Dark Matter from a Vector Field in the Fundamental

Representation of SU (2)L
Bastian Dı́az Sáez1,2 , Felipe Rojas-Abatte1,3 , and Alfonso R. Zerwekh1,2
1
Departamento de Fı́sica, Universidad Técnica Federico Santa Marı́a, Valparaı́so, Chile
2
Centro Cientı́fico-Tecnológico de Valparaı́so, Casilla 110-V, Valparaı́so, Chile
3
University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom

Abstract
We explore a simple extension of the Standard Model which incorporates a vector field
in the fundamental representation of SU (2)L as the only non-standard degree of freedom.
This kind of field may appear in different scenarios such as Compositness, Gauge-Higgs
unification and extradimensional scenarios. We study the model in which a Z2 symmetry
is manifiest, making the neutral CP-even component of the new vector field a vectorial
dark matter candidate. We also analyze the of the model through pertrubative unitarity
, and we constraint the parameter space through LEP and LHC data, as well as from
current dark matter searches. Due to the similarities with the i2HDM, we compare some
physical predictions in both model.

1 Introduction
It is generally acknowledged that the Standard Model (SM) is incomplete, despite its impressing
and unexpected phenomenological success. Its lack of a dark matter candidate and the impos-
sibility of naturally generating within its framework tiny but non-vanishing neutrino masses
are usually among the reasons invoked to illustrate such an incompleteness. Additionally, and
maybe more dramatically, even the dynamical origin of the electroweak scale is not completely
understood in within the SM. This has motivated, over the years, the construction of many
extensions of SM. However, the very precise measurement made at LEP during 1990’s already
taught us that the New Physics has to be subtle, making the construction of consistent and
complete New Physics models, a formidable task. Of course, the lack of evidence of any kind
of non-standard phenomena at the LHC has put stronger constrains and has made the labor
of model-builders even more difficult.
Under these circumstances, it seems wise to take a less ambitious approach. Consequently,
our methodology consist in exploring simple models that minimally extend the SM, focusing

1
only on one of its problems, and determine the conditions under which the model is consistent
with present experimental data.
For many years there has been a lot of attention on models containing extra spin-1 fields[1][2][3][4][5].
These new fields may originate as gauge bosons of an enlarged local sector or as resonances
of a new composite sector. In the former case it is easy to understand that in the low energy
theory, i.e. after the larger symmetry is broken to the SM, the new spin-1 field transform in
the adjoint representation of one of the groups that rule the SM symmetry. In the case of
composite models a more detailed explanation is needed.
Vector fields transforming in the fundamental representation of SU (2)L has been the interest
of recent works. For example, it has been shown that a SU (2)L massive vector doublet may
appear in the spontaneously breaking of a U (3)W gauge symmetry to the GSM [6]. The same
authors, have shown different realizations of such pattern in the context of Composite Higgs,
Twin-Higgs and Extradimensional fields. Additionally, motivations and phenomenology of this
vectors doublet have been made from the Gauge-Higgs unification framework [7] [8].
From the particle physics point of view, there is no a concensous on the spin nature of the
dark matter particle. Both scalars and fermions have been studied intensively (REFERENCIAS?).
However, there are a lot of vector DM proposals. For instance, the vector DM can be a SM
singlet and the Higgs playing the portal between the Hidden sector and the SM [9][10], or it
can be charged under the electroweak quantum numbers [8]
In this work, we show that a vector field in the fundamental representation of SU (2)L can
provide a dark matter candidate. We contrast this possibility with theoretical and experimen-
tal constrains. From an effective field point of view, the introduction of these vectors up to
renormalizable operators, allows for new features that have not been studied up to now. For
instance, this approach allows for the interaction of two DM particles with single Z-boson/H
boson, having direct consequences on direct DM searches and in the allowed DM masses. Al-
though, the motivation of these DM vector doublet comes from many different perspectives
such as compositeness, Higgs/gauge, extra-dimensions and Twin Higgs, we study it in its own
merit without making reference to its possible fundamental nature.
The paper is organized in the following way: In chapter (2) the full Lagrangian of the model
is presented, then a shorted version of it compatible with a DM candidate and a discusion of
the parameter space of the VDDMM is shown in chapter (3). In chapter (5) we present all
the relevant theoretical and experimental constraints we used to study the model. A deep
description of the DM pehnomenology of the model with a full scan of the 6-dimensional
parameter space is shown in chapter (6). In chapter (??) we discuss the results and conclusion
of the present work. Additionally, we add an appendix in which we present a more detailed
discussion of perturbative unitarity.

2
2 The Lagrangian
We introduce a new set of vector fields in a single-representation of the Standard Model gauge
group SU (3)c × SU (2)L × U (1)Y :
!
Vµ+
 +
Vµ
Vµ = = Vµ1 +iVµ2 (1)
Vµ0 √
2

where it transforms as (1, 2, 1/2) under the SM gauge group. The most general Lagrangian
containing this new vectors with operators up to dimension four is:
1
L = − (Dµ Vν − Dν Vµ )† (Dµ V ν − Dν V µ ) + M 2 Vµ† V µ (2)
2
+ λ2 (φ† φ)(Vµ† V µ ) + λ3 (φ† Vµ )(V µ† φ) + λ4 (φ† Vµ )(φ† V µ )
+ α1 φ† Dµ V µ + α2 (Vµ† V µ )(Vν† V ν ) + α3 (Vµ† V ν )(Vν† V µ )
+ β1 Vµ† B µν Vν + β2 Vµ† W µν Vν + h.c. (3)

where Dµ is the same SM covariant derivative for the Higgs field, φ, B µν is the abelian U (1)Y
a
field strenght, and W µν = W µνa τ2 is the non-abelian SU (2)L field strenght. In principle, all
the free parameters, λi , αi and β1,2 , for i = 1, 2, 3 may be complex. As we show in the next
section, we work in the limit in which most of them are reals.
It is not possible to couple the new vector boson to the standard fermions with renormaliz-
able operators. For example, let us suppose a Lorentz invariant Yukawa-like coupling between
SM first generation of leptons and the vector doublet. Then, consider the following vector and
axial vector couplings,

L ⊃ Lγ µ g V − g A γ 5 eR Vµ


(4)

where g V and g A are unknown coupling constants. Considering the chirality projectors PL,R ,
the Lagranian (4) may be rewritten as

L = ν e e PR γ µ g V − g A γ 5 PR eVµ

= ν e e PR γ µ g V − g A γ 5 PL PR eVµ

= 0

where in the second line we have used the property {γ µ , γ 5 } = 0, and in the last line we have used
that PL PR = 0. This fact can be extrapolated straighforwardly to all SM fermions. Therefore,
the new vector sector only communicates to the SM, at the renormalizable level, through the
Higgs, photon and the gauge electroweak bosons. At the renormalizable level, the new vector
sector does not couple to SM fermions (4), giving way to a baryon and lepton number conserva-
tion by the new interactions therefore baryon and lepton number are conserved by the new interactions.

