Searches for Dark Matter at the ATLAS experiment - EPJ Web of ...

EPJ Web of Conferences 120, 0400 1 (2016)

DOI: 10.1051/ epj conf/2016120 0400 1

ISMD 2015

Searches for Dark Matter at the ATLAS experiment Henso Abreu1 on behalf of the ATLAS Collaborationa 1

Technion – Israel Institute of Technology. Haifa, 3200003, Israel

Abstract. Searches for strongly produced dark matters in events with jets, photons, heavy-flavor quarks or massive gauge bosons recoiling against large missing transverse momentum in ATLAS are presented. These "ETmiss +X" signatures provide powerful probes to dark matter production at the LHC, allowing us to interpret results in terms of effective field theory and/or simplified models with pair production of Weakly Interacting Massive Particles. Recent ATLAS results on dark matter searches at LHC Run 1 and the connection to astroparticle physics are discussed.

1 Introduction Dark Matter existence in the Universe is well established through numerous astrophysical and cosmological observations, as documented in Refs. [1–4], however little is known of its particle nature or its non-gravitational interactions. At the Large Hadron Colliders, one can search for a weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP), denoted by χ, and for interactions between χ and Standard Model particles, see Ref. [5]. Searches conducted at the Large Hadron Collider are especially sensitive at low Dark Matter masses (mχ ≤ 10 GeV), and therefore provide results complementary to direct Dark Matter searches Refs. [6–9] . Interaction of particles mediating between Dark Matter and Standard Model particles can be described by contact operators in the framework of an effective field theory (EFT) Refs. [10–12] in cases where they are too heavy to be produced directly in the experiment. In the absence of signal, limits can be placed in terms of the effective mass scale of the interaction, M∗ and of the χ−nucleon cross-section, σχ−N , as a function of mχ . In addition to the investigation with the EFT operators, pair production of WIMPs is also investigated within so-called simplified models, where a pair of WIMPs couples to a pair of Standard Models particles explicitly via a new mediator particle, e.g a new vector boson Z . In this case, limits on M∗ and/or mχ are placed as a function of the mediator mass Mmed . A number of dedicated approaches to finding evidence for Dark Matter have been carried out with −1 the ATLAS detector experiment √ Ref. [13] during Run 1, using typically 20.3 fb of data collected at a centre-of-mass energy of s = 8 TeV. So-called mono-X searches take advantage of a variety of different tag objects, X, together with large absolute values of missing transverse momentum, ETmiss , in the final state to constitute a clean and distinctive signature. Heavy-quark searches use events with large ETmiss in association with high-momentum jets of which one or more are identified as jets containing b or top–quarks. a e-mail: [email protected]

© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

DOI: 10.1051/ epj conf/2016120 0400 1


ISMD 2015

2 Mono-X Seaches

10-28 10-30 10-32 10-34

ATLAS

90% CL s=8 TeV, 20.3 fb-1

D1: χχqq μ D5: χγ χqγ μq μν D11: χχG G

C1: χ✝χqq μν C5: χ✝χGμν G

μν

truncated, coupling = 1 truncated, max coupling

10-36

WIMP-nucleon cross section [cm2]

WIMP-nucleon cross section [cm2]

Tagging events using a variety of recoil objects, mostly stemming from initial state radiation (ISR), gives access to a broad range of EFT operators, as the respective sensitivity depends on the tag object in question. All cases require large amounts of ETmiss , coming from the Dark Matter particle, and tag objects include single jets or photons as well as electroweak bosons Z and W . DAMA/LIBRA, 3σ CRESST II, 2σ CoGeNT, 99% CL CDMS, 1σ CDMS, 2σ CDMS, low mass LUX 2013 90% CL Xenon100 90% CL CMS 8TeV D5 CMS 8TeV D11

10-38 -40

10

10-42 -44

10

10-26 10-28 10-30 10-32

COUPP 90% CL SIMPLE 90% CL PICASSO 90% CL Super-K 90% CL IceCube W +W 90% CL CMS 8TeV D8

10-36 10-38 10-40 10-42 spin-dependent

10-44 1

3

102 10 WIMP mass mχ [GeV] M* [TeV]

