Dark Matter meets Quantum Gravity

Manuel Reichert1, ∗ and Juri Smirnov2, 3, †

1CP3-Origins, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, 5230 Odense M, Denmark2Center for Cosmology and AstroParticle Physics (CCAPP),

The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA3Department of Physics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA

We search for an extension of the Standard Model that contains a viable dark matter candidateand that can be embedded into a fundamental, asymptotically safe, quantum field theory with quan-tum gravity. Demanding asymptotic safety leads to boundary conditions for the non-gravitationalcouplings at the Planck scale. For a given dark matter model these translate into constraints on themass of the dark matter candidate. We derive constraints on the dark matter mass and couplingsin two minimal dark matter models: i) scalar dark matter coupled via the Higgs portal in the B-Lmodel; ii) fermionic dark matter in a U(1)X extension of the Standard Model, coupled via the newgauge boson. For scalar dark matter, we find 56 GeV < MDM < 63 GeV, and for fermionic darkmatter, MDM ≤ 50 TeV. Within our framework, we identify three benchmark scenarios with distinctphenomenological consequences.

Preprint: CP3-Origins-2019-41 DNRF90

I. INTRODUCTION

Our current understanding of nature demands the ex-istence of additional matter degrees of freedom. Sepa-rately, quantum effects from the gravity sector must af-fect our quantum field theory (QFT) framework at ener-gies close to the Planck scale. In this paper, we simulta-neously address these two questions and explore what thehigh energy effects of gravity imply for the new matterdegrees of freedom at the low energy scale. Our workinghypothesis is that the underlying QFT, which containsa dark matter candidate, should become asymptoticallysafe with the inclusion of quantum gravity. This setsconstraints on the model parameter space leading to pre-dictions for dark matter phenomenology.

Since our best current description of microscopic pro-cesses in nature is QFT, we will extend the current theorythat describes the physics of the visible sector, the Stan-dard Model (SM), by additional quantum fields. The newfields have to be stable and account for the dark matter(DM) component of our Universe. In our extensions, weare guided by minimality, which naturally leads us toconsider the simplest known production mechanism forsuch dark sector particles, the thermal freeze-out [1–9].

The question we address in this paper is which min-imal models with a DM candidate have an ultraviolet(UV) safe embedding into a theory of quantum gravityand what that implies for their available parameter space.While the observations of galaxies and clusters can havesubstantial uncertainties, when it comes to predicting theexact value of the missing DM component [10], the ob-servations of the cosmic microwave background lead to avery solid measurement of its abundance, which we useas our benchmark ΩDMh

2 ≈ 0.12 [11]. Previous work has

∗ Email: reichert@cp3.sdu.dk; ORCID: 0000-0003-0736-5726† Email: smirnov.9@osu.edu; ORCID: 0000-0002-3082-0929

found DM mass bounds from the general considerationof unitarity [12, 13], our bounds lead to more stringentmass constraints.

We choose a minimal approach to quantum gravity, as-suming the framework of QFT and no additional degreesof freedom besides the spin-2 field in the gravitationalsector. As pointed out in Ref. [14], the UV behavior of aQFT describing quantum gravity might be governed by anon-trivial fixed point. This UV fixed point would makethe theory UV finite and thus non-perturbatively renor-malizable. Starting with the seminal work by Reuter [15],a lot of evidence was collected in favor of this scenario[16–29]. The interplay of quantum gravity and matterwas extensively investigated as well [30–38].

In a fundamental theory of nature not only must thegravity couplings become asymptotically safe, but thematter coupling must also be either asymptotically safeor free. Due to this requirement, asymptotically safequantum gravity can, in some cases, predict the values ofcouplings in the SM. These predictions appear as bound-ary conditions at the Planck scale. If these boundaryconditions are not fulfilled then couplings typically runinto Landau poles.

The first prediction of asymptotically safe quantumgravity was the Higgs boson mass [39]: asymptotic safetypredicts that the quartic scalar coupling is roughly van-ishing at the Plank scale. This yields a Higgs boson massin the range from roughly 126 to 136 GeV, depending,for instance, on the value of the top mass. Also, a retro-diction of the top mass [40] and the difference betweenthe top and the bottom mass [41] were attempted. Seealso [42–45] for further works in this context.

This paper is structured as follows: In Sec. II we give ashort executive summary of our main ideas and explainwhy we consider certain dark models. In Sec. III, wedetail in detail the quantum gravity contribution to thebeta functions of the matter couplings and how they leadto boundary conditions at the Planck scale. In Sec. IV,

arX

iv:1

911.