3
In the same way, the CKM matrix is untouched, therefore the new interactions satisfy the Min-
imal Flavour Violation (MFV) criterion trivially at the renormalized level. On the other hand,
the vectors couple to U (1)Y gauge bosons, contributing to the explicit symmetry breaking. In
analogy with the i2HDM [ref.], here the parameters λ3 and λ4 break the custodial symmetry,
generating the mass splitting among the new vectors. In this work we do not calculate explicitly
the electroweak precision test, because is beyond the scope of this work.
Exotic vector-like fermions may be introduced in order to get a bridge between the SM
fermions and the new vectors [6]. However, although vector-like partners are well motivated in
the literature, we refrain ourselves from this possibility in favor of minimality.
The model allows for a dimension three operator, which is the only one linear in Vµ . The
physical consequences of this term are not explored in this work because we concentrate our
study to the case in which there is an addition discrete symmetry Z2 1 .
Finally, let analyse the terms proportional to β1 and β2 plus their hermite conjugates.
Without loss of generality, let us take the β1 term. Explicitely, we have

L ⊃ β1 Vµ† B µν Vν + β1∗ Vν† B µν Vµ (5)

= β1 Vµ† B µν Vν − β1∗ Vµ† B µν Vν (6)

If we define β1 = a1 + ib1 , and defining βb ≡ 2b1 , we have

L ⊃ iβb Vµ† B µν Vν + iβw Vµ† W µν Vν (7)

where both βb and βw are real parameters. These terms introduce a new freedom in the
coupling among the SM gauge bosons and the new vectors. This is, for example, the coupling
value coming from the AV + V − vertex deviate from the electric charge value. Additionally,
there appear a new coupling at tree level between the photon and V 1 and V 2 FR: a new tree
level interaction among the photon and the two neutral vectors appear. In order to simplify
the model, we set that the coupling constant in the first case must to be the electric charge, e,
and in the second case must to vanish. This is equivalent to impose the following conditions
sw sw
cw βb + βw = e, cw βb − βw = 0 (8)
2 2
where sw and cw correspond to the Weinberg trigonometric angles. The solution to this equation
system is just βw = g and βb = g 0 /2, therefore getting
g0
L ⊃ i Vµ† B µν Vν + igVµ† W µν Vν (9)
2
Therefore, the freedom that was in the beggining parametrized in the β1 and β2 now have
dissapeared after imposing the restrictions from (8). The effect of the terms coming from (9)
modify the Feynman rules.
1
The presence of this term does not allow for the stability of one of the neutral vectors, therefore not being
a good dark matter candidate (Zerwekh, Diaz).

4
3 Dark Matter model and the implementation
In the limit α1 = 0 the model acquires an additional Z2 discrete symmetry2 , preventing the
coupling of the new fields with fermions and allowing the stability of the lightest odd particle
(LOP), generating a good Dark Matter candidate. We impose that the standard model fields
and the new fields transform in an even and odd way, respectively. Indeed, the resulting
Lagrangian is rather similar to the Lagrangian of the VDDMM i2HDM supplemented with a
Z2 symmetry and with one of the scalar doublets replaced by the new vector field. Thus, the
resulting Lagrangian is

1
L = − (Dµ Vν − Dν Vµ )† (Dµ V ν − Dν V µ ) + M 2 Vµ† V µ (10)
2
− λ2 (φ† φ)(Vµ† V µ ) − λ3 (φ† Vµ )(V µ† φ)
λ4  †
(φ Vµ )(φ† V µ ) + (V µ† φ)(Vµ† φ)

−
2
− α2 (Vµ† V µ )(Vν† V ν ) − α3 (Vµ† V ν )(Vν† V µ )
g0
+ i Vµ† B µν Vν + igVµ† W µν Vν (11)
2
The Lagrangian contain six free parameters3 which we labelled as: λ2 , λ3 , λ4 for quartic
coupling involving interactions between SM-Higgs field and the new vector field; α2 , α3 for
quartic couplings of pure interactions among the vector fields; and a mass term MV . We
assume that all the parameters are real. After electroweak Symmetry Breaking, the tree level
mass spectrum of the new sector is
1
MV2 ± = 2MV2 − v 2 λ2

(12)
2
1
MV2 1 = 2MV2 − v 2 (λ2 + λ3 + λ4 )

(13)
2
1
MV2 2 = 2MV2 − v 2 (λ2 + λ3 − λ4 )

(14)
2
The term proportional to λ4 makes the splitting between the physical masses of V 1 and V 2 .
For phenomenological proposes we will work in a different base of free parameters:
MV 1 , MV 2 , MV ± , λL , α2 , α3 (15)
where MV 1 , MV 2 , MV ± are the physical masses of the new vector fields and λL = λ2 + λ3 + λ4
which plays an important role because it governs the Higgs-Dark matter interaction vertex
HVµ1 Vν1 , Fig. (1).
2
This feature is a manifestation of the t’Hooft naturalness argument. We do not worry about the fundamental
reason of the appearance of this symmetry.
3
We assume that all the free parameters are real, otherwise, the new vector sector may introduce CP-violation
sources. In this work we do not deal with that interesting possibility.

5
 Vµ1
H
: 2 MW sin
e
θW µν
g λL

Vν1

Figure 1: Leading Feynman diagram coupling two Dark Matter particles to the Higgs Boson.

We can define the quartic coupling and the mass parameter as a function of the new free
parameters


MV2 1 − MV2 ± 2MV2 ± − MV2 1 − MV2 2
λ2 = λL + 2 λ3 =
v2 v2
M22 − M21 v 2 λL
λ4 = V 2 V MV2 = MV2 1 + (16)
v 2
It is important to mention that because the new vector field have the same quantum numbers
as the SM-Higgs field, the two neutral vectors have opposite CP-parities. However, from an
experimental point of view it is impossible to distinguish between them. Besides, we can switch
their parity just making a change of bases Vµ → iVµ and then re-label each field as Vµ1 → Vµ2
and Vµ2 → Vµ1 and still obtaining the same phenomenology. Therefore, we will choose Vµ1 as the
LOP turning it into our Dark Matter candidate. Following the same line, to make sure that Vµ1
is the lightest state of the new sector, we can find some restrictions that the quartic couplings
must to follow to satisfy this condition. Considering this we can stress that

MV2 2 − MV2 1 > 0 ⇒ λ4 > 0

MV2 ± − MV2 1 > 0 ⇒ λ3 + λ4 > 0 (17)

In order to have a weakly interacting model, we set that all the couplings parameters must to
satisfy
|λi | < 4π ∧ |αj | < 4π (i = 2, 3, 4; j = 2, 3) (18)

Model implementation
In our study of the VDDMM we used a serie of computational tools that we describe next: we
implemented the model into the LanHEP[11] program for automatic Feynman rules derivation.
We included effective vertex Hgg and Hγγ and we performed a cross-check of the gauge invari-
ance implementation calculating several 2→2 processes in both gauges (Unitary and ’tHooft -
Feynman gauge) using CalcHEP[12] program. The Dark Matter penomenology was made with
the micrOMEGAs[13, 14, 15] package. This program solves the Boltzmann equation numerically
and calculate all of the relevant annihilation cross sections involved in the process using the

6
CalcHEP program. micrOMEGAs also calculate the spin-independent cross section of DM scat-
tering off the proton. The model was implementes using the independent parameter mentioned
in (15).

4 Perturbative unitarity
The study of the high energy regime of the amplitudes involving new states beyond the Standard
Model can give insights of the validity of the model calculations and the urgence of new physics
to appear at energy scales when the amplitudes start to grow uncontrolled with the energy. This
analysis becomes more urgent when the model includes new vector states, because when they
appear in the initial and
√ final states, their
√ longitudinal polarization start to grow linearly in the
high energy regime, s  MV , where s is the center momentum energy of the process, and
then making the amplitudes violate the perturbative unitarity condition at some high energy
scale. In this section we resume the results of the energy scale at which perturbative unitarity is
violated in 2 → 2 elastic scattering amplitudes involving the new vectors with masses between
a few GeV up to around of 1 TeV.
Perturbative unitarity constraints set that the partial wave 4 must satisfy the following
bound

|Re(al )| ≤ 1/2, l = 0, 1, 2, ..., (20)

to all orders in perturbation theory5 , and its value is given by

Z 1
1
al = d(cos θ)M(s, θ)Pl (cos θ). (21)
32π −1

Because generally the lowest angular momentum mode (l = 0) gives the strongest constraint
on the scattering amplitude keeping the perturbative unitarity safe, all the results below are
considering this mode. As we said above, in this section we present results from only a few
processes.
In Fig.2(a) is shown in colors the maximum energy scale at which the process h+V 1 → h+V 1
is valid until pertrubative unitarity start to be violated. As λL gets smaller the bigger is the
scale energy before the breaking of pertrubative unitarity. Additionally, the bound on the
energy gets relax as MV 1 raises too. It should be noted that below 100 GeV this cut-off is
4
The scattering amplitude may be decomposed as
∞
X
M(s, θ) = 32π (2l + 1)al Pl (cos θ), (19)
l=0

where Pl (cos θ) correspond to the Legandre polynomials.