10

90% CL μ s=8 TeV, 20.3 fb-1 D8: χγ γ 5χqγ μγ 5q D9: χσμν χqσμν q truncated, coupling = 1 truncated, max coupling

10-34

spin-independent

10-46 1

ATLAS

3.5 3 2.5

mχ =50 GeV, Γ =Mmed/3

10

3

102 10 WIMP mass mχ [GeV]

ATLAS

mχ =50 GeV, Γ =Mmed/8 π

s=8 TeV, 20.3 fb-1

mχ =400 GeV, Γ =Mmed/3 mχ =400 GeV, Γ =Mmed/8 π gqgχ contours

0.5

EFT limits

2

1

0.2

2

1.5

0.1 5

1

mχ=50 GeV mχ=400 GeV

0.5 0

4π

-1

10

1

10 Mmed [TeV]

Figure 1. 90% CL limits on spin-independent (top-left) and spin-dependent (top-right) σχ−N as a function of mχ for different EFT operators. Observed 95% CL limits on M∗ as a function of Mmed (bottom), assuming a Z -like bosons in a simplified model and a Dark Matter mass of 50 GeV ad 400 GeV. The width of the mediator is varied between Mmed /3 and Mmed /8π. The corresponding limits from EFT models are shown as dashed lines; contour √ lines indicating a range of values of the product of the coupling constants ( gq gχ ) are also shown. For details see Refs. [6, 9, 14–30]. Plots taken from Ref. [14]

2.1 Mono-jet+ ETmiss

As introduced in Ref. [14], using a single jet as recoil object gives sensitivity to six EFT operators (D1, D5, D8, D9, D11 and D5). To enhance the expected signal, events are required to contain at least one central jet with transverse momentum pT , larger than both 120 GeV and half of ETmiss . To ensure that the jet is in fact recoiling against the Dark Matter particles, the angle between the jet and the missing transverse momentum in the events is required to be above one. To further suppress background, which is mainly comprised of Z(νν)+jets and W(ν)+jets events, events containing leptons or high-pT isolated tracks are vetoed. As all measurements are consistent with Standard Model expectations, the most sensitive out of nine signal regions, defined by requirements on ETmiss ranging from 150 GeV to 700 GeV, is used to place limits on σχ−N for each of the operators under investigation. As an example result of this analysis, inferred 90% confidence level (CL) limits on σχ−N as a function of mχ for the spin-independent as well as spin-dependent case for different operators are shown in Fig. 1 (top-left

2

DOI: 10.1051/ epj conf/2016120 0400 1


ISMD 2015

ATLAS

1100

EFT model, D5 operator

1000

s = 8 TeV,

900

∫Ldt = 20.3 fb

-1

10-28

χ-N cross-section [cm2]

90% CL limit on M * [GeV]

and top-right). To ensure the validity of the EFT approach, the results are also shown after applying a truncation procedure as described in Ref. [14]. Limits on M∗ as a function of Mmed in the context of a simplified model are shown in Fig. 1 (bottom). observed limit (± 1 σtheo) expected limit expected ± 1σ expected ± 2σ truncated, coupling=1 truncated, max coupling

10-28 DAMA/LIBRA, 3σ CoGeNT, 99%CL CDMS, 2σ LUX 2013 90%CL

-32

10

800 700 600 500

D9: ATLAS 8TeV g=4 π 90%CL

CRESST II, 2 σ CDMS, 1σ CDMS, low mass Xenon100 90%CL -32

D5: ATLAS 8TeV g=4 π 90%CL D5: ATLAS 8TeV g=1 90%CL D5: ATLAS 7TeV γ (χχ)

D9: ATLAS 8TeV g=1 90%CL D8: ATLAS 8TeV g=4 π 90%CL

10

D8: ATLAS 8TeV g=1 90%CL D9: ATLAS 7TeV γ (χχ) D8: ATLAS 7TeV γ (χχ)

10-36

10-36

10-40

spin-independent-40

10

400

spin-dependent

300

-44

10

10

10

10 m χ [GeV]

2.5

1

mχ =50 GeV, Γ =mV/3

∫

mχ =400 GeV, Γ =mV/3

s=8 TeV, Ldt=20.3 fb

mχ =400 GeV, Γ =mV/8 π

10 1 mχ [GeV]

10

s = 8 TeV

102

3

10 mχ [GeV]

