- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review D

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Model for dark moments of the W boson

Thomas G. Rizzo*

  • *Contact author: rizzo@slac.stanford.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 113, 115022 – Published 9 June, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/nsgf-zl32

Abstract

Loops of portal matter (PM) fields carrying both dark and Standard Model (SM) quantum numbers can lead to the kinetic mixing (KM) of the SM photon and the analogous dark photon (DP) of a phenomenologically interesting magnitude. However, in specific frameworks, different loops of these same PM fields can also lead to other new types of interactions between some of the SM fields and the DP via the generation of “dark moment”-like couplings, even though the SM fields carry a zero dark charge at tree level. In recent work, this possibility has been explored for the case when these SM fields are fermionic. In this paper, we extend this idea to the case of the SM W boson, employing a previously examined model wherein PM consists of a complex scalar triplet plus a complex singlet, both of which obtain vacuum expectation values and thus also generate the DP mass. While this setup results in a somewhat stronger interaction between the DP and the W than in the familiar KM setup, the rate for W+DP production at the LHC is shown to still be rather small and is very difficult to observe due to large SM backgrounds. The direct production of the scalar PM itself, however, is shown to lead to similar new physics signatures but with much larger rates, and are considered here in their own right. The properties of such new PM states may already be constrained by LHC searches in both the W±+ missing transverse energy (MET) and W+W−+MET channels.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (68)