5
2 → 2 scattering amplitudes at tree level are real, therefore this is the reason why usually one uses this
severe constraint.

7
 10000 10000
10 10 9000
8000 8000
5 5 7000
6000

Λ (GeV)
(GeV)
6000
0 0

λL
L

5000
4000 4000
5 5 3000
2000 2000
10 10 1000

101 102 103 10 1 10 2 10 3

Mv1 (GeV) Mvp (GeV)
(a) (b)
Figure 2: a) Maximum energy-scale Λ until the process h + V 1 → h + V 1 starts to violate
perturbative unitarity. b) Maximum energy-scale Λ until the process Z + V ± → Z + V ± starts to violate
perturbative unitarity.

mostly constant, breaking the condition 20 at energies before the TeV scale, whereas for higher
masses the dependence on λL start to grow, allowing energies as high as 10 TeV for λL near to
zero. Therefore, if we want to trust in the tree level perturbation theory in our model to energy
scales near a few TeV involving characteristic masses of the new state below 100 GeV, we have
to constraint λL to be close to zero. For masses above 100 GeV, we can start to deviate the
values of λL from zero.
On the other hand, perturbative unitarity constraint get stringent for processes involving a
Z or W ± instead of the Higgs boson. For instance, in Fig.2(b) is shown the maximum energy
scale at which the process ZL + VL± → ZL + VL± is valid until pertrubative unitarity is violated.
The maximum values of Λ now became just a few TeV, excepet in the thin region where the
energy values raises to several TeV. These values are due to the Higgs mediating processes.
Therefore, for masses . 100 GeV, perturbative unitarity constraint gives roughly the same
allowed energy for both channels, i.e. & 2 TeV. For higher masses values the channel involving
the SM gauge boson gets stringent in the allow energy, raising Λ in a thin region, while for the
rest of the values of ΛL the maximum energy can be near 3 TeV.
Finally, concerning the V self-interaction, the high energy amplitudes in these channels can
grow as E 4 for arbitrarely values of α2 and α3 . Because our dark matter phenomenology has
nothing to do with these kind of interactions, we will not worry about the behaviour of the
amplitudes in this sector. However, some comments about these channels are given in the
Appendix A.
In conclusion, the high energy behaiour of the processes studied above showed that pertur-
bative unitarity rules that the scattering amplitudes in this model can not be reliable for any
arbitrary high energy, but instead we have to trust in perturbation theory not much above the
TeV scale. We present the result of the others elastic channels in the Appendix A, which do not

8
differe severely from the conclusions that we have presented above. This constrained behaviour
in the energy validity of the scattering elastic amplitudes can be see as the symptom that new
physics must to enter into the model to relax the growing energy behaviour, just as the role
played by the Higgs boson in the unitarization of elastic gauge boson scattering in the SM. One
of the simplest ways to restore unitarity is to include a new scalar sector that participate in
the spontaneous breaking of some larger symmetry which gives the masses to the new vectorial
states [16]. In this sense, our model can be considered as a simplified model [17], retaining
just the lightest states predicted in this scenario, and pushing the required new scalars masses
above the vectorial masses. In this way, in the present work we focus just on the factibility to
have a vector dark matter with additional vector states, and we postpone the UV realization
of this model for a future work.

5 Experimental constraints
5.1 Collider limits
5.1.1 LEP limits
The way in which the dark sector connects with the standard model is through the Higgs
boson and the gauge bosons of the electroweak interaction. For this reason we must consider
restrictions on the masses of the new vectors with the proposes to avoid decays that were not
seen by the LEP experiments. In order to close the channels: Γ(W ± → V1 V ± ), Γ(W ± → V2 V ± ),
Γ(Z → V1 V2 ) and Γ(Z → V + V − ) we must to impose the following constraints
±
MV 1 + MV ± > MW MV 2 + MV ± > MW
MV 1 + MV 2 > MZ 2MV ± > MZ (22)
We also need to take into account that VDDMM can generate visible dijet or dilepton
signal pluss missing energy, exactly the same output signal that come from neutralino searches
in MSSM performed on LEP, Fig.(3).
Although there is currently no concrete study on the connection between a vector doublet
model with LEP-II data, we can used the analysis made by [18] where a reinterpretation in the
i2HDM of a LEP-II limit was made. We can use their study to imposes some restrictions into
the masses of the new sector. We should notice that in the i2HDM the particles in question
are scalars versus the fermionic nature of the neutralinos, therefore in principle spin correlation
effects could generate some differences. However in our case the dark vectors have spin 1,
therefore when we include the decay processes we should expect the angular distribution of
final state to be similar. The region defined by the intersection of the conditions below is
also excluded (THIS WILL DISCARD INMEDIATELLY THE POSSIBILITIES OF
THE HIGGS INVISIBLE DECAY)
MV 1 < 80 GeV; MV 2 < 100 GeV; MV 2 − MV 1 > 8 GeV : (23)

9
 e+ χ̃01 e+ V1

χ̃01 V1
Z Z

χ̃02 f V2 f
∗ ∗
Z Z
e− f e− f
(a) (b)
Figure 3: Feynman diagrams contributing to e+ e− → χ̃01 χ̃02 in (a) and e+ e− → V 1 V 2 in (b) and later decays
of χ̃02 → Z ∗ χ̃01 and V 2 → Z ∗ V 1 , at LEP.

Finally we can use the results of the reinterpretation of LEP-II limits on charginos [19], where
we can exclude the region
MV ± < 70 GeV (24)

5.1.2 H → γγ constraints from LHC data

At tree level in SM the interaction between the Higgs and photons is nule, however consider-
ing one-loop corrections we can have contributions due to the charged gauge boson W ± and
fermions. In this context our new doublet vector play an important role introducing new cor-
rections into the Γ(H → γγ) through the charged vector V± component which can generate
deviations into the diphoton rate. These corrections are strong restrictions for models that go
beyond the SM. The result is
 2 2
αem MH3 X

2 λ 2 v 
Γ(H → γγ) = N Q F (β ) + F (β ) + F (β ) (25)

3 2 ci i 1/2 i 1 W 1 V
256π v  2 MV ±
 

i

where αem is the electromagnetic fine-structure constant, MH is the mass of the Higgs boson,
Nci , Qi and βi = 4Mi2 /MH2 are the color factor, the electric charge and a dimensionless factor
respectively for a fermion i running in the loop. In the same way we define the dimensionless
factors βW = 4MW 2
/MH2 and βV = 4MV2 /MH2 for the charged W ± boson and the new charged
vector V ± contributions in the loop respectively. The functions Fi are loop factors for particles
of spin given in the subscript:
F1/2 = −2β(1 + (1 − β)f (β)) F1 = 2 + 3β + 3β(2 − β)f (β) (26)
with 
arcsin(1/β)2 for β ≥ 1
f (β) = h √ i2
− 1 ln 1+√1−β − iπ for β < 1
4 1− 1−β
√
We consider the most recent limit coming from the s = 13 TeV ATLAS Higgs data analysis
[20] to set restrictions on the parameter space.

10
 BrBSM (H → γγ)
= µγγ = 0.99 ± 0.14 (27)
BrSM (H → γγ)
The new contribution to µγγ is governed by the parameters λ2 and MV ± . However, due to the
change of bases we adopted, the parameter λ2 it depend of λL and the difference of masses
between MV 1 and MV ± , as we show previously in eq.(16). We present the diphoton rate as a
function of the DM mass MV 1 in Fig.(4)(a) where we divided the parameter space in two regions:
the pink points (10 ≤ MV 1 ≤ MH /2) represent the zone where the decay mode H → V 1 V 1
is open making the decay mode H → γγ very low and therefore pushing the µγγ under the
experimental limit for most of the points, and the green points (MV 1 > MH /2) represent the
zone where the decay mode H → V 1 V 1 is closed. In both regions we show the points with the
right amount of Relic Density as blue color. We also present a color map of the parameter λ2
as a function of the diphoton rate vs charged vector mass MV ± in Fig.(4)(b).
√ In both cases
the horizontal red lines represent the global signal strength coming from s = 13 TeV ATLAS
Higgs data analysis (27).
We can notice immediately that diphoton rate constraints are very restrictives ruling out
an important amount of the parameter space mostly when |λ2 | take big values in the region
MV ± > 600 GeV, however we still can have a region for MV ± > 1500 GeV where the µγγ is
within the experimental limit even for |λ2 | > 8. Another interesting feature of the model is
that the low mass region that can satisfied the PLANCK limit for ΩDM h2 is practically ruled
out because it belong to the zone where H → V 1 V 1 is open, on the other hand the high mass
region it match perfectly with the µγγ measurements where (|λ2 | < 2) and (MV ± − MV 1 . 20
GeV) values are preferred.

2.00 by ATLAS at s = 13 TeV

2.00 by ATLAS at s = 13 TeV
10
9
1.75 1.75 8
7
6
1.50 1.50 5
4
1.25 1.25 3
2
1
1.00 1.00 0
2

1
0.75 0.75 2
3
4
0.50 0.50 5
6
0.25 0.25 7
8
9
0.00 1 0.00 10
10 102 103 102 103
Mv1 (GeV) MV ± (GeV)
(a) (b)
Figure 4: a) Diphoton rate µγγ vs DM mass MV 1 ; b) Color map of the parameter λ2 as a function of the
diphoton rate vs charged vector mass MV ± . For this pictures we took into account
√ perturbatibity restrictions
(18). The horizontal red lines represent the global signal strength coming from s = 13 TeV ATLAS Higgs
data analysis (27).

11
5.1.3 Invisible Higgs decay from LHC data
The Higgs boson is one of the portals that connect the dark sector with the SM, however there
is an important restriction that we need to worry about. When MV 1 < MH /2 the SM-Higgs
boson can decay into Dark Matter particles, which translate into invisible decays. Therefore,
considering the CMS limit [21] for this channel we can impose the following restriction

Br(H → inv) < 24% (28)

at 95% of confidence level. The contribution to this decay channel it depend on two free
parameters MV 1 and λL as we can see from the expression for the partial width decay of the
Higgs
s
2 2
MH2 1 MH4 4MV2 1

MW λL
Γ(H → V1 V1 ) = 3 − + 1 − (29)
8πgw2 MH MV2 1 4 MV4 1 MH2
where gw is the weak coupling constant. We can get from this expression the following bound
for λL
  −1 1/2
2 1
8πΓSM gw MH Brmax − 1
|λL | < 
  2 4
inv 
(30)
MH 1 MH
p 
2 2 2
MW 3 − M 2 + 4 M 4 1 − 4MV 1 /MH
V1 V1

max
where Brinv = 0.24 is the current limit for the branching ratio of the Higgs invisible decay and
ΓSM = 6.1 MeV is the value of the total width decay of the Higgs in the SM. This bound is
extremely restrictive for MV 1 < MH /2 and it only allows very small values for λL . For example,
in the case when MV 1 is very close to MH the bounds are λL . 0.03. For completeness, in our
work we have considered in out analysis as well the channel H → V2 V2 as a contribution to the
invisible decay DID WE?, which does not differ greatly in its structure compared to the case
H → V1 V1 AGREE, except for the interaction parameter λ̃L = λ2 + λ3 − λ4 .
Of course, when MV 2 < MH /2, and V 2 being promt decaying, it can also give signals that
can contribute to the branching fraction of the Higgs to invisible. For example, it can be
produced through the process pp → H → V 2 V 2 , and subsequentely decay as V 2 → V 1 Z. If Z
decay neutrinos, this channel also would be contributing to the invisible Higgs decay. However,
this type of processes are very suppresed, because the intermediating Z is off-shell (we are in
the case that MV 1 , MV 2 < MZ ). In the case of V ± pair production, there is no an invisible
channel at all, therefore, not contributing to the invisible decay.

5.2 Dark Matter relic density and direct detection limits

5.2.1 Relic Density
(IN SECTION 5 ALSO WE HAVE RELIC DENSITY AND DD) We studied the
abundance of dark matter that our model can explain using micrOMEGAs [13, 14, 15] package.

12
Connected with CalcHEP [12], the program consider the case when MV 1 < MW , MZ taking into
account the annihilation into 3-body final state from V V ∗ or 4-body final state from V ∗ V ∗
(V = W ± , Z).(EXPLAIN ME!)Our model it should be in agreement with the PLANCK
[22, 23] measurements:
ΩDM h2 = 0.1184 ± 0.0012 (31)
The (co)annihilation effects happens when the split between the DM mass and the other parti-
cles is small. These effects are implemented in the micrOMEGAs package as well. We took into
account the V 1 − V 2 , V 1 − V ± and V 2 − V ± cases. As we will explain later these effects are
tremendously important since it is through this zone, where the mass difference is small that
the model will be able to reach the experimental PLANCK limit and saturate the abundance
of DM.

5.2.2 Direct Detection limits

We used the results coming from XENON1T [24] with 34.2 live days of data acquired between
November 2016 and January 2017 for Direct Detection experiments. Using micrOMEGAs package
we have evaluated the spin-independent cross section of DM scattering off the proton, σSI . In
order to constraint the parameter space, we used a re-scaled Direct Detection cross section
defined as σ̂SI = (ΩDM /ΩPLANCK ) × σSI which allows us to take into account the case when the
vector V1 contribute only partially to the total amount of DM. This approach is useful to take
into account other sources that can contribute to fulfil the budget.

6 Dark matter phenomenology

As we mentioned in Chapter 3, our model has a 6-dimensional parameter space summarized in
the three physical masses of the vector fields (MV 1 , MV 2 , MV ± ), one coupling parameter (λL )
that modulate the interaction between Dark Matter and the SM-Higgs boson and two quartic
couplings (α2 , α3 ) of self interaction among the new vector particles. In order to show a general
qualitative description of the parameter space we can fix some of them and perform a scan over
the more relevant ones. In first place we choose α2 = α3 = 1 because these parameters have a
poor sensitivity when it comes to making Dark Matter phenomenology. The interaction between
the Dark sector with the SM is mainly through the SM-Higgs boson and the electroweak gauge
bosons, however the interaction with the latter it is fixed by gauge couplings. For simplicity
we will consider as well MV 2 = MV ± 6 . Therefore the two relevant parameters are (MV 1 , λL ).
It is possible to distinguish two characteristic scenarios which we will refer to as: a) quasi-
degenerate case, where ∆M = MV 2 − MV 1 = 1 GeV, and b) the no-degenerate one, in which
∆M = MV 2 − MV 1 = 100 GeV. In Figure 5 we present a 2-dimensional parameter space where
we show the ΩDM h2 as a function of Dark Matter mass MV 1 for different values of λL in the
6
This equivalently to do λ3 = λ4 as you can easily check from 14

13
 two scenarios mentioned previously. The horizontal red dashed line corresponds to the relic
density measurements PLANCK limits.

