Differentiating the Higgs boson from the dilaton and the radion at hadron colliders

Differentiating the Higgs boson from the dilaton and the radion at hadron colliders

Vernon Barger, Muneyuki Ishida, and Wai-Yee Keung Department of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA
Department of Physics, Meisei University, Hino, Tokyo 191-8506, Japan
Department of Physics, University of Illinois, Chicago, IL 60607, USA
July 15, 2019

A number of candidate theories beyond the standard model (SM) predict new scalar bosons below the TeV region. Among these, the radion, which is predicted in the Randall-Sundrum model, and the dilaton, which is predicted by the walking technicolor theory, have very similar couplings to those of the SM Higgs boson, and it is very difficult to differentiate these three spin-0 particles in the expected signals of the Higgs boson at the LHC and Tevatron. We demonstrate that the observation of the ratio gives a simple and decisive way, independently of the values of model parameters: the VEVs of the radion and dilaton fields.

14.80.Bn 14.80.Ec

A number of candidate theories beyond the Standard Model (SM) predict new scalar bosons below the TeV region. When a scalar boson signal is detected in the Higgs search at the LHC, it is very important to determine whether it is really a SM Higgs boson or another exotic scalar. Among these, the radion(), predicted in the Randall-Sundrum (RS) modelRS (); RS1 (); RS6 (); GRW (); CHL (); RS2 (); RS3 (); RS4 (); RS5 (); ADMS (); ACP (); CGPT (); CGK (); Han (); Dav (); Dav2 (); Toharia (); BI (), and the dilaton(), predicted in spontaneous breakingGGS (); Fujii (); WT0 (); WT2 (); WT3 (); WT4 (); Sannino (), have very similar couplings to those of the standard model Higgs boson (), and it is very difficult to differentiate these three particles, , in the signals. A distinctive differenceGGS (); Toharia (); BIK (); Logan () is in their couplings to massless gauge bosons. We demonstrate that the ratios are different from each other, and their observation gives a decisive method to distinguish these three spin-0 particles. Our main result is given in Fig. 2. It is important that the ratio is independent of the model-paramneters; the VEVs of the radion and dilaton fields. The test applies to both LHC and Tevatron experimental searches.

For definiteness we consider the dilaton coupling given in ref.GGS (), which is the same as the dilaton coupling in 4-dimensional walking technicolor theoryWT0 (); WT2 (); WT3 (); WT4 (); Sannino () where all SM fields are composites of strongly interacting fields in conformal field theory (CFT). In AdSCFT correspondence this dilaton is dual to the radionRS1 (); RS6 (); GRW () in the original Randall-Sundrum (RS1) modelRS (), where all the SM fields are localized at the infrared (IR) brane in the 5-dimensional Anti-de Sitter(AdS) space background. We consider the radion coupling of the Randall-Sundrum (RS2) model given in ref.CHL () where all the SM fields are in the bulkRS2 (); RS3 (); RS4 (); RS5 (); ADMS (); ACP (); CGPT (); CGK (); Han (); Dav (); Dav2 (); Toharia (); BI (). The radion has bulk couplings to the gauge bosons. It is dualCHL () to the dilaton in CFT. We do not consider flavor changing neutral current (FCNC) processes; however, we note that a dilaton in a particular CFT with SM fields that are elementary and weakly coupled can generically have FCNCrefe1 (); refe2 (), as can the radion of the RS2 modelToha2 () considered here. We will study collider signatures from the gauge coupling differences of in the following.

Effective Lagrangians   We treat the SM Higgs boson , the radion , and the dilaton , which are also denoted as . The vacuum expectation values (VEV) of these fields are denoted as


for , , and , respectively. The determine overall coupling strengths of these particles, and  GeV.

