This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

aainstitutetext: School of Physics and State Key Laboratory of Nuclear Physics and Technology, Peking University, Beijing 100871, Chinabbinstitutetext: School of Physics and Astronomy, Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai 519082, P.R. Chinaccinstitutetext: Center for High Energy Physics, Peking University, Beijing 100871, Chinaddinstitutetext: School of Physics, Beihang University, Beijing 100083, China eeinstitutetext: Beijing Key Laboratory of Advanced Nuclear Materials and Physics, Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China

Lepton flavor of four-fermion operator and fermion portal dark matter

Yuxuan He b    Gang Li a,c    Jia Liu d,e    Xiao-Ping Wang b    Xiang Zhao [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Abstract

We study the ultraviolet completion of semileptonic four-fermion operator Oledqαβ11O_{ledq}^{\alpha\beta 11} that incorporates Majorana dark matter (DM) in both lepton-flavor-conserving (LFC) and lepton-flavor-violating (LFV) scenarios at the one-loop level via box diagram, which effectively alleviates the lower bounds on the new physics scale. The interplay between the model-independent constraints on the Wilson coefficients and DM direct detection, relic density, and collider searches in the context of fermion portal DM model with two mediators is investigated. We find that both the projected future constraint on the LFC Wilson coefficient Cledq2211/Λ2<(12.3TeV)2C_{ledq}^{2211}/\Lambda^{2}<(12.3\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{TeV})^{-2} from the measurements of neutrino non-standard interaction in the next-generation neutrino oscillation experiments, and LFV constraint Cledq1211/Λ2<(2.2×103TeV)2C_{ledq}^{1211}/\Lambda^{2}<\left(2.2\times 10^{3}\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{TeV}\right)^{-2} from ongoing charged-lepton-flavor-violation searches, provide a complementary exploration of the parameter space encompassing the DM mass and scalar mass. With the colored mediator mass typically around 2TeV2\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{TeV}, the sensitivity of the indirect constraints on the four-fermion operator could surpass those of collider searches and DM direct detection, in scenarios where the masses of the DM and scalar are close. By ensuring the correct DM relic density, however, we obtain that the collider searches and DM direct detection are more sensitive to the electroweak scale DM and scalar compared to the indirect constraints.

preprint:

1 Introduction

While the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics has achieved striking success, its lack of explanation of fundamental phenomena, such as the origins of neutrino masses and fermion flavor structure, and providing particle candidates for dark matter (DM) underscores the need for physics beyond the SM (BSM). In light of null results in searches for new resonances at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the effective field theory (EFT) framework offers a powerful way to explore new physics Isidori:2023pyp .

In the EFT approach, BSM interactions are systematically parameterized as a series of higher-dimensional operators with the corresponding Wilson coefficients suppressed with inverse powers of the new physics scale Λ\Lambda. At the lowest order with mass dimension 5, only one operator is present that gives masses to neutrinos Weinberg:1979sa , while exploding numbers of effective operators emerge at higher orders Buchmuller:1985jz ; Grzadkowski:2010es ; Henning:2015alf .

There has been growing interest in dimension-6 four-fermion operators, as being utilized to fit precision data and address anomalies observed at the LHC and in low-energy experiments Falkowski:2017pss ; Cirigliano:2023nol ; Fernandez-Martinez:2024bxg ; Karmakar:2024gla , and intriguing connections with DM models Cepedello:2023yao . Focusing on the semileptonic operators with two leptons and two quarks, the one-by-one constraints on the lepton-flavor-conserving (LFC) are rather stringent, and global fits are essential to mitigate or even eliminate the tensions in different observables Cirigliano:2023nol . On the other hand, for the lepton-flavor-changing (LFV) operators, possible tensions are milder since less experimental data is available Fernandez-Martinez:2024bxg .

Consider the dimension-6 four-fermion operator Grzadkowski:2010es

Oledqαβst\displaystyle O_{ledq}^{\alpha\beta st} =(L¯αjeRβ)(d¯RsQtj),\displaystyle=(\bar{L}_{\alpha}^{j}e_{R\beta})(\bar{d}_{Rs}Q_{t}^{j})\;, (1)

where L=(νL,eL)TL=(\nu_{L},e_{L})^{T} and Q=(uL,dL)TQ=(u_{L},d_{L})^{T} denote the left-handed SU(2)LSU(2)_{L} doublets of leptons and quarks, respectively. jj is the isospin index, and α\alpha, β\beta, ss, tt are flavor indices. This operator is forbidden under the U(3)5U(3)^{5} flavor symmetry, and highly suppressed within minimal flavor violation hypothesis DAmbrosio:2002vsn ; Isidori:2023pyp , rendering it extraordinarily sensitive probe of BSM physics. We will consider the first-generation quarks, s=t=1s=t=1, and the lepton flavor indices α,β=1,2\alpha,\beta=1,2.

In general, the stringent constraints on the Wilson coefficients of four-fermion operators challenge direct searches for ultraviolet (UV) physics. However, one-loop UV completions of the four-fermion operators with the participation of DM particles in the box diagram can notably alleviate the restrictions on the mass scale Λ\Lambda. In the class of DM models Cepedello:2023yao , the Z2Z_{2} symmetry that stabilizes the DM prohibits tree-level contributions to the Wilson coefficients of four-fermion operators. Consequently, upon integrating out heavy new particles, the Wilson coefficients are suppressed by a factor of 1/(16π2)1/(16\pi^{2}). Moreover, the Wilson coefficients are proportional to fNP4f_{\rm NP}^{4}, where fNPf_{\rm NP} denotes new physics couplings. This dependency has the potential to further lower the new physics scale for small values of fNPf_{\rm NP}. Previous studies of connections between cLFV observables and DM were conducted in Refs. Herrero-Garcia:2018koq ; Toma:2013zsa ; Vicente:2014wga .

In this work, we will investigate the complementarities of indirect constraints on the Wilson coefficients of the four-fermion operator Oledqαβ11O_{ledq}^{\alpha\beta 11} in both LFC and LFV scenarios from the measurements of neutrino NSI and cLFV searches for μe\mu-e conversion, and DM relic density, direct detection, and collider searches in the context of fermion portal DM model Bai:2013iqa12 ; DiFranzo:2013vra ; An:2013xka ; Bai:2014osa with two mediators and Majorana fermionic DM. We highlight that

  • In the LFC scenario, the anticipated future sensitivity to the neutrino NSI in next-generation neutrino oscillation experiments could play a nontrivial role in investigating new physics, while ensuring that tensions among various observables are eliminated.

  • In the LFV scenario, the scattering of Majorana DM with nuclei can appear at tree level, and μe\mu-e conversion arises solely from the contribution of the box diagram at the one-loop level, with no other cLFV processes occurring at this order.

  • In both scenarios, the model-independent constraints on the Wilson coefficients of the four-fermion operator offer a distinctive probe of the fermion portal DM model, particularly in the parameter space where the masses of the DM and scalar are either close or large, depending on the requirement of DM relic density.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Sec. 2, the fermion portal DM model is studied in detail. In Sec. 3, the Wilson coefficients of the four-fermion operator Oledqαβ11O_{ledq}^{\alpha\beta 11} are calculated. In subsequent sections, the sensitivities in DM relic density, direct detection, and collider searches are investigated. In Sec. 7, the combined results are discussed in benchmark scenarios of masses and coupling with the relic density of χ\chi satisfying Ωχh20.1199\Omega_{\chi}h^{2}\leq 0.1199 or Ωχh2=0.1199\Omega_{\chi}h^{2}=0.1199. We conclude in Sec. 8. More details are provided in Appendix A and Appendix B about the anomalous magnetic moment for leptons and DM direct detection with one-loop exchange of photon, respectively.

2 Fermion portal dark matter model

We consider a UV completion model that induces the four-fermion operator Oledqαβ11O_{ledq}^{\alpha\beta 11} , incorporating Majorana fermionic DM χ\chi, which remains a more viable DM candidate compared to Dirac fermionic DM. In addition to the DM particle χ\chi, we introduce a fermion doublet F=(F+,F0)TF=(F^{+},F^{0})^{T}, scalar SS, and colored mediator ϕd\phi_{d}, all of which are Z2Z_{2} odd. The quantum numbers of these fields under SU(3)C×SU(2)L×U(1)Y×Z2\rm SU(3)_{C}\times SU(2)_{L}\times U(1)_{Y}\times Z_{2} are presented in Table 1, and are documented in the systematic classification of DM models for four-fermion operators Cepedello:2023yao .

new fields SU(3)C\rm SU(3)_{C} SU(2)L\rm SU(2)_{L} U(1)Y\rm U(1)_{Y} Z2\leavevmode\nobreak\ \leavevmode\nobreak\ \leavevmode\nobreak\ \leavevmode\nobreak\ \rm Z_{2}\leavevmode\nobreak\ \leavevmode\nobreak\ \leavevmode\nobreak\ \leavevmode\nobreak\
χ\chi 𝟏\mathbf{1} 𝟏\mathbf{1} 0 1-1
FF 𝟏\mathbf{1} 𝟐\mathbf{2} 12\frac{1}{2} 1-1
SS 𝟏\mathbf{1} 𝟏\mathbf{1} 11 1-1
ϕd\phi_{d} 𝟑\mathbf{3} 𝟏\mathbf{1} 13-\frac{1}{3} 1-1
Table 1: Quantum numbers associated with the new fields introduced in the fermion portal DM model.

The Lagrangian for the UV model of the four-fermion operator is given by

\displaystyle\mathcal{L} =fLS(L¯FR)S+fχS(χ¯eR)S\displaystyle=f_{LS}(\bar{L}F_{R})S^{*}+f_{\chi S}(\bar{\chi}e_{R})S
+fFQ(F¯RQ)ϕd+fdχ(d¯RχL)ϕd+h.c.,\displaystyle+f_{FQ}(\bar{F}_{R}Q)\phi_{d}^{*}+f_{d\chi}(\bar{d}_{R}\chi_{L})\phi_{d}+\text{h.c.}, (2)

where fLSf_{LS}, fχSf_{\chi S}, fFQf_{FQ}, and fdχf_{d\chi} are coupling constants. The flavor indices are omitted, and the couplings are assumed to be real and positive for simplicity.