-1

vector coupling

g gχ contours

0.5

f

1.5

10

3

COUPP 90%CL SIMPLE 90%CL PICASSO 90%CL Super-K 90%CL IceCube W +W - 90%CL

ATLAS

mχ =50 GeV, Γ =mV/8 π

2

10

2

∫ L dt = 20.3 fb

-1

3

102

95% CL limit on M* [TeV]

1

-44

ATLAS

1

EFT D5 limits 2 0.2

1

0.1

5 mχ=50 GeV mχ=400 GeV

0.5 4π

0

-1

10

1

10 mV [TeV]

Figure 2. Limits at 90% CL on M∗ as a function of mχ (top-left), for the vector operator D5 . Results where √ EFT truncation is applied are also shown, assuming coupling values g f gχ = 1, 4π. Upper limits at 90% CL on σχ−N as a function of mχ spin-independent (top-right-left) and spin-dependent (top-right-right) interactions, √ for a coupling strength g f gχ of unity or the maximum value (4π) that keeps the model within its perturbative regime. The truncation procedure is applied for both cases. Observed lower limits at 95% CL on M∗ as a function of Mmed (bottom), for a Z -like mediator with vector interactions. For an mχ of 50 GeV or 400 GeV, results are shown for different values of the mediator total decay width Σ and compared to the EFT observed limit √ results for a D5 (vector) interaction. M∗ vs mV contours for an overall coupling g f gχ = 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 4π are also shown. The corresponding limits from the D5 operator are shown as a dashed line. For details see Refs. [6, 8, 9, 20, 21, 24, 26, 29, 31–36]. Plots taken from Ref. [31]

2.2 Mono-photon+ ETmiss

A search using a photon as tag object, allow to access three EFT operators (D5, D8 and D9), has been shown in Ref. [31]. Using events with a single highly energetic photon, large ETmiss , no leptons and at most one jet; the main backgrounds in this analysis remain Z(νν)+γ, diboson, Wγ and Zγ with lost leptons as well as W and Z production with leptons misidentified as photons. As for the mono-jet search, all measurements are consistent with Standard Model expectations and lower (upper) limits on M∗ (σχ−N ) are presented both with and without applying the EFT truncation procedure mentioned above, as shown in examples in Fig. 2 (top-left and top-right). In addition limits on M∗ as a function of Mmed , as shown in Fig. 2 (bottom), are derived in the context of a simplified model.

3

DOI: 10.1051/ epj conf/2016120 0400 1


ISMD 2015

2.3 Mono-W/Z + ETmiss

104

mono-W lep, D9 mono-W lep, D5c mono-W lep, D5d mono-W lep, D1

mono-W/Z had, D9 mono-W/Z had, D5c mono-W/Z had, D5d mono-W/Z had, D1 mono-Z lep, D9 mono-Z lep, D5 mono-Z lep, D1

ATLAS

103

102

10 0

l + Emiss 90% CL T s = 8 TeV, ∫ Ldt = 20.3 fb-1 200

400

600

800

1000

1200

10-34 10-35 10-36 10-37 10-38 10-39 10-40 10-41 10-42 10-43 10-44 10-45 10-46 10-47

ATLAS mono-W lep, D5d

1

mχ [GeV]

10-34 ATLAS 90% CL 10-35 20.3 fb-1 s = 8 TeV ATLAS mono-Z lep, D5 10-36 ATLAS mono-jet 7 TeV, D5 10-37 10-38 10-39 spin-dependent 10-40 10-41 10-42 PICASSO 2012 10-43 spin-independent ATLAS mono-W lep, D9 SIMPLE 2011 10-44 LUX 2014 + ATLAS mono-W/Z had, D9 IceCube W W -45 CoGeNT 2010 10 ATLAS mono-jet 7 TeV, D9 IceCube bb ATLAS mono-W/Z had, D5c XENON100 2012 -46 ATLAS mono-Z lep, D9 10 COUPP 2012 SuperCDMS 2014 ATLAS mono-W/Z had, D5d 10-47 102 103 1 102 103 10 10 mχ [GeV] mχ [GeV] ATLAS mono-W lep, D5c


105


*

M [GeV]

