: the precise denominator in the logarithm. We start from the bare Higgs

1237: Lagrangian%

1238: \begin{equation}

1239: L=|\partial H|^{2}-(-\mu_{0}^{2}|H|^{2}+\lambda_{0}|H|^{4}),\quad\lambda

1240: _{0}=\lambda(\Lambda),

1241: \end{equation}

1242: defined with a cutoff $\Lambda$. At the tree level we have%

1243: \begin{equation}

1244: v^{2}=\mu_{0}^{2}/2\lambda_{0},\quad m_{h}^{2}=2\mu_{0}^{2}.

1245: \end{equation}

1246: At the one-loop level the vev should be determined by imposing the vanishing

1247: tadpole condition $\langle h\rangle=0$. The Higgs self-energy gets non-trivial

1248: contributions only from the virtual Higgs pair and Goldstone pair diagrams. We

1249: find the following relation between the (one-loop corrected) vev and the

1250: physical Higgs mass:%

1251: \begin{equation}

1252: \frac{m_{h}^{2}}{4v^{2}}=\lambda_{0}-\frac{3\lambda_{0}^{2}}{2\pi^{2}}\ln

1253: \frac{\Lambda}{C\,m_{h}}\text{,\qquad}C\approx1.36\,. \label{rel}%

1254: \end{equation}

1255: Notice that the coefficient of the logarithm agrees with (\ref{RG}), as it

1256: should. Since the self-energy correction is evaluated at the external momentum

1257: $p^{2}=m_{h}^{2}$, it come as no suprise that $m_{h}$ appears in the

1258: denominator; the exact coefficient 1.36 is found by keeping track of finite

1259: terms. The initial condition (\ref{init}) follows immediately, since the

1260: correction vanishes precisely at $\Lambda=1.36m_{h}$.

1261: 

1262: \section{2HDM renormalization group equations}

1263: 

1264: \label{2HDM.rg}The one-loop renormalization group equations of the two-Higgs

1265: doublet model, referred to in Section \ref{our.pert}, are:%

1266: \begin{align}

1267: &  16\pi^{2}\frac{d\lambda_{i}}{d\log\Lambda}=\beta_{i}(\lambda)\nonumber\\

1268: \beta_{1}  &  =24\lambda_{1}^{2}+2\lambda_{3}^{2}+2\lambda_{3}\lambda

1269: _{4}+\lambda_{4}^{2}+\lambda_{5}^{2}\nonumber\\

1270: \beta_{2}  &  =24\lambda_{2}^{2}+2\lambda_{3}^{2}+2\lambda_{3}\lambda

1271: _{4}+\lambda_{4}^{2}+\lambda_{5}^{2}\nonumber\\

1272: \beta_{3}  &  =(12\lambda_{3}+4\lambda_{4})(\lambda_{1}+\lambda_{2}%

1273: )+4\lambda_{3}^{2}+2\lambda_{4}^{2}+2\lambda_{5}^{2}\\

1274: \beta_{4}  &  =4\lambda_{4}(\lambda_{1}+\lambda_{2})+4\lambda_{4}^{2}%

1275: +8\lambda_{3}\lambda_{4}+8\lambda_{5}^{2}\nonumber\\

1276: \beta_{5}  &  =4\lambda_{5}(\lambda_{1}+\lambda_{2})+8\lambda_{3}\lambda

1277: _{5}+12\lambda_{4}\lambda_{5}.\nonumber

1278: \end{align}

1279: 

1280: 

1281: \section{Inert doublet contributions to $S,T$}

1282: 

1283: \label{App.EWPT}We will derive one-loop EWPT corrections induced by the inert

1284: doublet. The $\Delta\rho$ is easiest to compute by relating it to the

1285: wave-function renormalization of the Goldstones $\phi^{+}$ and $\chi$ induced

1286: by the presence of new particles\cite{Barbieri:1992dq}:%

1287: \begin{equation}

1288: \Delta\rho=\delta Z_{\phi}-\delta Z_{\chi}\text{.} \label{deltarho}%

1289: \end{equation}

1290: The relevant cubic interaction Lagrangian between the Goldstones and the inert

1291: particles is the last line of Eq. (\ref{rel1}) below. Goldstone self-energies

1292: get corrected by the diagrams with virtual inert particle pairs. We find:%

1293: \begin{align}

1294: \Delta\rho &  =(\lambda_{4}+\lambda_{5})^{2}f(m_{_{H}},m_{S})+(\lambda

1295: _{4}-\lambda_{5})^{2}f(m_{_{H}},m_{A})-4\lambda_{5}^{2}f(m_{H},m_{S})\\

1296: f(m_{1},m_{2})  &  =\frac{v^{2}}{32\pi^{2}}\int_{0}^{1}\frac{dx\,x(1-x)}%

1297: {xm_{1}^{2}+(1-x)m_{2}^{2}}.

