- 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

Semivisible Higgs boson decay as a probe for new invisible particles

Sally Dawson1,*, Arnab Roy2,†, and German Valencia2,‡

  • *Contact author: dawson@bnl.gov
  • †Contact author: arnab.roy1@monash.edu
  • ‡Contact author: german.valencia@monash.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 114, 015046 – Published 30 July, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/tg5q-n763

Abstract

We discuss the HL-LHC sensitivity to probe new invisible particles including scalars and fermions using semivisible Higgs decays in the pp→ZH,Z→jj(ℓ+ℓ−),H→ℓ+ℓ−(jj)+ET production mode. The kinematics of these decays allow new particle masses below m≲50  GeV. We carry out our analysis using both a cut-based approach and a multivariate method based on a boosted decision tree. We work within the dark Standard Model effective field theory framework with operators up to dimension six and a discrete Z2 symmetry under which the new particles are odd and the SM particles are even. We compare our results to those obtained from considering the invisible Z width, as well as perturbative unitarity arguments. Finally, we outline kinematic strategies at the LHC to distinguish different operator structures of the postulated invisible particles.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (84)

  1. J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, J. M. Cano, J. M. No, and D. G. Cerdeño, Semidark Higgs boson decays: Sweeping the Higgs neutrino floor, Phys. Rev. D 106, 115023 (2022).
  2. M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Search for dark matter in events with a hadronically decaying vector boson and missing transverse momentum in pp collisions at s=13  TeV with the ATLAS detector, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2018) 180.
  3. J. C. Criado, A. Djouadi, M. Perez-Victoria, and J. Santiago, A complete effective field theory for dark matter, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2021) 081.
  4. J. Aebischer, W. Altmannshofer, E. E. Jenkins, and A. V. Manohar, Dark matter effective field theory and an application to vector dark matter, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2022) 086.
  5. R. Harnik and G. D. Kribs, An effective theory of Dirac dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 79, 095007 (2009).
  6. J. Goodman, M. Ibe, A. Rajaraman, W. Shepherd, T. M. P. Tait, and H.-B. Yu, Constraints on light Majorana dark matter from colliders, Phys. Lett. B 695, 185 (2011).
  7. J. Goodman, M. Ibe, A. Rajaraman, W. Shepherd, T. M. P. Tait, and H.-B. Yu, Gamma ray line constraints on effective theories of dark matter, Nucl. Phys. B844, 55 (2011).
  8. M. Beltran, D. Hooper, E. W. Kolb, Z. A. C. Krusberg, and T. M. P. Tait, Maverick dark matter at colliders, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2010) 037.
  9. J. Goodman, M. Ibe, A. Rajaraman, W. Shepherd, T. M. P. Tait, and H.-B. Yu, Constraints on dark matter from colliders, Phys. Rev. D 82, 116010 (2010).
  10. J. F. Kamenik and C. Smith, FCNC portals to the dark sector, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2012) 090.
  11. P. J. Fox, R. Harnik, J. Kopp, and Y. Tsai, Missing energy signatures of dark matter at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D 85, 056011 (2012).
  12. E. Del Nobile and F. Sannino, Dark matter effective theory, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 27, 1250065 (2012).
  13. K. Cheung, P.-Y. Tseng, Y.-L. S. Tsai, and T.-C. Yuan, Global constraints on effective dark matter interactions: Relic density, direct detection, indirect detection, and collider, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05 (2012) 001.
  14. M. R. Buckley, Using effective operators to understand CoGeNT and CDMS-Si signals, Phys. Rev. D 88, 055028 (2013).
  15. N. F. Bell, Y. Cai, and A. D. Medina, Co-annihilating dark matter: Effective operator analysis and collider phenomenology, Phys. Rev. D 89, 115001 (2014).
  16. A. De Simone, A. Monin, A. Thamm, and A. Urbano, On the effective operators for dark matter annihilations, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02 (2013) 039.
  17. M. A. Fedderke, J.-Y. Chen, E. W. Kolb, and L.-T. Wang, The fermionic dark matter Higgs portal: An effective field theory approach, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2014) 122.
  18. S. Matsumoto, S. Mukhopadhyay, and Y.-L. S. Tsai, Singlet Majorana fermion dark matter: A comprehensive analysis in effective field theory, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2014) 155.
  19. A. Crivellin, F. D’Eramo, and M. Procura, New constraints on dark matter effective theories from standard model loops, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 191304 (2014).
  20. A. Crivellin and U. Haisch, Dark matter direct detection constraints from gauge bosons loops, Phys. Rev. D 90, 115011 (2014).
  21. M. Duch, B. Grzadkowski, and J. Wudka, Classification of effective operators for interactions between the standard model and dark matter, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2015) 116.
  22. J. Hisano, R. Nagai, and N. Nagata, Effective theories for dark matter nucleon scattering, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2015) 037.
  23. A. Crivellin, U. Haisch, and A. Hibbs, LHC constraints on gauge boson couplings to dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 91, 074028 (2015).
  24. S. Matsumoto, S. Mukhopadhyay, and Y.-L. S. Tsai, Effective theory of WIMP dark matter supplemented by simplified models: Singlet-like Majorana fermion case, Phys. Rev. D 94, 065034 (2016).
  25. A. De Simone and T. Jacques, Simplified models vs. effective field theory approaches in dark matter searches, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 367 (2016).
  26. F. Bishara, J. Brod, B. Grinstein, and J. Zupan, Chiral effective theory of dark matter direct detection, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02 (2017) 009.
  27. M. Bauer, A. Butter, N. Desai, J. Gonzalez-Fraile, and T. Plehn, Validity of dark matter effective theory, Phys. Rev. D 95, 075036 (2017).
  28. S. Bruggisser, F. Riva, and A. Urbano, The last gasp of dark matter effective theory, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2016) 069.
  29. F. Pobbe, A. Wulzer, and M. Zanetti, Setting limits on effective field theories: The case of dark matter, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2017) 074.
  30. S. Belwal, M. Drees, and J. S. Kim, Analysis of the bounds on dark matter models from monojet searches at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D 98, 055017 (2018).
  31. H. Han, H. Wu, and S. Zheng, Effective field theory of the Majorana dark matter, Chin. Phys. C 43, 043103 (2019).
  32. J. Brod, A. Gootjes-Dreesbach, M. Tammaro, and J. Zupan, Effective field theory for dark matter direct detection up to dimension seven, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2018) 065; 07 (2023) 012(E).
  33. A. Belyaev, E. Bertuzzo, C. Caniu Barros, O. Eboli, G. Grilli Di Cortona, F. Iocco, and A. Pukhov, Interplay of the LHC and non-LHC dark matter searches in the effective field theory approach, Phys. Rev. D 99, 015006 (2019).
  34. C. Arina, A. Cheek, K. Mimasu, and L. Pagani, Light and darkness: Consistently coupling dark matter to photons via effective operators, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 223 (2021).
  35. B. Barman, D. Borah, and R. Roshan, Effective theory of freeze-in dark matter, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 11 (2020) 021.
  36. B. Barman, S. Bhattacharya, and B. Grzadkowski, Feebly coupled vector boson dark matter in effective theory, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2020) 162.
  37. S. Bhattacharya and J. Wudka, Effective theories with dark matter applications, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 30, 2130004 (2021).
  38. P. Athron et al. (GAMBIT Collaboration), Thermal WIMPs and the scale of new physics: Global fits of Dirac dark matter effective field theories, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 992 (2021).
  39. D. Barducci, E. Bertuzzo, G. Grilli di Cortona, and G. M. Salla, Dark photon bounds in the dark EFT, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2021) 081.
  40. X.-G. He, X.-D. Ma, and G. Valencia, FCNC B and K meson decays with light bosonic dark matter, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2023) 037.
  41. D. Borah, N. Das, S. Jahedi, and B. Thacker, Collider and CMB complementarity of leptophilic dark matter with light Dirac neutrinos, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2025) 074.
  42. A. Roy, B. Dasgupta, and M. Guchait, Constraining asymmetric dark matter using colliders and direct detection, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2024) 095.
  43. A. Roy, M. A. Schmidt, and G. Valencia, Monojet and direct detection constraints on real scalar dark matter: EFT and a simple UV completion, arXiv:2509.14869.
  44. D. Borah, N. Das, S. Jahedi, and D. Pradhan, Multi-messenger FIMP, arXiv:2506.13860.
  45. A. Tumasyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Search for invisible decays of the Higgs boson produced via vector boson fusion in proton-proton collisions at s=13  TeV, Phys. Rev. D 105, 092007 (2022).
  46. G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Search for invisible Higgs-boson decays in events with vector-boson fusion signatures using 139  fb−1 of proton-proton data recorded by the ATLAS experiment, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2022) 104.
  47. G. Arcadi, A. Djouadi, and M. Kado, The Higgs-portal for dark matter: Effective field theories versus concrete realizations, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 653 (2021).
  48. M. Ruhdorfer, E. Salvioni, and A. Wulzer, Building the case for forward muon detection at a muon collider, Phys. Rev. D 111, 053010 (2025).
  49. M. Williams, C. P. Burgess, A. Maharana, and F. Quevedo, New constraints (and motivations) for Abelian gauge bosons in the MeV-TeV mass range, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2011) 106.
  50. M. Endo and Y. Yamamoto, Unitarity bounds on dark matter effective interactions at LHC, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2014) 126.
  51. J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro, The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2014) 079.
  52. S. Schael et al. (ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, SLD Collaborations, LEP Electroweak Working Group, SLD Electroweak Group, and SLD Heavy Flavour Group), Precision electroweak measurements on the Z resonance, Phys. Rep. 427, 257 (2006).
  53. G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Combination of searches for invisible decays of the Higgs boson using 139  fb−1 of proton-proton collision data at s=13  TeV collected with the ATLAS experiment, Phys. Lett. B 842, 137963 (2023).
  54. C. Englert, M. Spannowsky, and C. Wymant, Partially (in)visible Higgs decays at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B 718, 538 (2012).
  55. A. Alloul, N. D. Christensen, C. Degrande, C. Duhr, and B. Fuks, feynrules 2.0—A complete toolbox for tree-level phenomenology, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 2250 (2014).
  56. J. Butterworth et al., PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II, J. Phys. G 43, 023001 (2016).
  57. M. L. Mangano, M. Moretti, F. Piccinini, and M. Treccani, Matching matrix elements and shower evolution for top-quark production in hadronic collisions, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2007) 013.
  58. J. Alwall et al., Comparative study of various algorithms for the merging of parton showers and matrix elements in hadronic collisions, Eur. Phys. J. C 53, 473 (2008).
  59. T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, pythia 6.4 physics and manual, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2006) 026.
  60. T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, A brief introduction to pythia 8.1, Comput. Phys. Commun. 178, 852 (2008).
  61. J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lemaître, A. Mertens, and M. Selvaggi (DELPHES 3 Collaboration), delphes 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2014) 057.
  62. V. Khachatryan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Search for supersymmetry in pp collisions at s=13  TeV in the single-lepton final state using the sum of masses of large-radius jets, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2016) 122.
  63. M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, fastjet user manual, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1896 (2012).
  64. CMS Collaboration, Particle-flow event reconstruction in CMS and performance for jets, taus, and MET, CERN Report No. CMS-PAS-PFT-09-001, https://cds.cern.ch/record/1194487.
  65. M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez, The anti-kt jet clustering algorithm, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2008) 063.
  66. G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), ATLAS searches for additional scalars and exotic Higgs boson decays with the LHC Run 2 dataset, Phys. Rep. 1116, 184 (2025).
  67. A. Tumasyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Measurement of simplified template cross sections of the Higgs boson produced in association with W or Z bosons in the H→bb− decay channel in proton-proton collisions at s=13  TeV, Phys. Rev. D 109, 092011 (2024).
  68. M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Search for new phenomena in events containing a same-flavour opposite-sign dilepton pair, jets, and large missing transverse momentum in s=13pp collisions with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 144 (2017).
  69. A. Hocker et al., tmva—Toolkit for multivariate data analysis, arXiv:physics/0703039.
  70. H. Voss, A. Hocker, J. Stelzer, and F. Tegenfeldt, tmva, the toolkit for multivariate data analysis with root, Proc. Sci. ACAT2007 (2007) 040.
  71. M. Guchait and D. Sengupta, Event-shape selection cuts for supersymmetry searches at the LHC with 7 TeV energy, Phys. Rev. D 84, 055010 (2011).
  72. D. de Florian et al. (LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group Collaboration), Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 4. Deciphering the nature of the Higgs sector, CERN Yellow Rep. Monogr. 2, 1 (2017).
  73. R. Cowsik and J. McClelland, An upper limit on the neutrino rest mass, Phys. Rev. Lett. 29, 669 (1972).
  74. B. W. Lee and S. Weinberg, Cosmological lower bound on heavy neutrino masses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 165 (1977).
  75. E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner, The Early Universe (Taylor and Francis, London, 2019), Vol. 69.
  76. J. Aalbers et al. (LZ Collaboration), Dark matter search results from 4.2  tonne−years of exposure of the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) experiment, arXiv:2410.17036.
  77. S. Li et al. (PandaX Collaboration), Search for light dark matter with ionization signals in the PandaX-4T experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 261001 (2023).
  78. D. Huang et al. (PandaX Collaboration), Search for dark-matter–nucleon interactions with a dark mediator in PandaX-4T, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 191002 (2023).
  79. P. Agnes et al. (DarkSide Collaboration), Search for dark-matter–nucleon interactions via Migdal effect with DarkSide-50, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 101001 (2023).
  80. K. E. O’Donnell and T. R. Slatyer, Constraints on dark matter with future MeV gamma-ray telescopes, Phys. Rev. D 111, 083037 (2025).
  81. S. Nussinov, Technocosmology: Could a technibaryon excess provide a “natural” missing mass candidate?, Phys. Lett. 165B, 55 (1985).
  82. G. B. Gelmini, L. J. Hall, and M. J. Lin, What is the cosmion?, Nucl. Phys. B281, 726 (1987).
  83. K. M. Zurek, Asymmetric dark matter: Theories, signatures, and constraints, Phys. Rep. 537, 91 (2014).
  84. K. Petraki and R. R. Volkas, Review of asymmetric dark matter, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 28, 1330028 (2013).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 114, 015046– Published 30 July, 2026
  • Received 20 November 2025
  • Accepted 23 June 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