  1. N. Aghanim et al. (Planck Collaboration), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020); 652, C4(E) (2021).
  2. B. Holdom, Phys. Lett. 166B, 196 (1986); Phys. Lett. B 178, 65 (1986); K. R. Dienes, C. F. Kolda, and J. March-Russell, Nucl. Phys. B492, 104 (1997); F. Del Aguila, Acta Phys. Pol. B 25, 1317 (1994); K. S. Babu, C. F. Kolda, and J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. D 54, 4635 (1996); T. G. Rizzo, 59, 015020 (1998).
  3. There has been a huge amount of historical work on this subject; see, for example, D. Feldman, B. Kors, and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D 75, 023503 (2007); D. Feldman, Z. Liu, and P. Nath, 75, 115001 (2007); M. Pospelov, A. Ritz, and M. B. Voloshin, Phys. Lett. B 662, 53 (2008); M. Pospelov, Phys. Rev. D 80, 095002 (2009); H. Davoudiasl, H. S. Lee, and W. J. Marciano, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 031802 (2012); Phys. Rev. D 85, 115019 (2012); R. Essig et al., arXiv:1311.0029; E. Izaguirre, G. Krnjaic, P. Schuster, and N. Toro, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 251301 (2015); M. Khlopov, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 28, 1330042 (2013); For a general overview and introduction to this framework, see D. Curtin, R. Essig, S. Gori, and J. Shelton, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2015) 157.
  4. T. Gherghetta, J. Kersten, K. Olive, and M. Pospelov, Phys. Rev. D 100, 095001 (2019).
  5. M. Fabbrichesi, E. Gabrielli, and G. Lanfranchi, arXiv:2005.01515.
  6. M. Graham, C. Hearty, and M. Williams, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 71, 37 (2021).
  7. D. Barducci, E. Bertuzzo, G. Grilli di Cortona, and G. M. Salla, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2021) 081.
  8. D. Alonso-González, D. Cerdeño, P. Foldenauer, and J. M. No, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2026) 083.
  9. A. W. R. Jorge, L. Sagunski, G. W. Yuan, T. Song, and E. Bratkovskaya, Phys. Rev. D 113, 055052 (2026).
  10. A. Caputo and R. Essig, arXiv:2603.08430.
  11. S. Li, J. M. Yang, M. Zhang, and R. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 111, 035005 (2025).
  12. T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D 99, 115024 (2019).
  13. T. D. Rueter and T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D 101, 015014 (2020).
  14. J. H. Kim, S. D. Lane, H. S. Lee, I. M. Lewis, and M. Sullivan, Phys. Rev. D 101, 035041 (2020).
  15. T. D. Rueter and T. G. Rizzo, arXiv:2011.03529.
  16. G. N. Wojcik and T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D 105, 015032 (2022).
  17. T. G. Rizzo, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2021) 035.
  18. T. G. Rizzo, arXiv:2202.02222.
  19. G. N. Wojcik, Phys. Rev. D 108, 035006 (2023).
  20. T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D 106, 035024 (2022).
  21. T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D 106, 095024 (2022).
  22. A. Carvunis, N. McGinnis, and D. E. Morrissey, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2023) 014.
  23. S. Verma, S. Biswas, A. Chatterjee, and J. Ganguly, Phys. Rev. D 107, 115024 (2023).
  24. T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D 107, 095014 (2023).
  25. M. Bauer and P. Foldenauer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 171801 (2022).
  26. G. N. Wojcik, L. L. Everett, S. T. Eu, and R. Ximenes, Phys. Lett. B 841, 137931 (2023).
  27. G. N. Wojcik, L. L. Everett, S. T. Eu, and R. Ximenes, Phys. Rev. D 108, 055033 (2023).
  28. T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D 108, 055021 (2023).
  29. T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D 109, 055039 (2024).
  30. T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D 110, 075037 (2024).
  31. M. Ardu, M. H. Rahat, N. Valori, and O. Vives, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2024) 049.
  32. T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D 111, 075018 (2025).
  33. T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D 112, 015029 (2025).
  34. K. Tewary, S. Biswas, and S. Verma, arXiv:2511.00578.
  35. T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D 113, 055001 (2026).
  36. For a recent review of vectorlike fermions, see A. E. Cárcamo Hernández, K. Kowalska, H. Lee, and D. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D 109, 035010 (2024).
  37. A. Hayrapetyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Rep. 1115, 570 (2025).
  38. J. M. Alves, G. C. Branco, A. L. Cherchiglia, C. C. Nishi, J. T. Penedo, P. M. F. Pereira, M. N. Rebelo, and J. I. Silva-Marcos, Phys. Rep. 1057, 1 (2024).
  39. A. Banerjee, E. Bergeaas Kuutmann, V. Ellajosyula, R. Enberg, G. Ferretti, and L. Panizzi, SciPost Phys. Core 7, 079 (2024).
  40. G. Guedes and J. Santiago, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2022) 111.
  41. A. Adhikary, M. Olechowski, J. Rosiek, and M. Ryczkowski, Phys. Rev. D 110, 075029 (2024).
  42. R. Benbrik, M. Boukidi, M. Ech-chaouy, S. Moretti, K. Salime, and Q. S. Yan, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2025) 020.