The Lagrangian of the interactionsRS6 (); GRW (); GGS (); Han (); CHL (); Dav2 () with the SM particles is given by


where denotes the separation of the branes in the RS2 model and is a parameter that governs the weak scale-Planck scale hierarchy. The term is absent for the dilaton and the Higgs boson. specifies the couplings to the massless gauge bosons, and represents the field strength of gluon(photon). gives the couplings to the weak bosons, and etc. In the fermion-coupling Lagrangian , the factors are and for all fermions , while the depend upon the bulk wave functions of the fermion in the RS2 model. We take for one value of couplingDav () as our example. represents the couplings to the Higgs boson. is also applicable to the . In the radion effective interaction, the brane kinetic terms are taken to be zeroDav2 ().

A distinction in Eq. (3) is the and couplings . Their expressions are given in Table 1. is given by the sum of the triangle-loop contributions of top quark and boson and the function coefficient appearing in the trace-anomaly of the SM energy-momentum tensor RS1 (); GRW (); Sannino (); GGS (). The trace-anomaly term contributes for and but not for . Here we should note that the function contributions (the second column) always count all favors ”light or heavy”. But, the mass-coupling-term of the triangle-loop diagram operates in a way to cancel the heavy countings if the (or ) masses are lower than the corresponding threshold. As a result, for with the number of effective flavors . A similar argument is also applicable to .

Table 1: and couplings, (2nd row) and (3rd row), of scalars: Only the third column contributes for where represent the triangle-loop contributions of top quark and boson which are given in ref.Hunter (); Anatomy (); book (). For , both second and third columns contribute where the second column represents the trace-anomaly. For the first column () also contributes. It comes from the bulk field coupling, The volume of the 5th dimension is taken to be in , while we can represent with .
Figure 1: The real part of the couplings, for and . The bulk coupling term is given by for , while for and . The has an additional contribution in compared to . The has a contribution from the bulk field coupling which destructively interfere with the term of . The imaginary parts contribute above the and they only give subleading contributions.

The real part of the couplings are given in Fig. 1. The destructive interference between the bulk coupling term and the term is due to the opposite sign, and this yields the very different shape of versus : The cusp at , which comes from the threshold effect, constructively contributes for and , and destructively for . This behavior is seen in Fig. 2.

describes the decays. The effective couplings are given by


where have both and terms from the triangle-loop contributions of and SM fermions, respectively. Their explicit forms are given in refs.Hunter (); Anatomy (). is negligible compared to . The third term comes from the trace anomaly of and it contributes to , but not to . We can check that particles with heavier thresholds than or decouple also in . To a good approximation the bulk-field coupling of gives no contribution to Ren ().

Figure 2: The cross section ratios, and versus the mass of the scalar: . For the radion(black solid), the dilaton(blue dashed), and the SM Higgs (red dotted) for (upper, middle, lower figures). The ratios are independent of the values of the model parameters, and . and have the same value of while for it can be different, since the ratio is proportional to the square of the parameter that is taken to be 1.66 as an example. of and are different from that of due to the trace-anomaly contribution.

ratio   From in Eq. (2), we can calculate the partial widths of and . They are proportional to the inverse squares of the overall constants , but the values of and are presently unknown. However, the ratiosbook () are independent of these VEVs. Figure 2 shows the ratios (upper figure), the ratios (middle figure), and the ratios (lower figure), for and of the same mass. They are compared with those of of the same mass.

As can be clearly seen in Fig. 2, we can differentiate the three scalars, , by observing the ratio . In Fig. 2 the slope changes around since steeply decreases below the threshold. The gives an almost constant ratio in becuse of the contribution from the bulk coupling term which is energy-independent. The drastic change in slope of the ratio of near occurs from the interference between this bulk coupling and the trace anomaly term. See, Fig. 1.

The ratio of can differ from and , because of the parameter , so measuring this quantity is also helpful to distinguish from the other two scalars.

The ratio of and can differ from , because of the trace anomaly contributions. This channel is helpful to determine the coupling form of the signal. It may be possible to detect it by focusing on the monochromatic photon spectrum from .

Total widths and decay branching fractions (BF)

The total widths of are given in Fig. 3. scale with where  TeV are taken, and the and widths are about two orders of magnitudes smaller than the with the same mass.