103
MV2 = MV ± = MV1 + 1 GeV 103
MV2 = MV ± = MV1 + 100 GeV
L=5 L= 5 L=5 L= 5
L=1 L= 1 L=1 L= 1
L = 0.1 L= 0.1 L = 0.1 L= 0.1
L = 0.01 L= 0.01 overabundance L = 0.01 L= 0.01
101 L = 0.001 L= 0.001 non physical 101 L = 0.001 L= 0.001
Relic Density h 2

Relic Density h 2
overabundance
non physical
10 1 10 1

10 3 10 3

10 5 Excluded 10 5
by LEP
h 2 PLANCK measurement h 2 PLANCK measurement
10 7 10 7
101 102 103 101 102 103
(a) Mv1 (GeV) (b) Mv1 (GeV)
Figure 5: Relic density ΩDM h2 , as a function of MV 1 for different values of λL in a quasi-degenerate scenario
(a) where MV 2 = MV ± = MV 1 +1 GeV and a no-degenerate scenario (b) where MV 2 = MV ± = MV 1 +100 GeV.
In both cases we fix the values of α2 and α3 = 1. The horizontal red line corresponds to the DM relic density
measurements by the PLANCK satellite. The green area indicate the excluded region by LEP measurements.

The first important aspect we can appreciate of this model is that there are two regions in
which it can fulfill the DM budget. The first saturation zone happens between 30 < MV 1 < 80
GeV for a non-degenerate scenario. In this case the main mechanism of annihilation is through
s-channel Higgs boson exchange which is controlled by the λL coupling. Even for large values
of λL there is still a considerable area of overabundance for small values of MV 1 which should
be excluded because we considered as non physical, as we can see from Fig.(5)(b). The second
saturation region takes place when MV 1 > 830 GeV in the quasi-degenerate scenario. In this
zone the interaction between the DM and the longitudinal polarization of W ± and Z boson
becomes dominant. This interaction is modulated by λi quartic couplings which in turn depend
on the mass difference among the new vectors as we show in eq.(16). When ∆M is small the
λi become small enough to produce a suppression in the annihilation average cross section
for these channels pushing the DM abundance up to reach the saturation limit, even when
the (co)annihilation effects are present which become subdominant, Fig.(5)(a). In the non-
degenerate cases the annihilation of DM is more efficient due to the large values of λi which
results in the asymptotically flat behavior of abundance for high DM mass values.
The overabundance seen in the non-degenerate scenario for small values of MV 1 completely
disappears in the quasi-degenerate case due to effects of (co)annihilation which introduces new
sources of annihilation of DM, pushing the abundance below the PLANCK experimental limit.
When MV 1 ∼ 40 and MV 1 ∼ 45 GeV we can note the effects of resonant (co)annihilation
through V 1 V ± → W ± and V 1 V 2 → Z channels respectively that manifest on the Fig.(5)(a) as

14
 two inverted peaks.
At exactly MV 1 ∼ 62.5 GeV the resonant annihilation through the Higgs boson take place
as we can see in both scenarios as a deep peak. After that resonance we observe three points
where the abundance of DM decreases considerably. This happens markedly at MV 1 ∼ 80 GeV
through the opening channel V 1 V 1 → W + W − and more tenuously at MV 1 ∼ 90 GeV through
V 1 V 1 → ZZ. Finally at MV 1 ∼ 125 GeV the opening of V 1 V 1 → HH take place corresponding
to the reduction of DM relic density through s-channel Higgs boson.
Finally it is easy to notice that for larger values of λL the abundance of DM decreases,
however, is important to stress that there is a slight difference for the case in which λL takes
positives and negatives values after MV 1 ∼ 62.5 GeV. This behavior is due interference effect
between the s-channel Higgs boson exchange diagram and and those involving gauge bosons.
We consider as well whether our model is consistent with limits coming from XENON1T
[24] experiment studying the Rescaled spin independent Direct Detection cross section σ̂SI =
(ΩDM /ΩPLANCK ) × σSI as a function of the DM mass for several values of λL in the quasi-
degenerate and non degenerated scenario as we shown in Figure6. The green area, present in
both plots, is the excluded region from the DD experiment and the soft red color in Figure6(a)
is excluded by LEP data.

10 3
MV2 = MV ± = MV1 + 1 GeV 101
MV2 = MV ± = MV1 + 100 GeV
L=5 L= 5 L=5 L= 5
L=1 L= 1 L=1 L= 1
L = 0.1 L= 0.1 L = 0.1 L= 0.1
L = 0.01 L= 0.01 L = 0.01 L= 0.01
10 5
L = 0.001 L= 0.001 10 2
L = 0.001 L= 0.001

10 7 XENON1T 10 5 XENON1T
(pb)

(pb)

10 9 10 8
SI

SI

10 11 10 11

10 13 10 14
Excluded
by LEP
10 15 10 17
101 102 103 101 102 103
(a) Mv1 (GeV) (b) Mv1 (GeV)
Figure 6: Rescaled spin independent Direct Detection cross section σ̂SI versus MV 1 and the XENONT1
constraint for several values of λL . The red-shaded region in the left frame is excluded by LEP data.

In the quasi-degenerated scenario we can notice immediately that λL plays an important

roll scaling the strength of the interaction between DM and nucleus of ordinary matter. In
this scenario the asymptotically flat behavior of the σ̂SI as DM mass value increases, can be
explained because when the MV 1 take high values the proton-DM scattering cross section σSI
is decreasing, however this effect is compensated with the increasing in the abundance of dark
matter as we can check from Fig5(a).

15
 With the aforementioned description we have a qualitative overview of the parameter space,
however in order to have a complete understanding of the model we performed a random scan
over the 6-dimensional parameter space with about 7 million points imposing all the theoretical
and experimental constraint described in Chapter(5). The range of the scan can be summarized
in table(1).

Table 1: Range of the parameter space

Parameter min value max value

MV 1 [GeV] 10 2000
MV 2 [GeV] 10 2000
MV [GeV]
± 10 2000
λL -12 12
α2 -5 5
α3 -12 12

The result of our scan is presented in Figure(7) where we show 2-D projection of the 6-
dimensional parameter space as a colour map of DM Relic Density for the planes (MV 1 , λL ) in
Fig.(7)(a,c) and (MV 1 , MV 2 ) for Fig.(7)(b,d). We considered the full parameter space without
any theoretical or experimental constraint in the first row. In the next row we took into account
Perturbativity (18), LEP limits (22, 23, 24), LHC Higgs data (27), (28), overabundance DM
Relic density (31) and Xenon1T Direct Detections constraints. As we explained previously
there is not an observable that can distinguish between V 1 and V 2 . We work in the region
where MV 1 < MV 2 therefore λ4 > 0. If we consider λ4 < 0 this choice is not a new region since
it is equivalent to the positive λ4 situation. We can perform a transformation of the doublet by
a phase shift iVµ and swap V 2 ↔ V 1 without any observable effect. In this way we will exclude
from our analysis the case MV 1 > MV 2 as we can see from the gray region in figure(7)(b).
The different pattern of colors represents the amount of DM that the model is capable of
explain considering a thermal production mechanism, where the dark red color in the low DM
mass region (MV 1 . 45 GeV) of Fig.(7)(a,b) represent over-abundance which we considered
as non physical. The dark blue color are the regions with extreme under-abundance of DM
which is more accentuated for large values of λL in the zone where MV 1 > MH /2 after the
respective annihilation channels (W W , ZZ and HH) are progressively opened (I DO NOT
UNDERSTAND VERY WELL THIS LAST POINT), reflecting the same pattern shown
previously in figure(5).
Looking at Figure(7)(a,b), the resonant annihilation through the Higgs boson is easily rec-
ognized by the vertical separation around MV 1 ∼ 62.5 GeV where a steep break in the color
pattern can be seen, changing from an intense green (LIGHT GREEN?) to a blue Dark. We
can also notice the resonant (co)annihilation through the Z boson in the plane (MV 1 , MV 2 ) of
Fig.(7)(b) at the region MV 1 = MV 2 ∼ 45 GeV.