1298: \end{align}

1299: Using (\ref{masses}), it is not difficult to show that this expression is

1300: equivalent to (\ref{extra}).

1301: 

1302: To find $\Delta S$, we look at the gauge boson self-energy correction

1303: $\Delta\Pi_{BW^{3}}$ due to the virtual $H^{+}H^{-}$ and $SA$ loops. We find:%

1304: \begin{equation}

1305: \Delta S=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int dx\,x(1-x)\ln\frac{xm_{S}^{2}+(1-x)m_{A}^{2}%

1306: }{m_{H}^{2}}.\label{dS}%

1307: \end{equation}

1308: This $\Delta S$ is typically small: $|\Delta S|\lesssim0.1$ in the region

1309: satisfying the naturalness and perturbativity constraints (the same region as

1310: used for determining the typical range of $\Delta T,$ Fig.~\ref{range}),

1311: $-0.04\lesssim\Delta S\lesssim-0.01$ if the $\Delta T$ constraint (\ref{pred})

1312: is imposed. Thus it has no significant effect on the EWPT fit.

1313: 

1314: \section{Dark Matter (co)annihilation cross sections}

1315: 

1316: \subsection{Annihilation into gauge bosons}

1317: 

1318: \label{DM.1}This process is dominant above the $WW$ threshold. Since the

1319: resulting DM abundance will be very small, we will be content with a rough

1320: estimate of the cross section. In particular, we will compute the annihilation

1321: amplitudes in the massless final state approximation. This will be accurate

1322: for $m\gg m_{W}$, and will provide an order-of-magnitude estimate otherwise.

1323: The threshold behavior can be approximated by multiplying with phase space

1324: suppression factors.

1325: 

1326: We consider annihilation into transverse and longitudinal states separately.

1327: For transverse final states the amplitude is due to the contact term

1328: interactions:%

1329: \begin{equation}

1330: (\sigma_{\text{LL}\rightarrow\perp\perp})v_{\text{rel}}\approx\frac{g^{4}%

1331: }{64\pi m_{\text{L}}^{2}}\left(  2+1/c^{4}\right)  \approx130\text{ pb

1332: }\left(  100\text{ GeV}/m_{\text{L}}\right)  ^{2}. \label{st}%

1333: \end{equation}

1334: Annihilation into longitudinal states can be approximated by annihilation into

1335: massless Goldstones. The relevant terms in the expansion of (\ref{pot}) are%

1336: \begin{align}

1337: V  &  \supset\frac{1}{4}(A^{2}+S^{2})\bigl[2\lambda_{3}\phi^{+}\phi

1338: ^{-}+(\lambda_{3}+\lambda_{4})\chi^{2}\bigr]+\frac{\lambda_{5}}{4}(A^{2}%

1339: -S^{2})\chi^{2}\nonumber\\

1340: &  +\frac{v}{\sqrt{2}}\bigl[2\lambda_{1}\left(  2\phi^{+}\phi^{-}+\chi

1341: ^{2}\right)  +\lambda_{A}A^{2}+\lambda_{S}S^{2}\bigr]h\label{rel1}\\

1342: &  +\frac{v}{\sqrt{2}}\Bigl\{\bigl[(\lambda_{4}+\lambda_{5})S+i(\lambda

1343: _{4}-\lambda_{5})A\bigr]H^{-}\phi^{+}+\text{c.c.}\Bigr\}+\sqrt{2}v\lambda

1344: _{5}SA\chi\text{.}\nonumber

1345: \end{align}

1346: We find:%

1347: \begin{align}

1348: \mathcal{M}_{SS,AA\rightarrow\chi\chi}  &  =\lambda_{A,S}+\frac{\lambda

1349: _{S,A}m_{h}^{2}}{s-m_{h}^{2}}+2\lambda_{5}^{2}v^{2}\left(  \frac{1}%

1350: {t-m_{A,S}^{2}}+\frac{1}{u-m_{A,S}^{2}}\right) \\

1351: \mathcal{M}_{SS,AA\rightarrow\phi^{+}\phi^{-}}  &  =\lambda_{3}+\frac

1352: {\lambda_{S,A}m_{h}^{2}}{s-m_{h}^{2}}+\frac{(\lambda_{4}\pm\lambda_{5}%

1353: )^{2}v^{2}}{2}\left(  \frac{1}{t-m_{H}^{2}}+\frac{1}{u-m_{H}^{2}}\right) \\

1354: \mathcal{M}_{SA\rightarrow\phi^{+}\phi^{-}}  &  =i\frac{(\lambda_{4}%

1355: ^{2}-\lambda_{5}^{2})v^{2}}{2}\left(  \frac{1}{t-m_{H}^{2}}-\frac{1}%

1356: {u-m_{H}^{2}}\right)  .