An analysis using W and Z bosons, respectively their decay products, as tag objects gives sensitivity to four EFT operators (C1, D1, D5 and D9) and has been presented in Refs. [37–39], for both hadronic and leptonic decay of the vector bosons. In the analysis aiming at hadronic decays, events are required to contain at least one high-pT large-radius jet with reasonably balanced sub-jets, originating from the vector boson; at most one additional regular jet; and no leptons and photons. The background yield in the two signal regions, defined by requirements on ETmiss of 350 GeV and 500 GeV, is dominated by Z(νν)+jets as well as Z()+jets and W(ν)+jets with lost leptons. Looking at the leptonic decays, the event selection differs for W or Z bosons. In the first case, events are required to contain exactly one high-pT lepton and a transverse mass of the W boson candidate incompatible with direct production; while in the latter case, events have to contain two leptons giving an invariant mass close to Z peak and no additional lepton or jets. Both cases require large values of ETmiss and the main background contributions are coming from diboson events in the Z case and in addition W(ν) and Z() with lost leptons in the W case. All yields are consistent with Standard Model expectations and limits on M∗ as a function of mχ and σχ−N , are presented both for spin-independent and spin-dependent EFT operators, as shown in Fig. 3.

Figure 3. Limits at 90% CL on M∗ as a function of mχ (left), for EFT operators D9, D5 and D1. Observed limits on σχ−N as a function of mχ at 90% CL for spin-independent (right-left) and spin-dependent (right-right) operators in the EFT. For details see Refs. [6–9, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38]. Plots taken from Refs. [37–39]

2.4 Heavy-quarks Searches

A search for Dark Matter pair production in association with bottom or top quarks has been presented in Ref. [40]. Aside from being sensitive to three EFT operators (C1, D1 and D9), this analysis also places constraints on the mass of a coloured mediator suitable to explain a possible signal of annihilating Dark Matter, using a simplified model model approach. Several signal regions are defined requiring combinations of increasing jet and b-jet multiplicity, 0 or 1 lepton and values of ETmiss above 200 GeV to 300 GeV in the events. Applying additional kinematic cuts, the main backgrounds is still coming form tt¯-events as well as single-top and W/Z+jets events. All measurements are consistent with Standard Model expectations and lower (upper) limits on M∗ (σχ−N ) are presented for three EFT operators (C1, D1 and D9), as shown in Fig. 4 for D1operator (top-left and top-right). Due to the proportionality of the scalar operator to the quark mass, limits for D1 are in fact better than those obtained by the above mentioned mono-jet analysis. Constraints on b-flavoured Dark Matter models, using a simplified model, are also presented and shown in Fig. 4 (bottom). For a Dark Matter particle

4

DOI: 10.1051/ epj conf/2016120 0400 1


ISMD 2015

of about 35 GeV, as suggested by an interpretation in Ref. [41] of data recorded by the Fermi–LAT collaboration see Ref. [42], mediator masses between roughly 300 GeV and 500 GeV are excluded at 95% CL. 10-34

180

ATLAS

2 σSI χ-N [cm ]

M [GeV] *

200

10-35

SR4 SR3 SR2 SR1

-1

20.3 fb , s = 8 TeV

160 (a) Scalar (D1), 90% CL 140

ATLAS

ATLAS Scalar (D1)

20.3 fb -1, s = 8 TeV

SuperCDMS (2013)

10-36

LUX (2013)

-37

10

all limits at 90% CL, g=4 π

-38

10

120

10-39

100

10-40

80

10-41

60

10-42

40

10-43

20

10-44

1

10

10-45 1

103

102

mχ (GeV)

mχ [GeV]

10

102

mχ [GeV]

80 70

Observed limit

ATLAS

Expected limit (±1 σexp)

-1

20.3 fb , s =8 TeV

60

all limits at 95% CL

50 40 30 20 10 0 0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

mφ (GeV)

Figure 4. Lower limits on M∗ at 90% CL for different signal regions as a function of mχ (top-left) for the operator D1. Solid lines and markers indicate the validity range of the effective field theory assuming couplings gq gχ < 4π, the dashed lines and hollow makers represent the full collider constraints. Upper limits at 90% CL on σχ−N for the scalar operator D1 as a function of mχ (top-right) compared to other results. The coupling is assumed to be gq gχ = 4π. Exclusion contour at 95% CL for the b-flavoured Dark Matter model (bottom) from combined results of two signal regions. The expected limit is given by the solid red line. The region beneath the curve indicating the observed limit is excluded. For details see Refs. [6, 7, 40, 43]. Plots taken from Ref. [40]