Figure 3: The total widths (GeV) of the radion (black solid), dilaton (blue dashed), and SM Higgs (red dotted). scale with , respectively, where and are commonly taken to be 3 TeV.

The branching fractions () of the decays to are compared in Fig. 4, where the -factor in NNLOKfact () is considered for . BF() shows very delicate structures. is the largest at , since the has the smallest couplings to and the main decay mode in this energy region is .

Figure 4: Branching fractions of the decays to : For the radion (black solid), the dilaton (blue dashed), and the SM Higgs (red dotted) in each figure. This result is independent of the model parameters, for the radion and the for the dilaton. For , is taken to be 1.66 as an example.

Concluding Remarks    The measurement of the ratioratio () provides a decisive way to differentiate the radion , the dilaton , and the SM Higgs . It is only necessary to count the event numbers of and decays of an observed signal. This method is independent of the values of the model-parameters, the VEVs and . It applies to both the LHC and Tevatron experimental searches.

The scalars are also expected to be produced in associated production, and . The production cross section and are smaller than , respectively, by the factors and , which are in the  TeV case. This small cross section of associated production also can be used to differentiate the and from Logan ().

The production of and via the fusion subprocess is much smaller than that of , due to their relatively smaller decay widths to and .

We may also consider the scenario that both and (or and ) exist with comparable masses in the region  GeV, where the on-going Higgs search data show some excess over the expected SM cross section. At this mass both and have very narrow widths, and their resonance peaks will be smeared by experimental resolution into one with twice the production cross section, even with the mixing of scalars taken into account. In this case the ratio will be intermediate between the single-state values. Another possible scenario is that or mixGRW (); mix1 (); mix2 (); mix3 () with . Then, the lighter scalar can have a mass below 100 GeV and its production will be suppressed compared to that of the SM Higgs.

For dilaton or radion masses much larger than , the narrow width makes discovery in and easier than for the SM HiggsLogan ().

Finally, our study applies also to generic singlet modelsNMSSM (). The singlet decouples from SM particles and the phenomenology is dependent on the amount of mixing of with the singlet scalar. The production cross section can be significantly smaller by the mixing effect, and thus, a low-mass Higgs boson with  GeV also become possible.


We thank Professors Bill Bardeen and Prof. Misha Stephanov for discussions. M.I. is very grateful to the members of phenomenology institute of University of Wisconsin-Madison for hospitalities. This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under grants No. DE-FG02-95ER40896 and DE-FG02-84ER40173, in part by KAKENHI(2274015, Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists(B)) and in part by grant as Special Researcher of Meisei University.