In the presence of the dark mediators SS and ϕd\phi_{d} in this fermion portal DM model Bai:2013iqa12 ; An:2013xka ; DiFranzo:2013vra ; Bai:2014osa , the DM candidate χ\chi interacts with SM particles, leading to distinct observables in direct detection, indirect detection, and collider experiments. In the subsequent sections, we will analyze each type of signature separately.

3 Wilson coefficients

Given the interactions in Eq. (2), the one-loop diagram in Fig. 1 can be generated. We refer to this type of box diagram as “dark loop”, which was proposed to explain the flavor anomalies in BB physics Huang:2020ris ; Capucha:2022kwo ; Cepedello:2022xgb .

Refer to caption
Figure 1: Dark loop: box diagram with dark particles in the loop.

The Wilson coefficient of the effective operator Oledqαβ11O_{ledq}^{\alpha\beta 11} is calculated using Package-X Patel:2015tea ; Patel:2016fam , which is expressed as follows

Cledqαβ11Λ2=fNP48π2×[I(mF2,mϕ2,mS2,mχ2)\displaystyle\frac{C_{ledq}^{\alpha\beta 11}}{\Lambda^{2}}=-\frac{f^{4}_{\rm NP}}{8\pi^{2}}\times\left[I(m_{F}^{2},m_{\phi}^{2},m_{S}^{2},m_{\chi}^{2})\right.
+I(mS2,mϕ2,mF2,mχ2)+I(mχ2,mϕ2,mF2,mS2)],\displaystyle+\left.I(m_{S}^{2},m_{\phi}^{2},m_{F}^{2},m_{\chi}^{2})+I(m_{\chi}^{2},m_{\phi}^{2},m_{F}^{2},m_{S}^{2})\right]\;, (3)

where the effective coupling fNPf_{\rm NP} and the loop function I(x,y,z,w)I(x,y,z,w) are defined as

fNP\displaystyle f_{\rm NP} =(fLSfχSfFQfdχ)1/4,\displaystyle=\left(f_{LS}f_{\chi S}f_{FQ}f_{d\chi}\right)^{1/4}\;, (4)
I(x,y,z,w)\displaystyle I(x,y,z,w) =x2log(x/y)4(xy)(xz)(xw).\displaystyle=\dfrac{x^{2}\log(x/y)}{4(x-y)(x-z)(x-w)}\;. (5)

This result agrees with Ref. Bischer:2018zbd by taking mχ=mF=0m_{\chi}=m_{F}=0.

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 2: Contours of the Wilson coefficients as a function of fNPf_{\rm NP} and mχm_{\chi} for the assumptions of the masses mϕ=2.5TeV(2TeV)m_{\phi}=2.5\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{TeV}\leavevmode\nobreak\ (2\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{TeV}), and mF=3TeV(2TeV)m_{F}=3\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{TeV}\leavevmode\nobreak\ (2\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{TeV}) with solid (dashed) curves. The shaded regions in red (blue) color indicate exclusion for mS=200GeV(500GeV)m_{S}=200\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{GeV}\leavevmode\nobreak\ (500\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{GeV}). Left: Cledq2211/Λ2<(12.3TeV)2C_{ledq}^{2211}/\Lambda^{2}<(12.3\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{TeV})^{-2} is depicted for fNPf_{\rm NP} in the lower axis. Right: Cledq1211/Λ2<(2.2×103C_{ledq}^{1211}/\Lambda^{2}<(2.2\times 10^{3} TeV)2\text{TeV})^{-2} and (2.9×104TeV)2(2.9\times 10^{4}\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{TeV})^{-2} are depicted for fNPf_{\rm NP} in the lower and upper axes, respectively.

The Wilson coefficient is constrained by searches in low-energy experiments and at colliers depending on the lepton flavor of the four-fermion operator. According to the global analysis in Ref Cirigliano:2023nol , the allowed value of the Wilson coefficient for the LFC operator Oledq2211O_{ledq}^{2211} is Cledq2211/Λ2=(0.017±0.039)TeV2C_{ledq}^{2211}/\Lambda^{2}=\left(0.017\pm 0.039\right)\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{TeV}^{-2}, which is consistent with zero within 1σ1\sigma. Refs. Du:2020dwr ; Du:2021rdg have investigated the prospects of next-generation neutrino oscillation experiments in the search for neutrino non-standard interactions (NSIs) Proceedings:2019qno , which are described by certain SMEFT operators at the electroweak scale. These studies indicate the highest sensitivity for the operator Oledq2211O_{ledq}^{2211}, Cledq2211/Λ2<(12.3TeV)2\mid C_{ledq}^{2211}\mid/\Lambda^{2}<\left(12.3\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{TeV}\right)^{-2} Du:2021rdg . This enhanced sensitivity is attributed to the significant increase in neutrino production from pion decay, particularly in the presence of charged-current (CC) neutrino NSIs induced by Oledq2211O_{ledq}^{2211} at lower energies. Note that this operator does not interfere with the CC neutrino interactions in the SM, so the experimental measurements are blind to the sign of the Wilson coefficient. Henceforth, we will consider the magnitude of the Wilson coefficient Cledq2211/Λ2C_{ledq}^{2211}/\Lambda^{2} with the absolute value symbol being omitted.

We illustrate the constraints on fNPf_{\mathrm{NP}} and mχm_{\chi} from future LFC searches in the left panel of Fig. 2 with two benchmark values of the scalar mass mS=200GeVm_{S}=200\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{GeV} (red region) and 500GeV500\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{GeV} (blue region) for mϕ=mF=2TeVm_{\phi}=m_{F}=2\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{TeV} (solid curve), or mϕ=2.5TeVm_{\phi}=2.5\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{TeV}, mF=3TeVm_{F}=3\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{TeV} (dashed curves). We find that this constraint does not strongly depend on mχm_{\chi}, but it is highly sensitive to fNPf_{\mathrm{NP}}, which is expected to be in the range of approximately 1.7 to 2.1. It is important to note that there are currently no constraints from existing LFC searches, as the results are consistent with the SM predictions.

In the case of the LFV operator, the current constraint on the Wilson coefficient Cledq1211/Λ2<(2.2×103TeV)2C_{ledq}^{1211}/\Lambda^{2}<\left(2.2\times 10^{3}\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{TeV}\right)^{-2} Fernandez-Martinez:2024bxg is derived from charged-lepton-flavor-violation (cLFV) searches for μe\mu-e conversion in nuclei Badertscher:1981ay ; SINDRUMII:1993gxf ; SINDRUMII:1996fti ; SINDRUMII:2006dvw . The projected limit Cledq1211/Λ2<(2.9×104TeV)2C_{ledq}^{1211}/\Lambda^{2}<\left(2.9\times 10^{4}\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{TeV}\right)^{-2} Haxton:2024lyc in the upcoming Mu2e Mu2e:2014fns ; Bernstein:2019fyh and COMET COMET:2018auw ; COMET:2018wbw experiments, representing an improvement by approximately two orders of magnitude. The cLFV searches are also insensitive to the sign of the Wilson coefficient of the operator Oledq1211O_{ledq}^{1211}, and we omit the absolute value symbol for convenience.

In the right panel of Fig. 2, we present the contours of LFV limits as functions of fNPf_{\rm NP} and mχm_{\chi}, by choosing the benchmark values of mSm_{S}, mFm_{F}, and mϕm_{\phi} as the left panel of Fig. 2. Unlike the LFC scenario, constraints from both the current and future experimental efforts are depicted. The current limit is shown on the lower axis, while the anticipated future limit is displayed on the upper axis. The current limit for fNPf_{\rm NP} will be around 0.13 to 0.15, with expectations that the future limit could improve by an order of magnitude, potentially reaching as low as 0.04. It is important to note that despite the stringent constraint on the LFV interaction, the BSM particles could potentially exist at the TeV scale or even lower, owing to the suppression of loop factor 1/(16π2)\sim 1/(16\pi^{2}) and the coupling dependence fNP4\sim f_{\rm NP}^{4}.

Besides the effective interaction expressed as the four-fermion operator 𝒪ledqαβ11\mathcal{O}_{ledq}^{\alpha\beta 11}, the dark particles can also contribute to the anomalous magnetic momentum of leptons. To address the discrepancies between the experimental measurements and the SM predictions, improved SM calculations or other new physics contributions are needed; see Appendix A for details.

4 DM relic density

Given the Lagrangian in Eq. (2), the Majorana DM pair χ\chi can annihilate to muon pair and dd quark pair, mediated by SS and ϕd\phi_{d}, respectively. In our setup, where mϕmSm_{\phi}\gg m_{S} and the ratio fdχ/fχS𝒪(1)f_{d\chi}/f_{\chi S}\sim\mathcal{O}(1), the contribution from the process mediated by ϕd\phi_{d}, is negligible. Tree-level Feynman diagram for the annihilation χχ¯μ+μ\chi\bar{\chi}\to\mu^{+}\mu^{-} is depicted in Fig. 3. The corresponding thermal-averaged cross section is Liu:2021mhn

σv=fχS432πmμ2mS41(1+x)2+v2fχS448πmS2x(1+x2)(1+x)4,\displaystyle\langle\sigma v\rangle=\frac{f_{\chi S}^{4}}{32\pi}\frac{m_{\mu}^{2}}{m_{S}^{4}}\frac{1}{(1+x)^{2}}+v^{2}\frac{f_{\chi S}^{4}}{48\pi m_{S}^{2}}\frac{x\left(1+x^{2}\right)}{(1+x)^{4}}\;, (6)

where xmχ2/mS2x\equiv m_{\chi}^{2}/m_{S}^{2}, and vv is the relative velocity of two DM particles, which is typically around 0.3c0.3c at the freeze-out temperature. Since mμ2/mS2v2m_{\mu}^{2}/m_{S}^{2}\ll v^{2}, the pp-wave contribution to the thermal-averaged annihilation cross section is dominant Bai:2013iqa12 ; Bai:2014osa ; Liu:2021mhn .