0001

2v2

[he

p-ph

] 2

3 Fe

b 20

20

2

we present the DM model that we consider in two dif-ferent mass hierarchies, in one mass hierarchy the scalarand in the other, the fermion is the DM candidate. Inboth cases, we show how the boundary condition fromgravity is applied and the consequences on the computedrelic density. In Sec.V, we critically discuss our findings,in particular, the uncertainty in the computation of thequantum gravity contributions.

II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FORTHE BUSY READER

We work under the hypothesis that QFT is a funda-mental description of nature at all scales. Thus, we haveto take into account the effects of quantum gravity whenapproaching the Planck scale. Extensive research in thisdirection has been conducted and we discuss the technicalaspects in the following section. However, the main pointis, that quantum gravity provides Planck scale bound-ary conditions for the renormalization group (RG) flowequations. We will demonstrate that those conditionsconstrain the allowed masses of DM candidates for thesimplest models of DM.

Our approach is based on several key assumptions.The first assumptions are that the RG flow of all matterfields remains stable up to the Planck scale. Thus no Lan-dau poles or vacuum instabilities occur below Planckianenergies. As we will see, this assumption alone providesconstraints on the allowed DM models and is independentof the assumed theory of quantum gravity. Furthermore,we assume the following about the theory of quantumgravity

• Spacetime is 3 + 1 dimensional.

• The finiteness of the gravitational and matter cou-plings is guaranteed by an asymptotically safe fixedpoint.

• The transition from the classical gravity regime tothe asymptotically safe regime happens close to thePlanck scale.

The description of quantum gravity is minimal in thesense that it does not introduce new concepts nor newfields in the gravitational sector. The entire system in-cluding gravity is described in the framework of quantumfield theory.

These assumptions lead us to boundary conditions forthe matter couplings at the Planck scale. Our results alsohold if similar boundary conditions are obtained from dif-ferent assumptions. For example, scale invariance abovethe Planck scale in the scalar sector and the demand thatall gauge couplings remain perturbative until the Planckscale, lead to similar boundary conditions.

For a theory to contain a DM candidate, a new fieldhas to be present which

• is stable or long-lived on cosmic time scales.

• has a portal interaction with the SM fields in orderto be produced in the early Universe.

Among the simplest portals to the dark sector is theHiggs field. The renormalizable interaction λpH

†H S S∗

is unavoidable once a new scalar field is present in thetheory and it can communicate between the SM and thedark sector. The interaction strength is controlled by theportal coupling λp. This portal coupling is forced to beroughly zero at the Planck scale by the quantum gravitycontributions [46, 47].

In Ref. [46] it has been argued that this portal setupis not viable if there are only scalars in the dark sector.The reason is that the interaction parameter is multi-plicatively renormalized and thus not generated once setto zero. We explore a dark sector where also other inter-actions are present that can generate the portal coupling.What can those interactions be?

One possibility is a Yukawa induced portal. Here a newfermion with interactions to the DM scalar ysψψS andthe Higgs boson yhψψH can generate the portal couplingat one loop. However, this interaction breaks the Z2

symmetry, which is essential for the stability of the scalarfield S. Consequently, this scenario does not lead to along-lived field S.

The other possibility is the gauge induced portal. Weargued that the portal coupling has to be induced by aninteraction that preserves the stabilizing Z2 symmetry.This can be the case if a new gauge force is present innature. The new gauge boson has to couple to the DMscalar field and at the same time couple to the Higgsscalar. This can be realized in two ways, either througha quantum number assignment to the new gauge bo-son, which contains hypercharge, or kinetic mixing tothe U(1)Y gauge boson.

The new gauge symmetry can remain unbroken if thegauge boson has a Stueckelberg type mass [48], or bespontaneously broken at a higher scale. In either case,by an appropriate choice of quantum numbers, a stablefield naturally arises in the theory. This field can eitherbe:

• a scalar field S, with an induced Higgs portal cou-pling. We perform the RG analysis in the casewhere the new U(1) symmetry is the B-L symme-try. This gauge symmetry is the simplest way tomake the additional heavy fermions decay in ordernot to be overproduced. Those fermions are a nec-essary ingredient to guarantee the vacuum stabilityof the scalar field S. We find an upper bound onthe scalar portal coupling λp of the order of 10−1

at the DM scale. The relic density constraint, inthis case, can only be satisfied if the DM mass isclose to the Higgs resonance, which implies thatMDM ≈ mh/2.

• a new fermion field, which couples to the SMthrough the gauge boson portal (Z ′) of the newgauge symmetry. Since the value of the gauge cou-pling at the DM scale is bounded from above due

3

to the high-scale boundary condition, we can derivean upper bound on the DM mass. We find the up-per bound on the DM mass to be MDM < 50 TeVin the U(1)X gauge extension of the SM. Note thatthe relic density requirement in this maximal massscenario is only satisfied if the annihilation crosssection is resonantly enhanced.

