Mono-jet searches for simplified models

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Luca_Mantani
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Models
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion focuses on simplified models for dark matter searches at colliders, specifically examining s-channel and t-channel models in the context of mono-jet production. Participants explore the differences in processes and interactions involving dark matter and quarks, particularly the role of loops and tree-level scattering in these models.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Luca introduces the topic of simplified models for dark matter searches, questioning why s-channel processes involve loops while t-channel processes do not.
  • One participant suggests that the coupling of dark matter to top quarks is often stronger, making loop processes more significant than tree-level processes involving light quarks.
  • Another participant questions the validity of applying the same reasoning to t-channel models, proposing that s-channel models may be strongly coupled to top quarks, leading to differences in phenomenology.
  • There is a discussion about the placement of top loops in diagrams, with one participant noting that the interaction in certain figures always involves quarks with two new particles.
  • One participant concludes that top quarks cannot be used in the initial state due to their low parton distribution in protons, affecting the importance of diagrams with top loops compared to tree-level processes with light quarks.
  • Luca raises a question about Minimal Flavour Violation and its implications for coupling constants in the two models, expressing confusion over the differing approaches to setting these constants.
  • An experimentalist notes their limited expertise in theoretical aspects, indicating a division in knowledge between experimental and theoretical perspectives in the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the significance of loop versus tree-level processes in s-channel and t-channel models, with no consensus reached on the implications of these differences. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the application of Minimal Flavour Violation principles.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific figures and pages in a linked paper, indicating that their understanding is contingent on the details presented therein. There are unresolved questions about the role of top quarks and the implications of coupling constants in the models discussed.

Luca_Mantani
Messages
33
Reaction score
1
Hi,
i am studying Simplified Models for the search of Dark Matter at colliders. In particular there are 2 different kind of models that i am studying that are s-channel and t-channel models. Now, there is something that i don't understand related to the mono-jet process.
Here is a paper that shows some of these models: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.08002v2.pdf
s-channel models are models in which the new mediator is exchanged in the s-channel when dealing with Dark Matter annihilation, while in t-channel models is exchanged in the t-channel during this process.

Since we are not able to detect DM, we have to look at processes that involves jets in the output.
If you look at page 22 of the paper i linked, there are some diagrams of these kind of processes for the s-channel. All of them involve loops and i don't understand why. Why a process like the ones for the t-channel in page 28 cannot happen? I read that there are difference in the two models in mono-jet production, but i don't understand why there cannot be tree-level scattering in the s-channel one.

Thank you for the help,
Luca
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't know about those specific models, but often the coupling of dark matter to top quarks is stronger - so strong that those loops are more important than tree-level processes involving light quarks. The tree-level top quark process is shown on page 22, but it needs a higher parton energy. Unless the dark matter particle behaves really weird, the same process for light quarks is possible.
 
mfb said:
I don't know about those specific models, but often the coupling of dark matter to top quarks is stronger - so strong that those loops are more important than tree-level processes involving light quarks. The tree-level top quark process is shown on page 22, but it needs a higher parton energy. Unless the dark matter particle behaves really weird, the same process for light quarks is possible.
Why isn't that valid even for the t-channel models? So, you are saying that maybe s-channel models are strongly coupled to the top, while the t-channel are not, so we have a substantial difference in phenomenology between the 2 models?
 
Where would you add top loops in figure 5? The interaction there is always quark with two new particles. On page 22 SM particles produce a single new particle.
 
mfb said:
Where would you add top loops in figure 5? The interaction there is always quark with two new particles. On page 22 SM particles produce a single new particle.
No, sure.
Maybe now i got it, we can't use top quarks in the initial state because their parton distribution is too low in the proton and the process would be negligible. So in the first model we got that the interaction is proportional to yukawa couplings, while in the second one not. As a consequence in the first one the diagrams with top loops are very important with respect to the tree level with light quarks. On the other hand, the other can only interact with light quarks. Is that right?

Do you know something about Minimal Flavour Violation? Because they use this principle to set the coupling costants proportional to yukawa couplings in the first model, while in the second one they use the same principle, but this time they set all the coupling constants for each generation of quarks equal. I don't understand why is that.
 
I'm from the experimental side, we have theorists here who know that better.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K