Refer to caption
Figure 3: The Feynman diagram for Majorana DM annihilation χχ¯μ+μ\chi\bar{\chi}\to\mu^{+}\mu^{-}.

In Fig. 4, we present the DM relic density contours for mSm_{S} and mχm_{\chi} with different choices of fχSf_{\chi S}, considering the relic density Ωχh2=0.1199±0.0022\Omega_{\chi}h^{2}=0.1199\pm 0.0022 Planck:2018vyg . Regions below the contour curves indicate overabundance.

Refer to caption
Figure 4: The masses mSm_{S} and mχm_{\chi} for different choices of the coupling fχSf_{\chi S} after fitting the DM relic density. The contour plots are displayed only for mχ<mSm_{\chi}<m_{S}.

5 DM direct detection

The Majorana DM χ\chi can interact with the SM quark through the fdχf_{d\chi} term in Eq. (2), giving rise to the tree-level scattering process depicted in Fig. 5.

Refer to caption
Figure 5: Feynman diagram for the tree-level scattering between DM and the SM quark.

By using the Fierz identity Bai:2013iqa

(χ¯LdR)(d¯RχL)=12(χ¯LγμχL)(d¯RγμdR),\displaystyle(\bar{\chi}_{L}d_{R})(\bar{d}_{R}\chi_{L})=-\dfrac{1}{2}(\bar{\chi}_{L}\gamma_{\mu}\chi_{L})(\bar{d}_{R}\gamma^{\mu}d_{R})\;, (7)

and the relation for Majorana fermion

χ¯γμχ=0,\displaystyle\bar{\chi}\gamma^{\mu}\chi=0\;, (8)

we can obtain the following effective Lagrangian Jungman:1995df ; Hisano:2010ct ; Mohan:2019zrk ; Arcadi:2023imv :

χ=i=V,A,S,DCi𝒪i,\displaystyle\mathcal{L}_{\chi}=\sum_{i=V,A,S,D}C_{i}\mathcal{O}_{i}\;, (9)

where the effective operators are

𝒪V\displaystyle\mathcal{O}_{V} =(χ¯γμγ5χ)(d¯γμd),\displaystyle=(\bar{\chi}\gamma^{\mu}\gamma^{5}\chi)(\bar{d}\gamma_{\mu}d)\;, 𝒪A\displaystyle\mathcal{O}_{A} =(χ¯γμγ5χ)(d¯γμγ5d),\displaystyle=(\bar{\chi}\gamma^{\mu}\gamma^{5}\chi)(\bar{d}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma^{5}d)\;,
𝒪S\displaystyle\mathcal{O}_{S} =mdχ¯χd¯d,\displaystyle=m_{d}\bar{\chi}\chi\bar{d}d\;, 𝒪D\displaystyle\mathcal{O}_{D} =[χ¯i({μγν})χ][d¯(γ{μiDν}gμν4i)d].\displaystyle=\left[\bar{\chi}i(\partial^{\{\mu}\gamma^{\nu\}})\chi\right]\left[\bar{d}(\gamma^{\{\mu}iD_{-}^{\nu\}}-\frac{g^{\mu\nu}}{4}i\not{D}_{-})d\right]\;. (10)

Here, the notation of the operator 𝒪D\mathcal{O}_{D} follows Refs. Hisano:2010ct ; Hill:2014yka ,

A{μBν}\displaystyle A^{\{\mu}B^{\nu\}} =(AμBν+AνBμ)/2,\displaystyle=(A^{\mu}B^{\nu}+A^{\nu}B^{\mu})/2\;,
D±μ=Dμ±Dμ,\displaystyle D_{\pm}^{\mu}=D^{\mu}\pm\overleftarrow{D}^{\mu}\;, Dμ=μigsGμaTaieQAμ.\displaystyle\quad D_{\mu}=\partial_{\mu}-ig_{s}G_{\mu}^{a}T^{a}-ieQA_{\mu}\;. (11)

The Wilson coefficients are given by

CV\displaystyle C_{V} =CA=fdχ28(mϕ2mχ2),\displaystyle=C_{A}=\frac{f_{d\chi}^{2}}{8(m_{\phi}^{2}-m_{\chi}^{2})}\;,
CS\displaystyle C_{S} =fdχ2mχ16(mϕ2mχ2)2,CD=fdχ28(mϕ2mχ2)2.\displaystyle=\dfrac{f_{d\chi}^{2}m_{\chi}}{16(m_{\phi}^{2}-m_{\chi}^{2})^{2}}\;,\quad C_{D}=\frac{f_{d\chi}^{2}}{8(m_{\phi}^{2}-m_{\chi}^{2})^{2}}\;. (12)

Based on whether the DM-nucleus interactions depend on the spin of nucleus or not, the DM-nucleus scattering is classified as spin-dependent (SD) and spin-independent (SI) scatterings, respectively. The latter is typically proportional to A2A^{2}, where AA is the mass number of nucleus. Table 2 summarizes the suppression factors of DM-nucleon cross sections for the above operators. Here, v\vec{v} is the DM-nucleon relative velocity, q\vec{q} denotes the momentum transfer, and the transverse relative velocity is defined as vvq/(2μN)\vec{v}^{\perp}\equiv\vec{v}-\vec{q}/(2\mu_{N}), where μNmχmN/(mχ+mN)\mu_{N}\equiv m_{\chi}m_{N}/(m_{\chi}+m_{N}) denotes the DM-nucleon reduced mass.

𝒪V\mathcal{O}_{V} 𝒪A\mathcal{O}_{A} 𝒪S\mathcal{O}_{S} & 𝒪D\mathcal{O}_{D}
σSI\sigma_{\text{SI}} v2v^{\perp 2} q2v2q^{2}v^{\perp 2} mχ2mN2/mϕ4m_{\chi}^{2}m_{N}^{2}/m_{\phi}^{4}
σSD\sigma_{\text{SD}} q2q^{2} 1 -
Table 2: The suppression factors of the DM-nucleon SI and SD cross sections for the operators 𝒪V\mathcal{O}_{V}, 𝒪A\mathcal{O}_{A}, 𝒪S\mathcal{O}_{S} and 𝒪D\mathcal{O}_{D} Kumar:2013iva . The factor of 1 indicates no suppression.

The DM-nucleon SI and SD cross sections for the operators 𝒪V\mathcal{O}_{V} and 𝒪A\mathcal{O}_{A} depend on the kinematic suppression factors, which agree with the earlier studies Bai:2013iqa12 ; DiFranzo:2013vra ; An:2013xka ; Mohan:2019zrk . On the contrary, the SI cross sections for the operators 𝒪S\mathcal{O}_{S} and 𝒪D\mathcal{O}_{D} are not kinematically suppressed, but suppressed by mχ2mN2/mϕ4m_{\chi}^{2}m_{N}^{2}/m_{\phi}^{4} Jungman:1995df ; Hisano:2010ct ; Mohan:2019zrk ; Arcadi:2023imv . This is because 𝒪S\mathcal{O}_{S} and 𝒪D\mathcal{O}_{D} are obtained by expanding the propagator of ϕd\phi_{d} at next-to-leading order. Their contributions to the SD cross section are not displayed as they are further suppressed by the DM velocity and momentum transfer Kumar:2013iva .

We first consider the SI contributions from these operators. From Eq. (5), the Wilson coefficients of the operators 𝒪V\mathcal{O}_{V} and 𝒪A\mathcal{O}_{A} are the same, so we readily obtain that the contribution of 𝒪V\mathcal{O}_{V}, which is suppressed by v2106v^{\perp 2}\sim 10^{-6}, is larger that that of 𝒪A\mathcal{O}_{A}. To derive the exclusion limit for the operator 𝒪V\mathcal{O}_{V}, we evaluate the non-relativistic events generated in the XENON1T experiment XENON:2018voc with an exposure of w=1.0ton-yearw=1.0\ \text{ton-year} using DirectDM Bishara:2017nnn and DMFormFactor Anand:2013yka . The 90% confidence level (C.L.) constraint is determined under the assumption of 7 signal events after accounting for SM backgrounds Kang:2018rad ; Liang:2024tef . Our result agrees with the EFT analysis by the XENON Collaboration XENON:2022avm . The exclusion region for mχm_{\chi} and mϕm_{\phi} is depicted in orange color in Fig. 6.

The suppression factor for the contributions to the SI cross section from the operators 𝒪S\mathcal{O}_{S} and 𝒪D\mathcal{O}_{D} is mχ2mN2/mϕ4106×(mχ/mϕ)2m^{2}_{\chi}m^{2}_{N}/m_{\phi}^{4}\sim 10^{-6}\times(m_{\chi}/m_{\phi})^{2}. Following Refs. Jungman:1995df ; Hisano:2010ct ; Mohan:2019zrk ; Arcadi:2023imv ; Hill:2014yka , we express the contributions to the SI cross section as a combination of the Wilson coefficients of 𝒪S\mathcal{O}_{S} and 𝒪D\mathcal{O}_{D}. In Fig. 6, we present the exclusion of mχm_{\chi} and mϕm_{\phi} using the upper limit on the DM-nucleon SI cross sections by the XENON1T experiment XENON:2018voc with a 1 ton-year exposure. We find that the contribution from 𝒪V\mathcal{O}_{V} dominates over that from the combination of 𝒪S\mathcal{O}_{S} and 𝒪D\mathcal{O}_{D} within our parameter space.

Refer to caption
Figure 6: The exclusion limits of mχm_{\chi} and mϕm_{\phi} for 𝒪V\mathcal{O}_{V}, 𝒪A\mathcal{O}_{A}, and a combination of 𝒪S\mathcal{O}_{S} and 𝒪D\mathcal{O}_{D} by the XENON1T experiment with a 1 ton-year exposure XENON:2018voc ; XENON:2019rxp under the assumption of fdχ=1f_{d\chi}=1. The DM-nucleon SD cross section is attributed to the operator 𝒪A\mathcal{O}_{A}, while the SI cross sections from 𝒪V\mathcal{O}_{V} and the combination of 𝒪S\mathcal{O}_{S} and 𝒪D\mathcal{O}_{D} are analyzed separately.