1357: \end{align}

1358: At freezeout we can neglect $t,u$ compared to $m_{I}^{2}$; in particular,

1359: coannihilations are suppressed. The LIP annihilation amplitudes can be written

1360: as%

1361: \begin{align}

1362: \mathcal{M}_{\text{LL}\rightarrow\chi\chi}  &  \approx\frac{\lambda_{\text{L}%

1363: }s}{s-m_{h}^{2}}+2|\lambda_{5}|-\frac{4\lambda_{5}^{2}v^{2}}{m_{\text{NL}}%

1364: ^{2}}\nonumber\\

1365: \mathcal{M}_{\text{LL}\rightarrow\phi^{+}\phi^{-}}  &  \approx\frac

1366: {\lambda_{\text{L}}s}{s-m_{h}^{2}}+|\lambda_{4}|+|\lambda_{5}|-\frac

1367: {(|\lambda_{4}|+|\lambda_{5}|)^{2}v^{2}}{m_{H}^{2}}. \label{amp1}%

1368: \end{align}

1369: We see that these amplitudes depend on $\lambda_{\text{L}}$, which can vary in

1370: a certain range (see Section \ref{summary}). Because of this it can happen

1371: that one of the two amplitudes (\ref{amp1}) is small, but not both. Indeed,

1372: the total annihilation cross section into longitudinal states can be bounded

1373: from below in a $\lambda_{\text{L}}$-independent way as follows:%

1374: \begin{align}

1375: (\sigma_{\text{LL}\rightarrow\Vert\Vert})v_{\text{rel}}  &  \approx\frac

1376: {1}{64\pi m_{\text{L}}^{2}}(|\mathcal{M}_{\text{LL}\rightarrow\chi\chi}%

1377: |^{2}+2|\mathcal{M}_{\text{LL}\rightarrow\phi^{+}\phi^{-}}|^{2})\\

1378: &  \geq\frac{1}{64\pi m_{\text{L}}^{2}}\frac{2}{3}[\mathcal{M}_{\text{LL}%

1379: \rightarrow\chi\chi}-\mathcal{M}_{\text{LL}\rightarrow\phi^{+}\phi^{-}}]^{2}\\

1380: &  =\frac{1}{96\pi m_{\text{L}}^{2}}\left(  |\lambda_{4}|-|\lambda_{5}%

1381: |-\frac{(|\lambda_{4}|+|\lambda_{5}|)^{2}v^{2}}{m_{H}^{2}}+\frac{4\lambda

1382: _{5}^{2}v^{2}}{m_{\text{NL}}^{2}}\right)  ^{2}. \label{slest}%

1383: \end{align}

1384: We have studied the last expression (which in most cases will be an

1385: underestimate) in the typical range of masses $m_{\text{L}}$, $m_{\text{NL }}$

1386: described in Section \ref{summary} and found that it gives a numerical lower

1387: bound:%

1388: \begin{equation}

1389: (\sigma_{\text{LL}\rightarrow\perp\perp}+\sigma_{\text{LL}\rightarrow

1390: \Vert\Vert})v_{\text{rel}}\gtrsim\min[130\text{ pb }\left(  100\text{

1391: GeV}/m_{\text{L}}\right)  ^{2},10\text{ pb], \quad for}\;\;\;m_{\text{L}%

1392: }=(100\text{--}800)\text{ GeV.} \label{sl}%

1393: \end{equation}

1394: The important point is that the bound (\ref{slest}) is \textit{increasing}

1395: with $m_{\text{L}}$, because the growth of the couplings compensates for the

1396: $m_{\text{L}}^{-2}$ suppression. As a result, the sum of (\ref{st}) and

1397: (\ref{slest}) is above 10 pb in the whole range of $m_{\text{L}}$.

1398: 

1399: \subsection{Co-annihilation into fermions}

1400: 

1401: \label{DM.2} Below the $WW$ threshold, the \textit{p}-wave suppressed process

1402: $SA \rightarrow Z^{*} \rightarrow\bar{f}f$ is dominant. The cross section is%

1403: \begin{align}

1404: \sigma v_{\text{rel}}  &  =bv_{\text{rel}}^{2}\\

1405: b  &  =\left(  \frac{g}{2c_{\text{w}}}\right)  ^{4}\frac{\sum(g_{V}^{2}%

1406: +g_{A}^{2})}{96\pi m_{\text{L}}^{2}[1-m_{Z}^{2}/(4m_{\text{L}}^{2})]^{2}%

1407: }\text{,}%

1408: \end{align}

1409: where the sum is over all SM fermions, $f$, except for the top quark, and

1410: $\Delta m \ll m_{L}$. In the range of interest, we have

1411: \begin{equation}

1412: b\approx(250 \text{--}60)\text{ pb},\qquad m_{\text{L}}=(60\text{--}80)\text{

1413: GeV.}%

1414: \end{equation}

1415: For $\Delta m < T$, the thermally averaged cross section which enters the

1416: Boltzmann equation is $\langle\sigma v_{\text{rel}}\rangle=6b/x,$ $x=m/T$.

1417: 

1418: \begin{thebibliography}{99}                                                                                               %

1419: 

1420: 

1421: \bibitem {LEPEWWG}The LEP Collaborations ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, and the LEP

1422: Electroweak Working Group, \textquotedblleft A combination of preliminary

1423: electroweak measurements and constraints on the standard

1424: model,\textquotedblright\ arXiv:hep-ex/0511027.

1425: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0511027;%%

1426: 

1427: 

1428: \bibitem {Einhorn:1981cy}M.~B.~Einhorn, D.~R.~T.~Jones and M.~J.~G.~Veltman,

1429: ``Heavy Particles And The Rho Parameter In The Standard Model,''

1430: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B \textbf{191} (1981) 146.

1431: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B191,146;%%

1432: 

1433: 

1434: \bibitem {Peskin}M.~E.~Peskin and J.~D.~Wells, ``How can a heavy Higgs boson

1435: be consistent with the precision electroweak measurements?,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D

1436: \textbf{64}, 093003 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0101342].

1437: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0101342;%%

1438: 

1439: 

1440: \bibitem {paradox}R.~Barbieri and A.~Strumia, ``The 'LEP paradox',''

1441: arXiv:hep-ph/0007265.

1442: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007265;%%

1443: 

1444: 

1445: \bibitem {BH}R. Barbieri and L.J. Hall ``Improved Naturalness and the Two

1446: Higgs Doublet Model,'' arXiv:hep-ph/0510243.

1447: 

1448: \bibitem {Gregoire:2003kr}T.~Gregoire, D.~R.~Smith and J.~G.~Wacker, ``What

1449: precision electroweak physics says about the SU(6)/Sp(6) little Higgs,''

1450: Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{69} (2004) 115008 [arXiv:hep-ph/0305275].

1451: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0305275;%%

1452: 

1453: 

1454: \bibitem {Veltman}M.~J.~G.~Veltman, ``The Infrared - Ultraviolet Connection,''

1455: Acta Phys.\ Polon.\ B \textbf{12}, 437 (1981).

1456: %%CITATION = APPOA,B12,437;%%

1457: 

1458: 

1459: \bibitem {Plot}\url{http://lepewwg.web.cern.ch/LEPEWWG/plots/summer2005/s05_stu_contours.eps}

1460: 

1461: \bibitem {GW}S.~L.~Glashow and S.~Weinberg, ``Natural Conservation Laws For

1462: Neutral Currents,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{15}, 1958 (1977).

1463: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D15,1958;%%

1464: 

1465: 

1466: \bibitem {Ma}E.~Ma, ``Verifiable radiative seesaw mechanism of neutrino mass

1467: and dark matter,'' arXiv:hep-ph/0601225.

1468: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0601225;%%

1469: 

1470: 

1471: \bibitem {charged}Particle Data Group, \url{http://pdg.lbl.gov}, Searches for

1472: WIMPs and Other Particles.

1473: 

1474: \bibitem {CDMS}The CDMS Collaboration, ``Limits on spin-independent WIMP

1475: nucleon interactions from the two-tower run of the Cryogenic Dark Matter

1476: Search,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ \textbf{96}, 011302 (2006)

1477: [arXiv:astro-ph/0509259].

1478: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0509259;%%

1479: 

1480: 

1481: \bibitem {KT}E.~W.~Kolb and M.~S.~Turner, ``The Early Universe,''

1482: Addison-Wesley (1990).

1483: %\href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?irn=2256878}{SPIRES entry}

1484: 

1485: 

1486: \bibitem {Griest}K.~Griest and D.~Seckel, ``Three Exceptions In The

1487: Calculation Of Relic Abundances,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{43}, 3191 (1991).