  • (1) L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3370 (1999).
  • (2) W. D. Goldberger, and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4922 (1999); Phys. Lett. B475, 275 (2000).
  • (3) Kingman Cheung, Phys. Rev. D63, 056007 (2001).
  • (4) G. F. Giudice, R. Rattazzi, J. D. Wells, Nucl. Phys. B595, 250 (2001).
  • (5) C. Csaki, J. Hubsisz, and S. J. Lee, Phys. Rev. D76, 125015 (2007).
  • (6) H. Davoudiasl, J. L. Hewett, and T. G. Rizzo, Phys. Lett. B473, 43 (2000).
  • (7) A. Pomarol, Phys. Lett. B486, 153 (2000).
  • (8) Y. Grossman, M. Neubert, Phys. Lett. B474, 361 (2000).
  • (9) T. Gherghetta, A. Pomarol, Nucl. Phys. B586, 141 (2000).
  • (10) K. Agashe, A. Delgado, M. J. May, and R. Sundrum, JHEP 0308, 050 (2003).
  • (11) K. Agashe, R. Contino, and A.Pomarol, Nucl. Phys. B719, 165 (2005).
  • (12) C. Csaki, C. Grojean, L. Pilo, and J. Terning, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 101802 (2004).
  • (13) C. Csaki, M. L. Graesser, and G. D. Kribs, Phys. Rev. D63, 065002 (2001).
  • (14) T. Han, G. D. Kribs, B. McElrath, Phys. Rev. D64, 076003 (2001).
  • (15) H. Davoudiasl, G. Perez, and A. Soni, Phys. Lett. B665, 67 (2008).
  • (16) H. Davoudiasl, T. McElmurry, and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. D82, 115028 (2010).
  • (17) M. Frank, B. Korutlu, M. Toharia, arXiv:1110.4434 [hep-ph]
  • (18) V. Barger and M. Ishida, arXiv:1110.6452[hep-ph].
  • (19) W. D. Goldberger, B. Grinstein, and W. Skiba, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 111802 (2008).
  • (20) ”Gravitation and scalar fields,” Y. Fujii, Kodansha scientific 1997 (in Japanese).
  • (21) K. Yamawaki, M. Bando and K. -i. Matumoto, Phys. Rev. Lett.  56, 1335 (1986).
  • (22) T. W. Appelquist, D. Karabali, and L. C. R. Wijewardhana, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 957 (1986).
  • (23) M. A. Luty, T. Okui, JHEP 0609, 070 (2006).
  • (24) R. Rattazzi, V. S. Rychkov, E. Tonni, A. Vichi, JHEP 0812, 031 (2008).
  • (25) D. D. Dietrich, and F. Sannino, Phys. Rev. D72, 055001 (2005).
  • (26) V. Barger, M. Ishida, and W.-Y. Keung, arXiv:1111.2580[hep-ph].
  • (27) B. Coleppa, T. Gregoire, and H. E. Logan, arXiv:1111.3276v1[hep-ph].
  • (28) J. Fan, W. D. Goldberger, A. Ross, and W. Skiba, arXiv:0803.2040[hep-ph].
  • (29) L. Vecchi, arXiv:1002.1721[hep-ph].
  • (30) A. Azatov, M. Toharia, and L. Zhu, arXiv:0812.2489[hep-ph].
  • (31) ”Higgs hunters guide”, J. F. Gunion, H. E. Harber, G. Kane, and S. Dawson, Perseus books 2000.
  • (32) A. Djouadi, Phys.Rept. 457 (2008) 1-216.
  • (33) C. Csaki, J. Erlich, and J. Terning, Phys. Rev. D66, 064021 (2002).
  • (34) V. D. Barger and R. J. N. Phillips, ”Collider Physics” Updated Edition, Westview press (1991).
  • (35) S. Catani, D. de Florian, M. Grazzini, and P. Nason, JHEP07, 028 (2003).
  • (36) I. Low and J. Lykken, JHEP 1010 (2010) 053;arXiv:1005.0872[hep-ph].
  • (37) D. Dominici, B. Grzadkowski, J. F. Gunion, M. Toharia, Nucl. Phys. B671, 243 (2003).
  • (38) M. Toharia, Phys. Rev. D79, 015009 (2009).
  • (39) H. de Sandes and R. Rosenfeld, arXiv:1111.2006v1.
  • (40) See, e.g. V. Barger, P. Langacker, and G. Shaughnessy, arXiv:10611239[hep-ph]; Phys. Rev. D75, 055013 (2007).
Comments 0
Request Comment
You are adding the first comment!
How to quickly get a good reply:
  • Give credit where it’s due by listing out the positive aspects of a paper before getting into which changes should be made.
  • Be specific in your critique, and provide supporting evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements.
  • Your comment should inspire ideas to flow and help the author improves the paper.

The better we are at sharing our knowledge with each other, the faster we move forward.
The feedback must be of minimum 40 characters and the title a minimum of 5 characters
Add comment
Loading ...
This is a comment super asjknd jkasnjk adsnkj
The feedback must be of minumum 40 characters
The feedback must be of minumum 40 characters

You are asking your first question!
How to quickly get a good answer:
  • Keep your question short and to the point
  • Check for grammar or spelling errors.
  • Phrase it like a question
Test description