On the other hand, the leading contribution to the SD cross section comes from the operaotr 𝒪A\mathcal{O}_{A}, as clearly shown in Table 2, where the contributions from 𝒪S\mathcal{O}_{S} and 𝒪D\mathcal{O}_{D} are highly suppressed and not presented. The SD DM-nucleon cross section for 𝒪A\mathcal{O}_{A} is expressed as Bai:2013iqa12 ; DiFranzo:2013vra ; An:2013xka ; Mohan:2019zrk

σSDA=3fdχ4μn2(Δdn)216π(mϕ2mχ2)2,\displaystyle\sigma_{\mathrm{SD}}^{A}=\frac{3f_{d\chi}^{4}\mu_{n}^{2}(\Delta_{d}^{n})^{2}}{16\pi(m_{\phi}^{2}-m_{\chi}^{2})^{2}}\;, (13)

where Δdn=0.842±0.012\Delta_{d}^{n}=0.842\pm 0.012 Belanger:2008sj and μn\mu_{n} denotes the DM-neutron reduced mass. Here, we only consider the limit on the DM-neutron cross section, which is much stronger than that on the DM-proton cross section for the XENON1T XENON:2019rxp , PandaX-4T PandaX:2022xas , and LZ LZ:2022lsv experiments. Using Eq. (13) and the upper limit on the DM-nucleon SD cross section given by the XENON1T experiment XENON:2019rxp with a 1 ton-year exposure, we derive the exclusion of mχm_{\chi} and mϕm_{\phi} for the operator 𝒪A\mathcal{O}_{A}, which is shown as the red region in Fig. 6. It is evident that in our case, the exclusion limit from DM direct detection is dominated by the SD interactions associated with the operator 𝒪A\mathcal{O}_{A}.

Refer to caption
Figure 7: The exclusion regions of mχm_{\chi} and mϕm_{\phi} for constraints on SD cross sections from the LZ LZ:2022lsv and PandaX-4T PandaX:2022xas experiments shown in red and blue colors, respectively, for the assumption of the coupling fdχ=2f_{d\chi}=2 (solid curve) or 1 (dashed curve).

In Fig. 7, we show the exclusion limits on the DM mass mχm_{\chi} and colored mediator mass mϕm_{\phi} from the constraints on the SD cross sections measured in the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) experiment LZ:2022lsv and the PandaX-4T experiment PandaX:2022xas assuming coupling values fdχ=1f_{d\chi}=1 or 2. Our result for fdχ=1f_{d\chi}=1 using the limit by the LZ experiment agrees with Ref. Arcadi:2023imv . It is important to mention that we assume the relic density of χ\chi as the observed total DM relic density. If the DM relic density depends on a given fχSf_{\chi S}, the limits could be notably weaker, as we will see in Sec. 7.

It is noted that direct detection can also occur by exchanging photons at the one-loop level, which leads to much weaker direct detection signals compared to the contribution from exchanging ϕd\phi_{d} at the tree level; see Appendix B for details.

6 Collider searches

The DM χ\chi can interact with SM particles via FF, SS and ϕd\phi_{d}, resulting in detectable DM signatures at collider experiments. We focus on DM searches at the LHC, where the presence of missing energy is a typical signature indicating the possible existence of DM particles. Assuming the mass hierarchy mFmϕ>mS>mχm_{F}\geq m_{\phi}>m_{S}>m_{\chi}, and the decay branching ratios of SS and ϕd\phi_{d} are determined as

BR(S±χμ±)=1,BR(ϕd±1/3χd)=1.\displaystyle{\rm BR}(S^{\pm}\to\chi\mu^{\pm})=1\;,\quad{\rm BR}(\phi_{d}^{\pm 1/3}\to\chi d)=1\;. (14)

The particle FF can decay to leptons or jet via the processes Fϕdj(S±)F\to\phi_{d}j(S^{\pm}\ell^{\mp}) or F±ϕdj(S±ν)F^{\pm}\to\phi_{d}j(S^{\pm}\nu), where jj represents any first-generation quark. The most relevant collider search for DM involves these channels: (1) leptons+T+\not{E}_{T} and (2) jet(s)+T+\not{E}_{T}.

6.1 Leptons+T+\not{E}_{T}

The possible processes for leptons+T+\not{E}_{T} are as follows:

  • SL1: ppS+Spp\to S^{+}S^{-}, S±μ±χS^{\pm}\to\mu^{\pm}\chi;

  • SL2: ppF+Fpp\to F^{+}F^{-}, F+S+νF^{+}\to S^{+}\nu_{\ell}, FSν¯F^{-}\to S^{-}\bar{\nu}_{\ell}, S±μ±χS^{\pm}\to\mu^{\pm}\chi;

  • SL3: ppF0F¯0pp\to F^{0}\bar{F}^{0}, F0S+F^{0}\to S^{+}\ell^{-}, F¯0S+\bar{F}^{0}\to S^{-}{\ell}^{+}, S±μ±χS^{\pm}\to\mu^{\pm}\chi, =e\ell=e or μ\mu.

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 8: Representative diagrams for pair production of S±S^{\pm}, F±F^{\pm} and F0F^{0}.
Refer to caption
Figure 9: Production cross sections for the production of F+FF^{+}F^{-} and S+SS^{+}S^{-} at the 13 TeV LHC with the masses of FF and SS depicted in the lower and upper axes, respectively, for the assumption of mϕ=2.5TeVm_{\phi}=2.5\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{TeV}. The new physics coupling fFQf_{FQ} is assumed to be 2 (solid red, solid blue) or 0.02 (dashed red, dashed blue).

The corresponding Feynman diagrams for the production of S+SS^{+}S^{-}, F+FF^{+}F^{-} and F0F¯0F^{0}\bar{F}^{0} are illustrated in Fig. 8, which depend on the electroweak or new physics couplings. The cross sections at the 13 TeV LHC are shown in Fig. 9 for the assumption of the coupling fFQ=2f_{FQ}=2 or 0.02. The cross sections for production of F+FF^{+}F^{-} and F0F¯0F^{0}\bar{F}^{0} are proportional to fFQ4f_{FQ}^{4}, and insensitive to the mass mϕm_{\phi}. In our study, we focus on the mass range mF[2,3]m_{F}\in[2,3] TeV and mS[100,500]m_{S}\in[100,500] GeV. Consequently, the cross section for S+SS^{+}S^{-} pair production via electroweak processes, as shown in the left panel of Fig. 8, is larger than that for F+FF^{+}F^{-} pair production via electroweak interactions. Although increasing the coupling fFQf_{FQ} to 2 enhances the production cross section for the F+F(F0F¯0)F^{+}F^{-}(F^{0}\bar{F}^{0}) pair, it remains smaller than that for S+SS^{+}S^{-} pair within our specified mass range. Therefore, we focus exclusively on the S+SS^{+}S^{-} signal (denoted as SL1) in the recast of dilepton+T+\not{E}_{T} searches.

Since the scalar S±S^{\pm} interacts with the right-handed charged leptons, which ensembles the right-handed slepton Fuks:2013lya , and decays totally into μ±χ\mu^{\pm}\chi, one can read off the exclusion limits on the masses of right-handed slepton (smuon) and neutralino, and reinterpret them as the constraints on the masses of mSm_{S} and mχm_{\chi}. In Fig. 10, we show the excluded regions by the most stringent searches at the LHC Run 2 ATLAS:2019lff ; ATLAS:2019lng and earlier 8 TeV LHC ATLAS:2014zve .

Refer to caption
Figure 10: Shaded regions in blue, green, and dark yellow colors excluded by the dilepton+T+\not{E}_{T} searches at the LHC Run 1 (8TeV8\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{TeV}, 20.3fb120.3\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{fb}^{-1}ATLAS:2014zve , Run 2 (139fb1)(139\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{fb}^{-1}) in the scenarios of mχ<mSm_{\chi}<m_{S} ATLAS:2019lff and mSmχmSm_{S}-m_{\chi}\ll m_{S} (compressed) ATLAS:2019lng , respectively. The cyan region excluded by the LEP is taken from Ref. Liu:2021mhn .

Besides the dilepton+T+\not{E}_{T} processes, the cascade decays of F0/F¯0F^{0}/\bar{F}^{0} and S±S^{\pm} can give rise to the multi-lepton+T+\not{E}_{T} process SL3. For mF=3TeVm_{F}=3\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{TeV}, the cross section for the production of F0F¯0F^{0}\bar{F}^{0} is 7.7×107pb7.7\times 10^{-7}{\leavevmode\nobreak\ \rm pb}, for which less than 3 signal events are expected even with the integrated luminosity of 3ab13\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{ab}^{-1}. Thus there is no constraint from the multi-lepton+T+\not{E}_{T} searches.

6.2 Jet(s)+T+\not{E}_{T}

Depending on the number of jets at the parton level, the possible process for jet(s)+T+\not{E}_{T} are following:

  • SJ1: ppχχ¯jpp\to\chi\bar{\chi}j (3-body), j=gj=g, dd or d¯\bar{d};

  • SJ2: ppϕd±1/3χpp\to\phi_{d}^{\pm 1/3}\chi, ϕd±1/3χ¯j\phi_{d}^{\pm 1/3}\to\bar{\chi}j;

  • SJ3: ppϕd+1/3ϕd1/3pp\to\phi_{d}^{+1/3}\phi_{d}^{-1/3}, ϕd±1/3χj\phi_{d}^{\pm 1/3}\to\chi j;

Refer to caption
Figure 11: Representative diagrams for the signals SJ1 (left) and SJ2 (right) in the monojet+T+\not{E}_{T} channel.
Refer to caption
Figure 12: Cross sections for the production of signals SJ1 (red) and SJ2 (blue) in the monojet+T+\not{E}_{T} channel at the 13 TeV LHC for the assumptions of fdχ=2f_{d\chi}=2 (solid) and 11 (dashed), and mχ=200GeVm_{\chi}=200\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{GeV}.