1488: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D43,3191;%%

1489: 

1490: 

1491: \bibitem {Barbieri:1988zs}R.~Barbieri, M.~Frigeni and G.~F.~Giudice, ``Dark

1492: Matter Neutralinos In Supergravity Theories,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B \textbf{313}

1493: (1989) 725.

1494: 

1495: \bibitem {MDM}M.~Cirelli, N.~Fornengo and A.~Strumia, ``Minimal dark matter,''

1496: arXiv:hep-ph/0512090.

1497: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0512090;%%

1498: 

1499: 

1500: \bibitem {limits}The DELPHI Collaboration, ``Searches for supersymmetric

1501: particles in $e^{+}e^{-}$ collisions up to 208 GeV and interpretation of the

1502: results within the MSSM,'' Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C \textbf{31}, 421 (2004)

1503: [arXiv:hep-ex/0311019];

1504: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0311019;%%

1505: \newline The OPAL Collaboration, ``Search for chargino and neutralino

1506: production at $\sqrt{s} = 192$-209 GeV to at LEP,'' Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C

1507: \textbf{35}, 1 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ex/0401026];

1508: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0401026;%%

1509: \newline The L3 Collaboration, ``Search for charginos and neutralinos in e+ e-

1510: collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 189$ GeV,'' Phys.\ Lett.\ B \textbf{472}, 420 (2000)

1511: [arXiv:hep-ex/9910007].

1512: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9910007;%%

1513: 

1514: 

1515: \bibitem {PYTHIA}T.~Sjostrand, P.~Eden, C.~Friberg, L.~Lonnblad, G.~Miu,

1516: S.~Mrenna and E.~Norrbin, \textquotedblleft High-energy-physics event

1517: generation with PYTHIA 6.1,\textquotedblright%

1518: \ Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ \textbf{135}, 238 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0010017].

1519: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010017;%%

1520: 

1521: 

1522: \bibitem {mangano}R.~Barbieri, F.~Caravaglios, M.~Frigeni and M.~L.~Mangano,

1523: \textquotedblleft Production and leptonic decays of charginos and neutralinos

1524: in hadronic collisions,\textquotedblright\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ B \textbf{367} (1991) 28.

1525: 

1526: \bibitem {tome}A.~Djouadi, ``The anatomy of electro-weak symmetry breaking. I:

1527: The Higgs boson in the standard model,'' arXiv:hep-ph/0503172.

1528: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0503172;%%

1529: 

1530: 

1531: \bibitem {StrumiaKK}A.~Strumia, ``Bounds on Kaluza-Klein excitations of the SM

1532: vector bosons from electroweak tests,'' Phys.\ Lett.\ B \textbf{466}, 107

1533: (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9906266].

1534: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9906266;%%

1535: 

1536: 

1537: \bibitem {LEP2}R.~Barbieri, A.~Pomarol, R.~Rattazzi and A.~Strumia,

1538: ``Electroweak symmetry breaking after LEP1 and LEP2,'' Nucl.\ Phys.\ B

1539: \textbf{703}, 127 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0405040].

1540: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0405040;%%

1541: 

1542: 

1543: \bibitem {Forshaw:2001xq}J.~R.~Forshaw, D.~A.~Ross and B.~E.~White, ``Higgs

1544: mass bounds in a triplet model,'' JHEP \textbf{0110} (2001) 007 [arXiv:hep-ph/0107232].

1545: 

1546: \bibitem {Chankowski:2000an}P.~H.~Chankowski, T.~Farris, B.~Grzadkowski,

1547: J.~F.~Gunion, J.~Kalinowski and M.~Krawczyk, ``Do precision electroweak

1548: constraints guarantee e+ e- collider discovery of at least one Higgs boson of

1549: a two Higgs doublet model?,'' Phys.\ Lett.\ B \textbf{496} (2000) 195 [arXiv:hep-ph/0009271].

1550: 

1551: \bibitem {Hambye}T.~Hambye and K.~Riesselmann, ``Matching conditions and Higgs

1552: mass upper bounds revisited,'' Phys.\ Rev.\ D \textbf{55}, 7255 (1997)

1553: [arXiv:hep-ph/9610272].

1554: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9610272;%%

1555: 

1556: 

1557: \bibitem {Barbieri:1992dq}R.~Barbieri, M.~Beccaria, P.~Ciafaloni, G.~Curci and

1558: A.~Vicere, ``Two loop heavy top effects in the Standard Model,''

1559: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B \textbf{409} (1993) 105.

1560: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B409,105;%%

1561: 

1562: \end{thebibliography}

1563: 

1564: 

1565: \end{document}