16
 102 102
10 101 101
103
100 100

Relic Density h 2

Relic Density h 2
5
10 1 10 1

Mv2 (GeV)
10 2 10 2
0
L

10 3
102 10 3

5
10 4 Excluded region 10 4

10 5
Mv1 > Mv2 10 5

10 10 6 10 6

10 7 101 1 10 7
101 102 103 10 102 103
Mv1 (GeV) Mv1 (GeV)
(a) (b)
102 102
10 101 101
103
100 100
Relic Density h 2

Relic Density h 2
5
10 1 10 1
Mv2 (GeV)

10 2 10 2
0
L

10 3
102 10 3

10 4 10 4
5
10 5 10 5

10 10 6 10 6

10 7 101 10 7
101 102 103 101 102 103
Mv1 (GeV) Mv1 (GeV)
(c) (d)
Figure 7: 2-D projections of the 6-dimensional parameter space presented as a colour map of ΩDM h2 in
two different planes: (MV 1 , λL ) plane for Fig.(a,c) and (MV 1 , MV 2 ) plane for Fig.(b,d). In the first row we
present the parameter space without any constraint and in the second one we applied all the theoretical and
experimental constraints except under-abundance of DM and pertrubative unitarity constraints.

Taking into account perturbative restrictions, the region of the parameter space that shows
an important mass difference between MV 1 and MV 2 is excluded since this large difference
increases the values of the quartic coupling beyond the allowed value set by (18). This effect
can be seen clearly in Fig.(7)(d) where the region with MV 2 > 900 GeV for MV 1 < 500 GeV
is excluded. Only when the mass difference becomes relatively small, MV 2 can admit larger
values.
By incorporating the restrictions coming from Higgs invisible decay almost all the parameter
space for MV 1 . MH /2 disappears with exception of a very narrow region where λL parameter
take small values (λL . 0.02) (THIS IS NOT VISIBLE IN THE FIGURES BECAUSE
OF THE RESOLUTION, RIGHT?) This happen because the dominant annihilation chan-
nel is through the higgs boson exchange.

17
 The Higgs diphoton rate (27) introduce strong restrictions on the parameter space specially
for negative values of λL . We can see that restriction in the Fig.(7)(c) where λL is limited
from below through the parabolic shape as we increase the values of MV 1 . The diphoton rate
depend explicitly on λ2 = λL + 2(MV2 1 − MV2 ± )/v 2 , where the difference of squared masses is
always negative because MV 1 < MV ± , therefore when the mass difference is large and λL takes
high negative values, the parameter λ2 grows in demacy, causing a great deviation from the
experimental value of µγγ , this it can also be seen as well in figure(4)(b).
The additional constraint from XENON1T DD experiments removes part of the parameter
space contained between 63 < MV 1 < 125 GeV where the direct detection rate is more sensitive.
This affect the region for positive and negative values of λL , however the negative part was
removed previously by the Higgs diphoton rate constraint as we can see from Fig.(7)(c). The
scattering cross section between V1 and the XENON nuclei is through the t-channel with the
Higgs boson as a mediator, therefore it depends explicitly on the parameter λL . (ALSO IT
DEPEND ON THE V 2 AND V ± MASSES, BECAUSE ONE CAN HAVE SCAT-
TERINGS MEDIATED BY THE Z AND W) For large values of λL the abundance of
DM is low, but not low enough to suppress the DM detection rate through DD signal. Only
when λL is small (. 0.02), that region of the parameter space is able to bypass the limits of
direct detection. When we move to a high DM mass region (MV 1 & 200 GeV) where the DD
rate is less sensitive we still have a excluded region with parabolic shape that it is only reached
for large values of λL which produce a clear division between a low density of DM zone with
the rest of the parameter space.

6.1 Relic density

In the last section we consider experimental and theoretical constraints in our parameter space
but we maintained the assumption that there are other sources of DM that would help to fulfil
the budget, therefore we relaxed the lower limit of the measurements made by the PLANCK
satellite. In this section we would like to show how the model can completely explain the abun-
dance of DM for some special region of the parameter space taking into account both upper and
lower PLANCK limits. In Figure.(8) we present a 2D projection of the 6-dimensional parame-
ter space for the planes: (MV 1 , λL ) and (MV 1 , MV 2 ), where we incorporate all the restrictions
mentioned above.
As we discussed earlier, there are two regions where the Vector DM reach the experimental
limit. The first one happen in the low DM mass region between 35 < MV 1 < 80 GeV. However
this zone is complete exclude by the experimental constrains. The region of interest which
survive after all the restrictions is located the high DM mass zone where MV 1 & 350 GeV as
we can see from Fig.(8). One of the most important features of this regions is the high level of
degeneracy between the vector masses showed in the plane (MV 1 , MV 2 ) of Fig.(8)(b) where the
mass splitting do not exceeds a few GeV.
As we increase the value of MV 1 in this scenario of high degeneracy we can notice that λL can
be taking larger values as well as ∆M . However, when MV 1 ∼ 10 TeV (10 TeV?) we reach the

18
 4
3 103
2
1

Mv2 (GeV)
0
L

102
1
2
3
4 1 101 1
10 102 103 10 102 103
Mv1 (GeV) Mv1 (GeV)
(a) (b)
Figure 8: 2-D projections of the 6-dimensional parameter space in two different planes: (MV 1 , λL ) plane for
Fig.(a) and (MV 1 , MV 2 ) plane for Fig.(b), considering all the theoretical and experimental constraints plus
lower PLANCK limit.

maximum value for λL allowed by the perturbability constraints (18)(UNFINISHED YET).

Now, with this value of λL , the difference of masses can be increased up to 20 GeV, after that
point the quartic couplings become too large making the effective DM annihilation cross section
fall below the experimental value of PLANCK. This completely closes the parameter space of
the model as we can see from Figure.(9).

6.2 Dark matter production at the LHC

The DM double production associated with a Z, H or a jet (j) are one of the processes expected
to been seen at the LHC. This signals manifiest through missing transverse energy, then showing
an imbalance in the transverse energy in the mono signature. Due to the similarities between
the signals of this model and the i2HDM [25], in Fig. 10 we compare the different cross sections
in the different channels in both models. The continuous lines correspond to the vectorial
signals, meanwhile the dashes are for the scalars. Comparing channel by channel between both
models, result that the vectorial one reaches near one order of magnitude bigger than the scalar
case for masses  400 GeV. (UNFINISHED. WHY NOT TO CONSIDER MASSES
ABOVE 500 GEV?)

7 Conclusions
We have studied a simple vectorial extension to the Standard Model which introduce a vec-
torial dark matter candidate. Unlike most of massive vector bosons beyond Standard model
which enter as singlets or triplets of SU (2)L , in this work we have explore a very poor studied
possibility. The new four degrees of freedom entered with the same quantum numbers than the

19
 103
MV2 = MV ± = MV1 + 1 GeV 103 L=4
L=5 L=4 M=5 M = 20
L = 10 L = 20 M = 10 M = 50

101 Excluded by 101 Excluded by

over-abundance over-abundance
Relic Density h 2

Relic Density h 2
10 1 10 1
Allowed parameter Allowed parameter
space space
10 3
Excluded by 10 3
M too large
perturbatibity
10 5 10 5

h 2 PLANCK measurement h 2 PLANCK measurement

10 7 10 7
103 104 103 104
(a) Mv1 (GeV) (b) Mv1 (GeV)
Figure 9: Closing of the parameter space at high values of MV 1 and λL in a quasi-degenerate scenario.

standard Higgs doublet, i.e., as a color singlet SU (2)L doublet with hypercharge Y = 1/2. This
vector representation has been motivated in different context, such as Higgs-Gauge unification,
Composite-Higgs, and extra dimensions.
We have constrained the model through different theoretical and experimental constraints.
Despite the simplicity of the vector model presented in this work, we have seen that the
couplings between the Higgs sector and some of the SM particles may change significantely,
unlike in vector-Higgs portals. For example, while the Higgs decay mode to γγ is not affected
in the latter case, we have seen that one-loop effects may alter the decay rate in of this channel,
depending on just two parameters: λL , MV 1 and MV ± .
It is worth to compare the present model with one that has been studied by a lot of groups:
i2HDM. The similarities between the latter and the present model is evident. The vertex
interaction between them are pretty the same, but the respective momenta dependence in each
vertex became more complex, therefore given a more rich and complex structure. However, the
scalar or vectorial nature of both model can give different signatures at the LHC. As it has
been shown in this work, dark matter double production has naturally a bigger cross section
than in the i2HDM, due to the polarization multiplicity of the former case. The analysis shown
similar behaviour for double production of the different states (V 1 , V 2 , V ± ) plus either mono-jet,
mono-Z and mono-Higgs.
Perturbative unitarity has turned out to be very restrictive. We have studied most of the
2 → 2 elatic scatterings involving the new states in the high energy limit. As we mentioned
in section ?, all the stringent constraint analysed in each elastic partial wave comes from the
unitarity growing energy propagator of the new vector bosons. This type of behaviour can be
relaxing making the UV-completion of the model, therefore, introducing necessarilly new scalar
degrees of freedoom that can cancel the high-energy growing behaviour, such as the Higgs boson

20
 Comparison between VDDMM and i2HDM
at s = 13 TeV
104

103

102
pp v1v1j ( L = 1)
101 pp h1h1j ( 345 = 1)
pp v1v2j ( M = 1)
pp h1h2j ( M = 1)
(fb)

pp v1v1Z ( M = 1)
100 ( L = 1)
pp h1h1Z ( M = 1)
( 345 = 1)
10 1 pp v1v1H ( L = 1)
pp h1h1H ( 345 = 1)
10 2

10 3

10 4
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Mv1 (GeV)
Figure 10: Comparison between VDDMM and i2HDM on pair production of DM plus mono-object for different
channels.

in the SM. The UV-completion is beyond the present work, but just a few comments can be
done in that context. First of all, the new scalars may change some of the results that we have
worked. For example, these new scalars may participate in the V 1 V 1 annihilation processes,
changing the parametric relic density results.

Acknowledgements
Conicyt scolarship, DGIIP-UTFSM.

A Partial wave amplitudes

In this appendix we resume the results from applying pertrubative unitarity conditions on
elastic partial waves of the following processes

• h+V →h+V,

• V +V →V +V,

• G+V →G+V,

where h is the SM-like Higgs boson, V stands for either V 1 , V 2 , V ± , and G correspond to
one of the SM massive gauge bosons Z, W ± . The SM elastic amplitudes do not suffer any
modification because Z2 symmetry forbids one single new-vector intermediating the processes.

21
To be more general, each elastic process is given by X1 + X2 → X1 + X2 , where X1,2 is one
of the particles
√ in the processes √of interest. The dangerous amplitudes appear in the high-
energy limit, s  MX , where s is the center-of-mass energy, or equivalentely, x  1, for
x ≡ s/(4MX1 MX2 ), in which each vector boson involved in the process appear in its longitudinal
polarizations. In this approximation, each scattering amplitude can be written as an expansion
in x as the following7

Mi = Ai x2 + Bi x + Ci + O(1/x). (32)

Let us first analyse the results coming from the process h + VL1 → h + VL1 , where h and VL1
correspond to the Higgs boson and the longitudinal polarization of the vector state, respectively.
Its corresponding partial wave is
2
 
λL s 2λL MW
a0 (s) = 1+ 2 2 , (33)
64π g MV 1

where s is the center mass energy of the process. After applying the perturbative unitarity
condition given in 20 on 33, we obtain a maximum energy-scale Λ before this condition breaks.
In Fig.?? we show this bound on the energy for a scan in the relevant parameter space. Note that
as λL gets smaller the bigger is the scale energy before the breaking of pertrubative unitarity,
as it is shown in lighter colors in the figure. Additionally, the bound on the energy get relax as
MV 1 raises too. It should be noted that below 100 GeV this cut-off is mostly constant, breaking
the condition 20 at energies before the TeV scale, whereas for higher masses the dependence on
λL start to grow, allowing energies as high as 10 TeV for λL near to zero. Therefore, if we want
to trust in the tree level perturbation theory in our model to λ scales near a few TeV involving
characteristic masses of the new state below 100 GeV, we have to constraint λL to be close to
zero. For masses above 100 GeV, we can start to deviate the values of λL from zero.
On the other hand, perturbative unitarity constraint get stringent for processes involving
a Z or W ± instead of the Higgs boson. For instance, in Fig.?? are shown some results of the
analysis for the process ZL + VL± → ZL + VL± . For masses below 300 GeV and λL < 0, the
Fig.??(a) shows that there are many points in which the maximum allowed energy Λ for the
process is even below to 2 TeV until pertubative unitarity breaks down, whereas for positives
values of the latter allows for energies above 2 TeV. In the rest of the work we will not worry
about these set of points because, as we will see, LEP and invisible Higgs constraints rule out
big part of this region. As we note in both figures, above 100 GeV and below 1 TeV and for
λL < 0, the cut-off does not grow much beyond ∼ 2.5 TeV. However, for positives values of
λL , there are notable regions at which the maximum allowed energy grows even beyond 5 TeV.
Finally, at masses around 1 TeV, the√ cut-off remains near above 2 TeV, implying that the
validity of our first assumption, i.e., s  MV , is not valid anymore. Therefore, for masses
. 500 GeV, perturbative unitarity constraint gives roughly the same energy cut-off for both
7
We follow the procedure exposed in [26].

22
channels studied above, i.e. & 2 TeV, but for masses above the tree level process involving the
new vector state and the SM gauge boson does not rise the allowed energy values, keeping the
maximum value around 2.5 TeV before perturbative unitarity is lost.
Finally, V + V → V + V amplitudes, with V = V 1 , V 2 , V ± , also can introduces strong
constraints on the energy scale at which perturbative unitarity breaks down. For example, the
zero partial wave of the channel VL1 + VL1 → VL1 + VL1 is


g 2 (α2 + α3 ) 36MV4 1 − 24MV2 1 s + 5s2 + 18λ2L MH2 MW
2
a0 (s) = . (34)
96πg 2 MV4 1
The strong growing energy behaviour of the partial wave (a0 ∼ E 4 ) makes that perturbative
unitarity breaks down at very low energies for typical masses of a few hundred. For example,
for MV 1 = 100 GeV, λL = 1 and α1 = α2 = 1, the breaking of perturbative unitarity is reach
at center of mass energies less than 250 GeV. It easy to see that the growing energy behaviour
dissapear when α1 = −α2 . Of course, there is no a deep motivation of this family of points.
However, in the VL+ + VL− → VL+ + VL− amplitude, still in the limit of α = 0, the growing energy
behaviour still remains.
 2  
g (9(1−2c2w )2 MW2 −4c2 s) 48MW2 λ
2 2s
c4w M 2 ±
w
+ g2 M 2 − 32(α2 + α3 ) M 2 −9
V V± V±
a0 (s) = 2
(35)
1536πMV ±
A possible solution to this problem is the establish the model coming from a gauge theory.
10000 10000
10 10
8000 8000
5 5
6000 6000
(GeV)
(GeV)

0 0
L
L

4000 4000
5 5
2000 2000
10 10
101 102 103 101 102 103
Mv2 (GeV) Mvp (GeV)
(a) (b)
Figure 11: Maximum energy Λ allow from pertrubative unitarity on the processes a) hV 2 → hV 2
and b) hV ± → hV ± channels.