The signal processes SJ1 and SJ2 for DM production at the LHC are categorized as monojet+T+\not{E}_{T} channel, while the signal process SJ3 is categorized as dijet+T+\not{E}_{T} channel. The representative diagrams for monojet+T+\not{E}_{T} are illustrated in Fig. 11. The cross sections of ppχχ¯jpp\to\chi\bar{\chi}j and ppϕdχpp\to\phi_{d}\chi scale with fdχ4f_{d\chi}^{4} and fdχ2f_{d\chi}^{2}, respectively. In Fig. 12, we illustrate these cross sections with the new physics coupling fdχ=2f_{d\chi}=2 (thick lines) or 1(dashed lines) at the 13 TeV LHC. It is evident that, without any selection cuts applied, the cross section of SJ1 is much larger than SJ2, especially for a larger mϕm_{\phi}.

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 13: Feynman diagrams for the dijet+T+\not{E}_{T} processes. Left panel: QCD production. Right two panels: new physics production.
Refer to caption
Figure 14: Cross sections for the production of ϕdϕd\phi_{d}\phi_{d}^{\dagger} at the 13 TeV LHC for the assumptions of fdχ=fFQ=2f_{d\chi}=f_{FQ}=2 (black solid) or fdχ=1f_{d\chi}=1, fFQ=0.02f_{FQ}=0.02 (black dashed), mχ=200GeVm_{\chi}=200\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{GeV}, and mF=3TeVm_{F}=3\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{TeV}. The red line corresponds to the QCD production.

In the dijet+T+\not{E}_{T} channel with two jets at the parton level, the DM χ\chi is produced from the decay of colored mediator ϕd\phi_{d}. In Fig. 13, we show the representative diagrams for the production via QCD or new physics interactions, respectively. The cross section for the QCD production of ϕdϕd\phi_{d}\phi_{d}^{\dagger} (red line), and benchmark cross sections for the new physics production at the 13 TeV LHC under the assumptions of mχ=200GeVm_{\chi}=200\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{GeV}, mF=3TeVm_{F}=3\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{TeV}, and fdχ=fFQ=2f_{d\chi}=f_{FQ}=2 (black thick line), or fdχ=1f_{d\chi}=1, fFQ=0.02f_{FQ}=0.02 (black dashed line) are illustrated in Fig. 14. We find that the total production cross section is significantly enhanced for substantial new physics couplings, which agrees with the findings in Ref. Bai:2013iqa . In our parameter space of interest, the cross section of new physics production always dominates over that of QCD production.

At the detector level, more jets would emerge from the signal processes discussed, even if only one or two jets are present at the parton level. Therefore, a detailed analysis must include detector-level simulations. Next, we separate the analysis into monojet and dijet searches.

6.2.1 Monojet search

In the jet(s)+T+\not{E}_{T} searches, it is generally essential to consider the processes SJ1, SJ2, and SJ3 simultaneously, including additional jets from the initial state radiation (ISR). However, for monojet searches, which require one hard jet, we only need to consider SJ1 and SJ2, since the parton-level cross section of SJ3 is much smaller. We generate signal events using MadGraph5_aMC@NLO Alwall:2014hca , which are then passed to Pythia8 Sjostrand:2014zea for parton shower, and Delphes3 deFavereau:2013fsa for detector simulation, respectively. Following the most stringent monojet+T+\not{E}_{T} search ATLAS:2021kxv at the LHC Run 2, we apply the selection cuts as follows:

  • T>200GeV\not{E}_{T}>200\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{GeV}, leading jet pT>150p_{T}>150 GeV and |η|<2.4|\eta|<2.4;

  • up to four jets with pT>30p_{T}>30 GeV and |η|<2.8|\eta|<2.8;

  • |Δϕ(jet,T)|>0.4|\Delta\phi(\text{jet},\not{\bf p}_{T})|>0.4 (0.60.6) for T>250GeV\not{E}_{T}>250\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{GeV} (<250GeV<250\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{GeV});

  • veto of electron, muon, τ\tau-lepton or photon.

We further refine our event selection according to 13 inclusive signal regions. By combining model-independent constraints on the observed signal cross section σ\sigma for each of these regions, as outlined in Ref. ATLAS:2021kxv , we derive a 95%95\% C.L. limit on our parameter space of mϕm_{\phi} and mχm_{\chi}. The excluded region of mϕm_{\phi} and mχm_{\chi} is depicted by the red shaded area in Fig. 15 assuming the new physics coupling fdχ=fFQ=2f_{d\chi}=f_{FQ}=2, for which the monojet+T+\not{E}_{T} search at the LHC Run 2 sets the lower limit mϕ1.93TeVm_{\phi}\geq 1.93\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{TeV}. The exclusion for fdχ=1f_{d\chi}=1, fFQ=0.02f_{FQ}=0.02 falls below 1TeV1\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{TeV} and is not depicted. This result agrees with the reinterpretation in Ref. Mohan:2019zrk of the monojet+T+\not{E}_{T} search at the LHC using the data of 36.1fb136.1\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{fb}^{-1} ATLAS:2017bfj assuming that the signal significance approximately scales as the square root of the integrated luminosity.

Refer to caption
Figure 15: Shaded regions in red and blue colors excluded by the monojet+T+\not{E}_{T} ATLAS:2021kxv and dijet+T+\not{E}_{T} ATLAS:2021kxv searches at the LHC Run 2 (139fb1)(139\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{fb}^{-1}), respectively, for the assumptions of fdχ=fFQ=2f_{d\chi}=f_{FQ}=2 (solid curves) or fdχ=1f_{d\chi}=1, fFQ=0.02f_{FQ}=0.02 (dashed curve), with mF=3TeVm_{F}=3\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{TeV} being fixed.

6.2.2 Dijet search

To recast the dijet+T+\not{E}_{T} search, we consider all of the processes SJ1, SJ2, and SJ3, including their ISR, to generate detector-level events. We implement the selection criteria outlined in Ref. ATLAS:2020syg . The signal events are first selected with the following criteria:

  • T>300GeV\not{E}_{T}>300\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{GeV}, leading jet with pT(j1)>200p_{T}(j_{1})>200 GeV and sub-leading jet with pT(j2)>50p_{T}(j_{2})>50 GeV, and |Δϕ(j1,2,(3),T)|>0.2|\Delta\phi(j_{1,2,(3)},\not{\bf p}_{T})|>0.2 ;

  • meff>800m_{\text{eff}}>800 GeV;

  • veto of electron (muon) with pT>6(7)p_{T}>6(7) GeV,

where meffm_{\text{eff}} is defined by the scalar sum of T\not{E}_{T} and transverse momentum of jets with pT>50p_{T}>50 GeV. We further apply the selection criteria of model-independent search SR2j-1600, SR2j-2200, and SR2j-2800 that are listed in Ref. ATLAS:2020syg . We then derive our constraints from the model-independent limits of the three signal regions given in Ref. ATLAS:2020syg accordingly.

In Fig. 15, we show the constraints from the monojet and dijet searches for mF=3TeVm_{F}=3\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{TeV}111For fdχ=1f_{d\chi}=1, fFQ=0.02f_{FQ}=0.02, the cross section from the tt-channel exchange of FF is negligible compared to that from the exchange of χ\chi, thus the total cross section is insensitive to the mass of FF in this case. with different choices of the new physics couplings. The blue shaded areas with solid and dashed curves correspond to dijet search with fdχ=fFQ=2f_{d\chi}=f_{FQ}=2 and fdχ=1f_{d\chi}=1, fFQ=0.02f_{FQ}=0.02, respectively. The constraints from the dijet search are stricter than those from the monojet search with the same choice of fdχf_{d\chi} and fFQf_{FQ}. We find that the most stringent limits on the colored mediator mass from the jet(s)+T+\not{E}_{T} searches in our parameter space are mϕ2.3TeVm_{\phi}\geq 2.3\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{TeV} and 1.76TeV1.76\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{TeV}, respectively.

7 Results and discussion

We have explored the phenomenological implications of the four-fermion operator Oledqαβ11O_{ledq}^{\alpha\beta 11} in our UV model, including DM relic density, direct detection, and collider searches, as well as the model-independent LFC and LFV constraints on the Wilson coefficients. To analyze their complementarities, we examine four benchmark (BM) scenarios detailed in Table 3.

BM mϕm_{\phi}[TeV] mFm_{F} [TeV] fLS=fFQf_{LS}=f_{FQ} fdχf_{d\chi} fχSf_{\chi S} Ωχh2\Omega_{\chi}h^{2}
(a) 2.5 3.0 2.1 2.0 2.0 /
(b) 2.5 3.0 2.1 2.0 / 0.1199
(c) 2.0 2.0 1.41×1021.41\times 10^{-2} 1.0 1.5 /
(d) 2.0 2.0 1.41×1021.41\times 10^{-2} 1.0 / 0.1199
Table 3: Benchmark couplings and masses of new particles. For BM (b) and BM (d), the coupling fχSf_{\chi S} is determined by the requirement of DM relic density Ωχh2=0.1199\Omega_{\chi}h^{2}=0.1199.

Based on the collider searches and DM direct detection discussed, we choose the values:

  • BM (a) or (b): fdχ=2f_{d\chi}=2, mϕ=2.5TeV,mF=3TeVm_{\phi}=2.5{\leavevmode\nobreak\ \rm TeV},m_{F}=3{\leavevmode\nobreak\ \rm TeV};

  • BM (c) or (d): fdχ=1f_{d\chi}=1, mϕ=mF=2TeVm_{\phi}=m_{F}=2{\leavevmode\nobreak\ \rm TeV}.

As discussed in Sec. 4, the DM relic density can be determined by the coupling fχSf_{\chi S} and the mass mχm_{\chi}, mSm_{S}. In BM (a) and BM (b), the coupling fχSf_{\chi S} is taken as an input parameter. Given the constraints on the LFC and LFV Wilson coefficients Cledqαβ11/Λ2C_{ledq}^{\alpha\beta 11}/\Lambda^{2}, as illustrated in Fig. 2, the other couplings are set to be equal, such that their products yield fNP=2.05f_{\rm NP}=2.05 and 0.13140.1314 (cf. Eq. (4)), respectively. In BM (b) and BM (d), fχSf_{\chi S} is fixed by the observed DM relic density for comparison.

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 16: Combined sensitivities to the DM mass mχm_{\chi} and the scalar mass mSm_{S} for BM (a) and BM (b) with fdχ=2.0f_{d\chi}=2.0, fLS=fFQ=2.1f_{LS}=f_{FQ}=2.1, mϕ=2.5TeVm_{\phi}=2.5\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{TeV} and mF=3TeVm_{F}=3\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{TeV}. Left: fχS=2.0f_{\chi S}=2.0 and Ωχh20.119\Omega_{\chi}h^{2}\leq 0.119 are required for BM (a). Right: fχSf_{\chi S} is determined by Ωχh2=0.119\Omega_{\chi}h^{2}=0.119 for BM (b). The projected future LFC constraint Cledq2211/Λ2<(12.3TeV)2C_{ledq}^{2211}/\Lambda^{2}<(12.3\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{TeV})^{-2} Du:2020dwr ; Du:2021rdg from the neutrino NSI measurements is expected to exclude the red shade area. Constraints from existing dilepton+T+\not{E}_{T} searches as the same as those in Fig. 10. The exclusion resulting from the current constraint from DM direction detection in the LZ experiment LZ:2022lsv is depicted by the purple slash shading region. The dashed line represents mχ=mSm_{\chi}=m_{S}.

In Figs. 16 and 17, we combine the sensitivities to the DM mass mχm_{\chi} and scalar mass mSm_{S} from DM relic density, direct detection, collider searches, and model-independent indirect constraints on the Wilson coefficients of the four-fermion operator Oledqαβ11O_{ledq}^{\alpha\beta 11}. For all benchmark scenarios in Table 3, a large portion of parameter space with mχ200GeVm_{\chi}\lesssim 200\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{GeV} and mS450GeVm_{S}\lesssim 450\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{GeV} is excluded by the existing searches at the LEP and LHC.

For the LFC operator, we consider the projected future sensitivity to Wilson coefficient, Cledq2211/Λ2<(12.3TeV)2C_{ledq}^{2211}/\Lambda^{2}<(12.3\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{TeV})^{-2} Du:2020dwr ; Du:2021rdg from the neutrino NSI measurements, given that the currently allowed value is consistent with zero as mentioned in Sec. 3. For the LFV operator, we utilize the current constraint, Cledq1211/Λ2<(2.2×103TeV)2C_{ledq}^{1211}/\Lambda^{2}<\left(2.2\times 10^{3}\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{TeV}\right)^{-2} Fernandez-Martinez:2024bxg derived from the cLFV searches for μe\mu-e conversion in nuclei, since our aim is to show that the new physics scale can be notably alleviated within the dark loop paradigm.

In the left panel of Fig. 16, we consider fχS=2f_{\chi S}=2, and require the DM relic density Ωχh20.1199\Omega_{\chi}h^{2}\leq 0.1199 to avoid an overabundance of DM, shown as the gray shaded region. Given the values of fdχf_{d\chi} and mϕm_{\phi}, DM direct detection in the LZ experiment LZ:2022lsv rules out a narrow range of mSm_{S} and mχm_{\chi}, as depicted in purple slash shading area. The sensitivity of DM direct detection in this case is rather weak, which is suppressed by the relic density of χ\chi for a relatively large fχSf_{\chi S}. The exclusion by the LFC constraint on Cledq2211/Λ2C_{ledq}^{2211}/\Lambda^{2} from the neutrino NSI measurements is shown in red color. It is evident that this model-independent constraint exhibits better sensitivity, probing parameter regions beyond the reach of collider searches, and DM direct detection, especially in scenarios where mχm_{\chi} and mSm_{S} are close.

In the right panel of Fig. 16, the coupling fχSf_{\chi S} is not independent but determined by the DM relic density Ωχh2=0.1199\Omega_{\chi}h^{2}=0.1199. The coupling fχSf_{\chi S} decreases as mSm_{S} becomes smaller. The purple slash shading band for 15GeV<mχ<100GeV15\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{GeV}<m_{\chi}<100\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{GeV} is ruled out by DM direct detection in the LZ experiment. The region excluded by the model-independent LFC constraint is depicted in red, with the boundary corresponding to fχS2f_{\chi S}\simeq 2. One can see that the Yukawa coupling fχS𝒪(1)f_{\chi S}\sim\mathcal{O}(1) can yield the correct relic density for the electroweak scale mχm_{\chi} and mSm_{S} Liu:2021mhn . In this scenario, the most effective constraints are provided by LHC searches and DM direct detection. For larger values of mSm_{S} and mχm_{\chi}, however, the neutrino NSI measurements are more significant.

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 17: Combined sensitivities to the DM mass mχm_{\chi} and the scalar mass mSm_{S} for BM (c) and BM (d). The exclusions are obtained with the same experimental results as Fig. 16, except for the current LFV constraint Cledq1211/Λ2<(2.2×103TeV)2C_{ledq}^{1211}/\Lambda^{2}<\left(2.2\times 10^{3}\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{TeV}\right)^{-2} Fernandez-Martinez:2024bxg .

In Fig. 17, the exclusions are derived with the same experimental results as Fig. 16, except for the current model-independent constraint on the Wilson coefficient of the LFV four-fermion operator Cledq1211/Λ2<(2.2×103TeV)2C_{ledq}^{1211}/\Lambda^{2}<(2.2\times 10^{3}\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{TeV})^{-2}. As highlighted in Sec. 2, the model-independent constraint on the Wilson coefficient of LFV operator is more stringent and can probe smaller new physics couplings, compared to that on the Wilson coefficient of the LFC operator. For illustration, we consider fdχ=1f_{d\chi}=1, for which the colored mediator mass mϕ1.76TeVm_{\phi}\gtrsim 1.76\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{TeV} is allowed by the current LHC jet(s)+T+\not{E}_{T} searches. Taking mϕ=2TeVm_{\phi}=2\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{TeV}, the DM direct detection in the LZ experiment LZ:2022lsv puts no constraints as shown in Fig. 7. In the case of BM (c) with fχS=1.5f_{\chi S}=1.5, the prevailing cLFV constraint rules out most of the parameter space where mχ300GeVm_{\chi}\lesssim 300\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{GeV} and mS450GeVm_{S}\lesssim 450\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{GeV}, exceeding the sensitivity of the LHC searches, especially for the region where mχm_{\chi} and mSm_{S} are close. On the other hand, for BM (d) with the relic density Ωχh2=0.1199\Omega_{\chi}h^{2}=0.1199 being fixed, the Yukawa coupling fχS𝒪(1)f_{\chi S}\sim\mathcal{O}(1) can also yield the correct relic density for the electroweak scale mχm_{\chi} and mSm_{S}. The LHC searches remain the most sensitive probes of the fermion portal DM model for the scalar mass mS420GeVm_{S}\lesssim 420\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{GeV}. As mSm_{S} increases or DM mass mχ200GeVm_{\chi}\gtrsim 200\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{GeV}, the cLFV searches exhibit better sensitivity than the LHC searches.

8 Conclusion

In this work, we have studied the UV completion of the four-fermion operator Oledqαβ11O_{ledq}^{\alpha\beta 11} in both lepton-flavor-conserving (LFC) and lepton-flavor-violating (LFV) scenarios incorporating the Majorana dark matter (DM). Due to the Z2Z_{2} symmetry that stabilizes the DM, the four-fermion operator Oledqαβ11O_{ledq}^{\alpha\beta 11} is firstly generated at one-loop level via box diagram, which could effectively mitigate the lower bounds on the new physics scale.

We investigated the interplay between the model-independent constraints on the Wilson coefficients of the four-fermion operator Oledqαβ11O_{ledq}^{\alpha\beta 11} from the measurements of neutrino NSI in the next-generation neutrino oscillation experiments, charged-lepton-flavor-violation (cLFV) searches in μe\mu-e conversion, as well as DM relic density, direct detection, and collider searches in the context of fermion portal DM model with two mediators. In order to illustrate the complementarities, we consider four benchmark scenarios as outlined in Table 3.

In the cases of BM (a) and BM (c), where the Yukawa coupling fχSf_{\chi S} is considered as an independent parameter, the model-independent constraints on the Wilson coefficients of Oledq2211O_{ledq}^{2211} and Oledq1211O_{ledq}^{1211} provide a complementary investigation of the parameter space of the DM mass mχm_{\chi} and scalar mass mSm_{S}, which extends the reach of collider searches and DM direct detection, especially for the region where mχm_{\chi} and mSm_{S} are close.

In the cases of BM (b) and BM (d), the coupling fχSf_{\chi S} is determined by the requirement of DM relic density, Ωχh2=0.1199\Omega_{\chi}h^{2}=0.1199. For electroweak scale DM and scalar, the LHC searches demonstrate greater sensitivity than the indirect constraints on the four-fermion operator, while the latter are more significant for larger values of mχm_{\chi} and mSm_{S}.

Appendix A Lepton g2g-2

The lepton magnetic dipole moment (g2)(g-2) can be induced by the couplings fLSf_{LS} and fχSf_{\chi S} at one-loop level. In Fig. 18, we depict the Feynman diagram with F0F^{0} or χ\chi running in the loop.

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 18: Feynman diagrams for the muon and electron magnetic dipole moments generated at one-loop level.

The corresponding contributions to muon g2g-2 is expressed as

ΔaμaμexpaμSM=ΔaμF+Δaμχ,\displaystyle\Delta a_{\mu}\equiv a_{\mu}^{\text{exp}}-a_{\mu}^{\text{SM}}=\Delta a_{\mu}^{F}+\Delta a_{\mu}^{\chi}\;, (15)

where ΔaμF\Delta a_{\mu}^{F} and Δaμχ\Delta a_{\mu}^{\chi} denotes the contributions from the diagrams involving F0F^{0} and χ\chi, respectively. For the electron g2g-2, we have

ΔaeaeexpaeSM=ΔaeF,\displaystyle\Delta a_{e}\equiv a_{e}^{\text{exp}}-a_{e}^{\text{SM}}=\Delta a_{e}^{F}\;, (16)

which only includes the contribution from the diagram with F0F^{0} given the lepton flavors (α,β)=(1,2)(\alpha,\beta)=(1,2).