  43. F. Albergaria, J. F. Bastos, B. Belfatto, G. C. Branco, J. T. Penedo, A. Rodríguez-Sánchez, and J. I. Silva-Marcos, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2025) 061.
  44. C. Y. Chen, S. Dawson, and E. Furlan, Phys. Rev. D 96, 015006 (2017).
  45. A. Biekötter, J. L. Hewett, J. S. Kim, M. Krämer, T. G. Rizzo, K. Rolbiecki, J. Tattersall, and T. Weber, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 32, 1750032 (2017).
  46. G. Arcadi, M. Dutra, P. Ghosh, M. Lindner, Y. Mambrini, M. Pierre, S. Profumo, and F. S. Queiroz, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 203 (2018).
  47. L. Roszkowski, E. M. Sessolo, and S. Trojanowski, Rep. Prog. Phys. 81, 066201 (2018).
  48. G. Arcadi, D. Cabo-Almeida, M. Dutra, P. Ghosh, M. Lindner, Y. Mambrini, J. P. Neto, M. Pierre, S. Profumo, and F. S. Queiroz, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 152 (2025).
  49. There is, of course, a huge set of literature on this general subject, reaching back over many decades both in general and in specific BSM scenarios; for a highly shortened sample of these see, for example, W. A. Bardeen, R. Gastmans, and B. E. Lautrup, Nucl. Phys. B46, 319 (1972); K. J. Kim and Y. S. Tsai, Phys. Rev. D 7, 3710 (1973); K. O. Mikaelian, M. A. Samuel, and D. Sahdev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 746 (1979); R. W. Brown, D. Sahdev, and K. O. Mikaelian, Phys. Rev. D 20, 1164 (1979); K. Hagiwara, R. D. Peccei, D. Zeppenfeld, and K. Hikasa, Nucl. Phys. B282, 253 (1987); U. Baur and D. Zeppenfeld, B308, 127 (1988); G. Couture, J. N. Ng, J. L. Hewett, and T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D 38, 860 (1988); 36, 859 (1987); T. G. Rizzo, 46, 3894 (1992); A. B. Lahanas and V. C. Spanos, Phys. Lett. B 334, 378 (1994); A. Culatti, Z. Phys. C 65, 537 (1995); F. Larios, J. A. Leyva, and R. Martinez, Phys. Rev. D 53, 6686 (1996); A. Moyotl and G. Tavares-Velasco, J. Phys. G 37, 105012 (2010); A. Flores-Tlalpa, J. Montano, H. Novales-Sanchez, F. Ramirez-Zavaleta, and J. J. Toscano, Phys. Rev. D 83, 016011 (2011); M. A. Arroyo-Ureña, G. Hernández-Tomé, and G. Tavares-Velasco, 94, 095006 (2016); J. Montano, G. Tavares-Velasco, J. J. Toscano, and F. Ramirez-Zavaleta, 72, 055023 (2005).
  50. T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF Collaboration), Science 376, 170 (2022).
  51. M. E. Peskin and T. Takeuchi, Phys. Rev. D 46, 381 (1992).
  52. M. E. Peskin and T. Takeuchi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 964 (1990).
  53. For a recent review, see G. Bozzi, Proc. Sci. LHCP2024 (2025) 051.
  54. M. S. Chanowitz and M. K. Gaillard, Nucl. Phys. B261, 379 (1985); B. W. Lee, C. Quigg, and H. B. Thacker, Phys. Rev. D 16, 1519 (1977); J. M. Cornwall, D. N. Levin, and G. Tiktopoulos, 10, 1145 (1974); 11, 972(E) (1975); G. J. Gounaris, R. Kogerler, and H. Neufeld, 34, 3257 (1986).
  55. ATLAS Collaboration, Combination of searches for invisible Higgs boson decays with the ATLAS experiment, Report No. ATLAS-CONF-2020-052, CERN; G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 842, 137963 (2023); V. Milosevic (CMS Collaboration), Proc. Sci. EPS-HEP2021 (2022) 602.
  56. E. N. Argyres and C. G. Papadopoulos, Phys. Lett. B 263, 298 (1991); E. N. Argyres, A. B. Lahanas, C. G. Papadopoulos, and V. C. Spanos, 383, 63 (1996).
  57. S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024).
  58. E. Eichten, I. Hinchliffe, K. D. Lane, and C. Quigg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 56, 579 (1984).
  59. N. Kidonakis and A. Tonero, Eur. Phys. J. C 85, 1270 (2025).
  60. To be definitive, in the analysis that follows we employ the default NNLO parton density function set as given in L. A. Harland-Lang, A. D. Martin, P. Motylinski, and R. S. Thorne, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 204 (2015); arXiv:1412.3989, with the scale set to be μ2=s^ or pT2 depending upon whether the quantity of interest is an inclusive s-channel cross section or a pT distribution, respectively.
  61. The assumed K-factor employed below is typical of that for electroweak production via a single SM gauge boson in the s-channel, as can be see in, e.g., C. Duhr and B. Mistlberger, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2022) 116; C. Duhr, F. Dulat, and B. Mistlberger, 11 (2020) 143.
  62. G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2024) 126.
  63. G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 031802 (2024).
  64. A. Tumasyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 842, 137460 (2023).
  65. CMS Physics Analyis Summary, Report No. CMS PAS SUS-23-002 (CERN, 2024).
  66. M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2018) 180.
  67. A. Tumasyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2021) 153.
  68. G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 1102 (2024).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 113, 115022– Published 9 June, 2026
  • Received 16 March 2026
  • Accepted 20 May 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. Funded by SCOAP3.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation