Phenomenology of the littlest Higgs model with T-parity

By J. Hubisz, Patrick Meade. 2004

219 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Little Higgs models offer an interesting approach to weakly coupled electroweak symmetry breaking without fine-tuning. The original little Higgs models were plagued by strong constraints from electroweak precision data which required a fine-tuning to be reintroduced. An economical solution to this problem is to introduce a discrete symmetry (analogous to R-parity of SUSY) called T-parity. T-parity not only eliminates most constraints from electroweak precision data, but it also leads to a promising dark matter candidate. In this paper we investigate the dark matter candidate in the littlest Higgs model with T-parity. An upper bound on the symmetry breaking scale f < or approx. 1.8 TeV naturally arises from calculating the relic density. We begin the study of the LHC phenomenology of the littlest Higgs model with T-parity. We find that the model offers an interesting collider signature that has a generic missing energy signal which could 'fake' SUSY at the LHC. We also investigate the properties of the heavy partner of the top quark which is common to all littlest Higgs models, and how its properties are modified with the introduction of T-parity. We include an appendix with a list of Feynman rules specific to the littlest Higgs with T-paritymore » to facilitate further study.« less

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Nuclear and High Energy Physics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0452efea774bfffcfc25d91d376dc3ed631da3ac

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

In Nuclear and High Energy Physics

Citations in the corpus

Dark matter halo merger histories beyond cold dark matter – I. Methods and application to warm dark matter (2012, background): “…& Steinhardt 2000; Abazajian, Fuller & Patel 2001; Cheng, Feng & Matchev 2002; Feng, Rajaraman & Takayama 2003; Sigurdson & Kamionkowski 2004; Hubisz & Meade 2005; Feng et al. 2009) have been put forward to explain these deviations, although it remains unclear if any of these proposals is…”