The piece ΔaF\Delta a_{\ell}^{F} (=e,μ)(\ell=e,\mu) is given by Moroi:1995yh ; Carena:1996qa

ΔaF\displaystyle\Delta a_{\ell}^{F} =fLS216π2m2mS2g(x),g(x)16x+3x2+2x36x2logx6(1x)4,\displaystyle=-\frac{f_{LS}^{2}}{16\pi^{2}}\frac{m_{\ell}^{2}}{m_{S}^{2}}g(x)\;,\quad g(x)\equiv\frac{1-6x+3x^{2}+2x^{3}-6x^{2}\log x}{6(1-x)^{4}}\;, (17)

where xmF2/mS2x\equiv m_{F}^{2}/m_{S}^{2}, and Δaμχ\Delta a_{\mu}^{\chi} can be obtained by taking m=mμm_{\ell}=m_{\mu} and replacing mFmχm_{F}\to m_{\chi} and fLSfχSf_{LS}\to f_{\chi S}. In the limits of x0x\to 0 and x1x\to 1, the loop function g(x)g(x) approaches 1/61/6 and 1/121/12, respectively. Thus the contributions to the lepton g2g-2 are always negative Liu:2021mhn .

The experimental measurements of the muon g2g-2 yield Muong-2:2021ojo ; Muong-2:2023cdq ; Muong-2:2006rrc

Δaμexp=(2.49±0.49)×109,\displaystyle\Delta a_{\mu}^{\rm exp}=(2.49\pm 0.49)\times 10^{-9}\;, (18)

which indicates 5.1σ5.1\sigma deviation from the SM prediction. In order to explain this discrepancy, positive contribution to the muon g2g-2 is necessary. This implies that the fermion portal DM model does not account for this anomaly.

There are still large uncertainties in the measurements of the electron g2g-2. The measurements using Cesium Parker:2018vye and Rubidium Morel:2020dww give

Δae(Cs)\displaystyle\Delta a_{e}(\text{Cs}) =(88±36)×1014,\displaystyle=(-88\pm 36)\times 10^{-14},
Δae(Rb)\displaystyle\Delta{a}_{e}(\text{Rb}) =(48±30)×1014.\displaystyle=(48\pm 30)\times 10^{-14}\;. (19)

Following Ref. Liu:2021mhn , we take the 95% C.L. bounds on Δae(Cs)\Delta a_{e}(\text{Cs}) and Δae(Rb)\Delta{a}_{e}(\text{Rb}), so that both of them allow for negative values.

In our model, the electron g2g-2 can be generated by the coupling fLSf_{LS} in the LFV scenario. In Fig. 19, we illustrate the allowed region of mFm_{F} and fLSf_{LS} using the 95% C.L. bounds on Δae(Cs)\Delta a_{e}(\text{Cs}) and Δae(Rb)\Delta{a}_{e}(\text{Rb}) in blue and red colors, respectively, for mS=200GeVm_{S}=200\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{GeV}. The mutual region of two measurements requires that fLS5f_{LS}\gtrsim 5 and mF1.5m_{F}\lesssim 1.5 TeV, which has been excluded by the LHC searches. If future measurements are in favor of Δae(Rb)\Delta{a}_{e}(\text{Rb}), our model could potentially offer an explanation for it.

Refer to caption
Figure 19: Blue and red shaded regions of mFm_{F} and fLSf_{LS}, which are allowed by the 95% C.L. constraints on Δae\Delta a_{e} from measurements using Cesium and Rubidium, Here, we fix mS=200m_{S}=200 GeV.

Appendix B DM direct detection via photon exchange

Refer to caption
Figure 20: Representative Feynman diagram for DM-nucleus scattering at one-loop level via the exchange of photon.

Besides the tree-level contribution to the DM direct detection discussed in Section.5, the DM-nucleus scattering can occur with the exchange of photon at the one-loop level Bai:2014osa ; Herrero-Garcia:2018koq , as illustrated in Fig. 20. The interaction between the Majorana DM and photon can be described by the electromagnetic anapole momentum of the DM. Thus, the contribution to the SI DM-nucleon cross section is suppressed by the DM velocity square, which can be expressed by Bai:2014osa

σSIana.=cana.2e2Z22πA2ERrefmp2(mT+mχ)2mT(mp+mχ)2,\displaystyle\sigma_{\rm SI}^{\rm{ana.}}=\frac{c_{\rm ana.}^{2}e^{2}Z^{2}}{2\pi A^{2}}\frac{E_{R}^{\mathrm{ref}}m_{p}^{2}\left(m_{T}+m_{\chi}\right)^{2}}{m_{T}\left(m_{p}+m_{\chi}\right)^{2}}\;, (20)

where ERrefE_{R}^{\rm ref} denotes the reference value of the recoil energy ERq2/(2mT)E_{R}\equiv q^{2}/(2m_{T}), and the loop factor is given by

cana.=fχS2e96π2mS2ln(mμ2/mS2).\displaystyle c_{\rm ana.}=\frac{f_{\chi S}^{2}e}{96\pi^{2}m_{S}^{2}}\ln\left({m_{\mu}^{2}}/{m_{S}^{2}}\right)\;. (21)

Here, mTm_{T}, mpm_{p} and mμm_{\mu} are the masses of the nucleus, proton and muon, respectively. ZZ denotes the atomic number of the nucleus. As an estimate, following Ref. Bai:2014osa , we take ERref=10keVE_{R}^{\rm ref}=10\leavevmode\nobreak\ {\rm keV}, and calculate σSIana.=6.4×1049cm2\sigma_{\rm SI}^{\rm{ana.}}=6.4\times 10^{-49}\leavevmode\nobreak\ {\rm cm}^{2} using liquid xenon as the target for mχ=50GeVm_{\chi}=50\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{GeV}, mS=100GeVm_{S}=100\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{GeV} and fχS=1f_{\chi S}=1. Given the sensitivities of the DM direct detection experiments LZ:2022lsv ; PandaX:2022xas ; XENON:2023cxc , we obtain that it gives negligible contribution to the DM-nucleus cross section Liu:2021mhn .

Acknowledgements.
GL expresses gratitude to Shao-Long Chen for the enlightening discussion. XZ would like to thank Hao-Lin Li, Jian Tang, Jiang-Hao Yu, and Zhao-Huan Yu for helpful discussions. GL and XZ are supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 12347105, the Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation (2024A1515012668), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, Sun Yat-sen University (23qnpy62), and SYSU startup funding. The work of JL is supported by Natural Science Foundation of China under grant No. 12235001 and 12075005. The work of XPW is supported by National Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 12375095, 12005009, and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities.