References
[1] M. Cvetic and S. Godfrey, “Discovery and identification of extra gauge bosons,”
arXiv:hep-ph/9504216 [hep-ph].

23
Table 2: hV → hV elastic tree level scatterings processes. None of them have u-channel, and
all have contact diagrams. There is no s2 growing behaviour.

Process s-cha t-cha s

2
 
λL λL MW
hV 1 → hV 1 V1 H, V 1 − 1+2 2 2
64πMV 1  g MV 1 
λR λR M 2
hV 2 → hV 2 V2 H, V 2 − 1+2 2 W
64πMV 2  g MV2 2 
λ2 λ2 M 2
hV ± → hV ± V± H, V ± − 1 + 2 2 2W
64πMV ± g MV ±

Table 3: V V → V V and GV → GV tree level processes, where V = V 1 , V 2 , V ± ), G =

Z, W ± , A. All the processes have a contact contribution.

Elastic s-cha t-cha

ZV 1 → ZV 1 V2 H, V 2
Process s-ch t-ch u-ch
1V 1
ZV 2 → ZV 2 V1 H, V 1
V → V 1V 1 H H H
ZV ± → ZV ± V± H, V ±
V 2V 2 → V 2V 2 H H H
W ±V 1 → W ±V 1 V± H, V ±
V +V − → V +V − H, Z, A H, Z, A ×
W ±V 2 → W ±V 2 V± H, V ±
W ±V ∓ → W ±V ∓ V 1, V 2 H, A, Z

[2] M. Schmaltz and C. Spethmann, “Two Simple W’ Models for the Early LHC,” JHEP 07
(2011) 046, arXiv:1011.5918 [hep-ph].

[3] R. Contino, D. Marzocca, D. Pappadopulo, and R. Rattazzi, “On the effect of resonances
in composite Higgs phenomenology,” JHEP 10 (2011) 081, arXiv:1109.1570 [hep-ph].

[4] D. Pappadopulo, A. Thamm, R. Torre, and A. Wulzer, “Heavy Vector Triplets: Bridging
Theory and Data,” JHEP 09 (2014) 060, arXiv:1402.4431 [hep-ph].

[5] A. E. Cárcamo Hernández, B. Dı́az Sáez, C. O. Dib, and A. Zerwekh, “Constraints on

vector resonances from a strong Higgs sector,” Phys. Rev. D96 no. 11, (2017) 115027,
arXiv:1707.05195 [hep-ph].

[6] M. V. Chizhov and G. Dvali, “Origin and Phenomenology of Weak-Doublet Spin-1

Bosons,” Phys. Lett. B703 (2011) 593–598, arXiv:0908.0924 [hep-ph].

[7] K. Agashe, A. Azatov, T. Han, Y. Li, Z.-G. Si, and L. Zhu, “LHC Signals for Coset
Electroweak Gauge Bosons in Warped/Composite PGB Higgs Models,” Phys. Rev. D81
(2010) 096002, arXiv:0911.0059 [hep-ph].

24
 [8] N. Maru, N. Okada, and S. Okada, “SU (2)L Doublet Vector Dark Matter from
Gauge-Higgs Unification,” arXiv:1803.01274 [hep-ph].

[9] 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].

[10] T. Hambye, “Hidden vector dark matter,” JHEP 01 (2009) 028, arXiv:0811.0172
[hep-ph].

[11] A. Semenov, “LanHEP - a package for automatic generation of Feynman rules from the
Lagrangian. Updated version 3.1,” arXiv:1005.1909 [hep-ph].

[12] A. Belyaev, N. D. Christensen, and A. Pukhov, “CalcHEP 3.4 for collider physics within
and beyond the Standard Model,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 184 (2013) 1729–1769,
arXiv:1207.6082 [hep-ph].

[13] G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov, and A. Semenov, “micrOMEGAs 3: A program

for calculating dark matter observables,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 185 (2014) 960–985,
arXiv:1305.0237 [hep-ph].

[14] G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov, and A. Semenov, “MicrOMEGAs 2.0: A Program

to calculate the relic density of dark matter in a generic model,” Comput. Phys.
Commun. 176 (2007) 367–382, arXiv:hep-ph/0607059 [hep-ph].

[15] G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, P. Brun, A. Pukhov, S. Rosier-Lees, P. Salati, and

A. Semenov, “Indirect search for dark matter with micrOMEGAs2.4,” Comput. Phys.
Commun. 182 (2011) 842–856, arXiv:1004.1092 [hep-ph].

[16] F. Kahlhoefer, K. Schmidt-Hoberg, T. Schwetz, and S. Vogl, “Implications of unitarity

and gauge invariance for simplified dark matter models,” JHEP 02 (2016) 016,
arXiv:1510.02110 [hep-ph].

[17] J. Abdallah et al., “Simplified Models for Dark Matter Searches at the LHC,” Phys.
Dark Univ. 9-10 (2015) 8–23, arXiv:1506.03116 [hep-ph].

[18] E. Lundström, M. Gustafsson, and J. Edsjö, “Inert doublet model and lep ii limits,”
Phys. Rev. D 79 (Feb, 2009) 035013.
https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.79.035013.

[19] A. Pierce and J. Thaler, “Natural Dark Matter from an Unnatural Higgs Boson and New
Colored Particles at the TeV Scale,” JHEP 08 (2007) 026, arXiv:hep-ph/0703056
[HEP-PH].

25
[20] ATLAS Collaboration, M. Aaboud et al., “Measurements of Higgs √ boson properties in
the diphoton decay channel with 36 fb−1 of pp collision data at s = 13 TeV with the
ATLAS detector,” arXiv:1802.04146 [hep-ex].

[21] CMS Collaboration, V. Khachatryan

√ et al., “Searches for invisible decays of the Higgs
boson in pp collisions at s = 7, 8, and 13 TeV,” JHEP 02 (2017) 135,
arXiv:1610.09218 [hep-ex].

[22] Planck Collaboration, P. A. R. Ade et al., “Planck 2013 results. XVI. Cosmological
parameters,” Astron. Astrophys. 571 (2014) A16, arXiv:1303.5076 [astro-ph.CO].

[23] Planck Collaboration, P. Ade et al., “Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological
parameters,” arXiv:1502.01589 [astro-ph.CO].

[24] XENON Collaboration, E. Aprile et al., “First Dark Matter Search Results from the
XENON1T Experiment,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 no. 18, (2017) 181301, arXiv:1705.06655
[astro-ph.CO].

[25] 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].

[26] J. C. Romão, “The need for the Higgs boson in the Standard Model,” 2016.
arXiv:1603.04251 [hep-ph].
https://inspirehep.net/record/1427433/files/arXiv:1603.04251.pdf.

26