2.5 Conclusions

The √ ATLAS Collaboration has performed a broad variety of searches for Dark Matter signatures, using s = 8 TeV Run 1 data and with tag objects ranging from single jets, photons, to W/Z bosons and as well as heavy quarks . No signs of Dark Matter have been observed, and stringent limits have set on the different benchmark models, emphasising the complementary nature of collider searches to direct and indirect detection experiments, especially at low Dark Matter masses and for spin-dependent EFT operators.

References [1] F. Zwicky, Helv. Phys. Acta 6, 110–127 (1933).

5

DOI: 10.1051/ epj conf/2016120 0400 1


ISMD 2015 [2] G. Bertone et al. , Phys. Rept. 405, 279–390 (2005). [3] G. Jungman et al. , Phys. Rept. 267 , 195–373 (1996). [4] J. Binney and S. Tremaine, (1993), arXiv:astro-ph/9304010 [astro-ph] . [5] J. Beringer et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D86, p. 010001Jul (2012). [6] D. S. Akerib et al. (LUX Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 , p. 091303 (2014). [7] R. Agnese et al. (SuperCDMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 , p. 041302 (2014). [8] E. Behnke et al. (COUPP Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 86, p. 052001Sep (2012). [9] S. Archambault et al. (PICASSO Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B711, 153?161 (2012). [10] M. Beltran et al. , JHEP 09 , p. 037 (2010). [11] P. J. Fox et al. , Phys. Rev. D85, p. 056011 (2012). [12] J. Goodman et al. , Phys. Rev. D82, p. 116010 (2010). [13] ATLAS Collaboration, JINST 3, p. S08003 (2008). [14] ATLAS Collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. C75 , p. 299 (2015). [15] CMS Collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. C75, p. 235 (2015). [16] P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck Collaboration), Astron. Astrophys. 571, p. A16 (2014), [17] G. Hinshaw et al. , ApJS 208, p. 19 (2013) [18] M. Ackermann et al. (Fermi-LAT Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D89, p. 042001 (2014) [19] A. Abramowski et al. (H.E.S.S. Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, p. 161301 Apr(2011). [20] G. Angloher et al. , Eur. Phys. J. C72, p. 1971 (2012) [21] R. Agnese et al. (CDMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.111, p. 251301 (2013). [22] R. Agnese et al. (SuperCDMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, p. 241302 (2014). [23] C. E. Aalseth et al., (2014), arXiv:1401.6234 [astro-ph.CO] [24] R. Bernabei et al. (DAMA Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C56, 333–355 (2008). [25] E. Aprile et al. (XENON100 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.111 , p. 021301 (2013). [26] S. Desai et al. (Super-Kamiokande Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D70, p. 083523 (2004). [27] R. Abbasi et al. (IceCube Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 , p. 201302May (2009). [28] E. Behnke et al. (COUPP Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, p. 021303Jan (2011). [29] M. Felizardo et al. (The SIMPLE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, p. 201302May (2012) . [30] ATLAS Collaboration, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2014-007 (2014). https://cds.cern.ch/record/1708859 . [31] ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D91, p. 012008 (2015). [32] E. Aprile et al. (XENON100 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, p. 181301Nov (2012). [33] Z. Ahmed et al. (CDMS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, p. 131302Mar (2011). [34] C. E. Aalseth et al. (CoGeNT Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, p. 131301Mar (2011). [35] M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, p. 131302Mar (2013). [36] A. Abramowski et al. (HESS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, p. 041301 (2013). [37] ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, p. 041802 (2014). [38] ATLAS Collaboration, JHEP 09, p. 037 (2014). [39] ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D90, p. 012004 (2014). [40] ATLAS Collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. C75 , p. 92 (2015). [41] T. Daylan et al. , (2014), arXiv:1402.6703 [astro-ph.HE] . [42] W. B. Atwood et al. , The Astrophysical Journal 697 , p. 1071 (2009). [43] R. Gaitskell et al. , http://dmtools.brown.edu/.

6