References

  • (1) G. Isidori, F. Wilsch and D. Wyler, The standard model effective field theory at work, Rev. Mod. Phys. 96 (2024) 015006, [2303.16922].
  • (2) S. Weinberg, Baryon and Lepton Nonconserving Processes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43 (1979) 1566–1570.
  • (3) W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler, Effective Lagrangian Analysis of New Interactions and Flavor Conservation, Nucl. Phys. B 268 (1986) 621–653.
  • (4) B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak and J. Rosiek, Dimension-Six Terms in the Standard Model Lagrangian, JHEP 10 (2010) 085, [1008.4884].
  • (5) B. Henning, X. Lu, T. Melia and H. Murayama, 2, 84, 30, 993, 560, 15456, 11962, 261485, …: Higher dimension operators in the SM EFT, JHEP 08 (2017) 016, [1512.03433].
  • (6) A. Falkowski, M. González-Alonso and K. Mimouni, Compilation of low-energy constraints on 4-fermion operators in the SMEFT, JHEP 08 (2017) 123, [1706.03783].
  • (7) V. Cirigliano, W. Dekens, J. de Vries, E. Mereghetti and T. Tong, Anomalies in global SMEFT analyses. A case study of first-row CKM unitarity, JHEP 03 (2024) 033, [2311.00021].
  • (8) E. Fernández-Martínez, X. Marcano and D. Naredo-Tuero, Global Lepton Flavour Violating Constraints on New Physics, 2403.09772.
  • (9) S. Karmakar, A. Dighe and R. S. Gupta, SMEFT predictions for semileptonic processes, 2404.10061.
  • (10) R. Cepedello, F. Esser, M. Hirsch and V. Sanz, SMEFT goes dark: Dark Matter models for four-fermion operators, JHEP 09 (2023) 081, [2302.03485].
  • (11) G. D’Ambrosio, G. F. Giudice, G. Isidori and A. Strumia, Minimal flavor violation: An Effective field theory approach, Nucl. Phys. B 645 (2002) 155–187, [hep-ph/0207036].
  • (12) J. Herrero-Garcia, E. Molinaro and M. A. Schmidt, Dark matter direct detection of a fermionic singlet at one loop, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 471, [1803.05660].
  • (13) T. Toma and A. Vicente, Lepton Flavor Violation in the Scotogenic Model, JHEP 01 (2014) 160, [1312.2840].
  • (14) A. Vicente and C. E. Yaguna, Probing the scotogenic model with lepton flavor violating processes, JHEP 02 (2015) 144, [1412.2545].
  • (15) Y. Bai and J. Berger, Fermion Portal Dark Matter, JHEP 11 (2013) 171, [1308.0612].
  • (16) A. DiFranzo, K. I. Nagao, A. Rajaraman and T. M. P. Tait, Simplified Models for Dark Matter Interacting with Quarks, JHEP 11 (2013) 014, [1308.2679].
  • (17) H. An, L.-T. Wang and H. Zhang, Dark matter with tt-channel mediator: a simple step beyond contact interaction, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 115014, [1308.0592].
  • (18) Y. Bai and J. Berger, Lepton Portal Dark Matter, JHEP 08 (2014) 153, [1402.6696].
  • (19) D. Huang, A. P. Morais and R. Santos, Anomalies in BB-meson decays and the muon g2g-2 from dark loops, Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 075009, [2007.05082].
  • (20) R. Capucha, D. Huang, T. Lopes and R. Santos, Impact of electroweak group representation in models for B and g-2 anomalies from dark loops, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 095032, [2207.11556].
  • (21) R. Cepedello, P. Escribano and A. Vicente, Neutrino masses, flavor anomalies, and muon g-2 from dark loops, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) 035034, [2209.02730].
  • (22) H. H. Patel, Package-X: A Mathematica package for the analytic calculation of one-loop integrals, Comput. Phys. Commun. 197 (2015) 276–290, [1503.01469].
  • (23) H. H. Patel, Package-X 2.0: A Mathematica package for the analytic calculation of one-loop integrals, Comput. Phys. Commun. 218 (2017) 66–70, [1612.00009].
  • (24) I. Bischer, W. Rodejohann and X.-J. Xu, Loop-induced Neutrino Non-Standard Interactions, JHEP 10 (2018) 096, [1807.08102].
  • (25) Y. Du, H.-L. Li, J. Tang, S. Vihonen and J.-H. Yu, Non-standard interactions in SMEFT confronted with terrestrial neutrino experiments, JHEP 03 (2021) 019, [2011.14292].
  • (26) Y. Du, H.-L. Li, J. Tang, S. Vihonen and J.-H. Yu, Exploring SMEFT induced nonstandard interactions: From COHERENT to neutrino oscillations, Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 075022, [2106.15800].
  • (27) Neutrino Non-Standard Interactions: A Status Report, vol. 2, 2019. 10.21468/SciPostPhysProc.2.001.
  • (28) A. Badertscher et al., A Search for Muon - Electron and Muon - Positron Conversion in Sulfur, Nucl. Phys. A 377 (1982) 406–440.
  • (29) SINDRUM II collaboration, C. Dohmen et al., Test of lepton flavor conservation in mu —>> e conversion on titanium, Phys. Lett. B 317 (1993) 631–636.
  • (30) SINDRUM II collaboration, W. Honecker et al., Improved limit on the branching ratio of mu —>> e conversion on lead, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76 (1996) 200–203.
  • (31) SINDRUM II collaboration, W. H. Bertl et al., A Search for muon to electron conversion in muonic gold, Eur. Phys. J. C 47 (2006) 337–346.
  • (32) W. Haxton, K. McElvain, T. Menzo, E. Rule and J. Zupan, Effective theory tower for μe\mu\rightarrow e conversion, 2406.13818.
  • (33) Mu2e collaboration, L. Bartoszek et al., Mu2e Technical Design Report, 1501.05241.
  • (34) Mu2e collaboration, R. H. Bernstein, The Mu2e Experiment, Front. in Phys. 7 (2019) 1, [1901.11099].
  • (35) COMET collaboration, R. Abramishvili et al., COMET Phase-I Technical Design Report, PTEP 2020 (2020) 033C01, [1812.09018].
  • (36) COMET collaboration, J. C. Angélique et al., COMET - A submission to the 2020 update of the European Strategy for Particle Physics on behalf of the COMET collaboration, 1812.07824.
  • (37) J. Liu, X.-P. Wang and K.-P. Xie, Searching for lepton portal dark matter with colliders and gravitational waves, JHEP 06 (2021) 149, [2104.06421].
  • (38) Planck collaboration, N. Aghanim et al., Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A6, [1807.06209].
  • (39) Y. Bai and J. Berger, Fermion Portal Dark Matter, JHEP 11 (2013) 171, [1308.0612].
  • (40) G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski and K. Griest, Supersymmetric dark matter, Phys. Rept. 267 (1996) 195–373, [hep-ph/9506380].
  • (41) J. Hisano, K. Ishiwata and N. Nagata, Gluon contribution to the dark matter direct detection, Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010) 115007, [1007.2601].
  • (42) K. A. Mohan, D. Sengupta, T. M. P. Tait, B. Yan and C. P. Yuan, Direct detection and LHC constraints on a tt-channel simplified model of Majorana dark matter at one loop, JHEP 05 (2019) 115, [1903.05650].
  • (43) G. Arcadi, D. Cabo-Almeida, F. Mescia and J. Virto, Dark Matter Direct Detection in 𝗍\mathsf{t}-channel mediator models, JCAP 02 (2024) 005, [2309.07896].
  • (44) R. J. Hill and M. P. Solon, Standard Model anatomy of WIMP dark matter direct detection I: weak-scale matching, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 043504, [1401.3339].
  • (45) J. Kumar and D. Marfatia, Matrix element analyses of dark matter scattering and annihilation, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 014035, [1305.1611].
  • (46) XENON collaboration, E. Aprile et al., Dark Matter Search Results from a One Ton-Year Exposure of XENON1T, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 111302, [1805.12562].
  • (47) F. Bishara, J. Brod, B. Grinstein and J. Zupan, DirectDM: a tool for dark matter direct detection, 1708.02678.
  • (48) N. Anand, A. L. Fitzpatrick and W. C. Haxton, Weakly interacting massive particle-nucleus elastic scattering response, Phys. Rev. C 89 (2014) 065501, [1308.6288].
  • (49) S. Kang, S. Scopel, G. Tomar and J.-H. Yoon, On the sensitivity of present direct detection experiments to WIMP–quark and WIMP–gluon effective interactions: A systematic assessment and new model–independent approaches, Astropart. Phys. 114 (2020) 80–91, [1810.00607].
  • (50) J.-H. Liang, Y. Liao, X.-D. Ma and H.-L. Wang, Comprehensive constraints on fermionic dark matter-quark tensor interactions in direct detection experiments, 2401.05005.
  • (51) XENON collaboration, E. Aprile et al., Effective field theory and inelastic dark matter results from XENON1T, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 112017, [2210.07591].
  • (52) XENON collaboration, E. Aprile et al., Constraining the spin-dependent WIMP-nucleon cross sections with XENON1T, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 (2019) 141301, [1902.03234].
  • (53) G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov and A. Semenov, Dark matter direct detection rate in a generic model with micrOMEGAs 2.2, Comput. Phys. Commun. 180 (2009) 747–767, [0803.2360].
  • (54) PandaX collaboration, Z. Huang et al., Constraints on the axial-vector and pseudo-scalar mediated WIMP-nucleus interactions from PandaX-4T experiment, Phys. Lett. B 834 (2022) 137487, [2208.03626].
  • (55) LZ collaboration, J. Aalbers et al., First Dark Matter Search Results from the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) 041002, [2207.03764].
  • (56) B. Fuks, M. Klasen, D. R. Lamprea and M. Rothering, Revisiting slepton pair production at the Large Hadron Collider, JHEP 01 (2014) 168, [1310.2621].
  • (57) ATLAS collaboration, G. Aad et al., Search for electroweak production of charginos and sleptons decaying into final states with two leptons and missing transverse momentum in s=13\sqrt{s}=13 TeV pppp collisions using the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 123, [1908.08215].
  • (58) ATLAS collaboration, G. Aad et al., Searches for electroweak production of supersymmetric particles with compressed mass spectra in s=\sqrt{s}= 13 TeV pppp collisions with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 052005, [1911.12606].
  • (59) ATLAS collaboration, G. Aad et al., Search for direct production of charginos, neutralinos and sleptons in final states with two leptons and missing transverse momentum in pppp collisions at s=\sqrt{s}= 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 05 (2014) 071, [1403.5294].
  • (60) J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer et al., The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations, JHEP 07 (2014) 079, [1405.0301].
  • (61) T. Sjöstrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten et al., An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2, Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159–177, [1410.3012].
  • (62) DELPHES 3 collaboration, J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lemaître, A. Mertens et al., DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment, JHEP 02 (2014) 057, [1307.6346].
  • (63) ATLAS collaboration, G. Aad et al., Search for new phenomena in events with an energetic jet and missing transverse momentum in pppp collisions at s\sqrt{s} =13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 112006, [2102.10874].
  • (64) ATLAS collaboration, M. Aaboud et al., Search for dark matter and other new phenomena in events with an energetic jet and large missing transverse momentum using the ATLAS detector, JHEP 01 (2018) 126, [1711.03301].
  • (65) ATLAS collaboration, G. Aad et al., Search for squarks and gluinos in final states with jets and missing transverse momentum using 139 fb-1 of s\sqrt{s} =13 TeV pppp collision data with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 02 (2021) 143, [2010.14293].
  • (66) T. Moroi, The Muon anomalous magnetic dipole moment in the minimal supersymmetric standard model, Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 6565–6575, [hep-ph/9512396].
  • (67) M. Carena, G. F. Giudice and C. E. M. Wagner, Constraints on supersymmetric models from the muon anomalous magnetic moment, Phys. Lett. B 390 (1997) 234–242, [hep-ph/9610233].
  • (68) Muon g-2 collaboration, B. Abi et al., Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 0.46 ppm, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021) 141801, [2104.03281].
  • (69) Muon g-2 collaboration, D. P. Aguillard et al., Measurement of the Positive Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 0.20 ppm, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) 161802, [2308.06230].
  • (70) Muon g-2 collaboration, G. W. Bennett et al., Final Report of the Muon E821 Anomalous Magnetic Moment Measurement at BNL, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 072003, [hep-ex/0602035].
  • (71) R. H. Parker, C. Yu, W. Zhong, B. Estey and H. Müller, Measurement of the fine-structure constant as a test of the Standard Model, Science 360 (2018) 191, [1812.04130].
  • (72) L. Morel, Z. Yao, P. Cladé and S. Guellati-Khélifa, Determination of the fine-structure constant with an accuracy of 81 parts per trillion, Nature 588 (2020) 61–65.
  • (73) XENON collaboration, E. Aprile et al., First Dark Matter Search with Nuclear Recoils from the XENONnT Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 (2023) 041003, [2303.14729].