If we additionally require that all scalar quartic cou-plings remain positive and no vacuum instabilities arise,we are also forced to introduce heavy fermions in thescalar DM model. We thus argue that both DM sce-narios are realizations of the same model with differenthierarchies. In the first case, the lightest dark sector par-ticle is a light scalar, without a vacuum expectation value(vev), and in the second case a light fermion, while theheavier scalar can also get a vev.

In summary, we analyze the RG flow in asymptoti-cally safe quantum field theories with a symmetry struc-ture that permits long-lived relics. We find surprisinglylow upper bounds on the masses of those fields. Thepredicted masses are well within the reach of current ornear-future indirect and direct DM searches, even thoughin the extremely resonant scenarios a detection is morechallenging [49, 50].

III. QUANTUM GRAVITY CONTRIBUTIONSTO THE BETA FUNCTIONS

Graviton fluctuations alter the running of all mattercouplings. Below the Planck mass, they are strongly sup-pressed and thus negligible. Beyond the Planck scale, thecontributions become strong and lead to a significantlydifferent running of the couplings compared to the SM.Depending on the sign of the contributions they couldeither prevent or trigger Landau poles, and prevent orassist asymptotic freedom. For example, the U(1)-gaugecoupling runs into a Landau pole without graviton fluc-tuations beyond the Planck scale. Studies suggest thatgraviton fluctuations are strong enough to prevent thatLandau pole [42, 51, 52].

Gravity couples universally to all matter fields. Thismeans that quantum gravity contributes to the runningof all gauge couplings with the same strength, indepen-dent of the gauge group. The same holds for all Yukawacouplings and quartic scalar couplings. This allows usdiscussing general features that such couplings have inthe regime beyond the Planck scale. In the followingsubsections, we will detail this for each coupling sepa-rately.

The suppression of the graviton fluctuations below thePlanck scale MPl is described by threshold functions.They are roughly given by µ2/(M2

Pl + G∗µ2), where µ is

the RG scale and G∗ the dimensionless fixed-point valueof the Newton coupling. In this work, we model the sup-pression with a Heaviside function for simplicity, i.e., wemodel the threshold function as Θ(µ2 −M2

Pl). The error

introduced by this approximation is negligible comparedto the general uncertainty of the graviton contributions.This approximation allows us to use the standard pertur-bative beta functions without gravity below the Planckscale, while the boundary conditions for the matter cou-plings at the Planck scale are determined with gravity.

The quantum gravity contributions are obtained with anon-perturbative computation via the functional renor-malization group [53], see also [54, 55]. These contri-butions depend on all gravitational couplings, includingthe Newton coupling G, the cosmological constant Λ aswell as higher derivative couplings. Examples for thehigher derivative couplings are the couplings associatedwith R2 and R2

µν . In the present work, we treat thesecontributions as just a number fi. In the regime beyondthe Planck scale, these indeed become constant. We donot need the dependence on the gravity couplings, sincewe are only interested in the boundary conditions at thePlanck scale. We extract the values of these numbersfrom previous computations as detailed in the next sec-tions. There is theoretical uncertainty in the numericalvalues of the fi and we vary them to estimate the uncer-tainty of our predictions.

Non-perturbative quantum gravity computations arescheme dependent and often performed in an Einstein-Hilbert truncation. Nevertheless, the fi contain physicalinformation once a particular scheme is fixed, and we canuse them to determine the physical boundary conditionsfor a given truncation. See Sec. V, for further discussionof the uncertainties.

The kind of boundary condition at the Planck scaledepends on whether a given coupling is

• UV attractive (relevant) at a fixed point,

• UV repulsive (irrelevant) at a fixed point.

For a UV attractive direction, all trajectories in the vicin-ity of the fixed point lead in the UV direction towards it.For a UV repulsive direction, only one trajectory leadsto the fixed point. Consequently, an attractive direc-tion has a range of coupling values that lead to the fixedpoint, while a repulsive direction has only one. Notably,UV repulsive directions have a higher predictive power.The linearized flow equations around the fixed point de-termine whether a direction is attractive or repulsive.More precisely, positive eigenvalues of the stability ma-trix (Bij = −∂giβgj ) belong to UV attractive directions,while negative eigenvalues belong to UV repulsive direc-tions.

A. Quartic scalar coupling

We discus the graviton contributions to a quartic scalarself coupling with a Lagrangian of the type

L ∼ |Dµφ|2 +m2φ|φ|2 + λ|φ|4 . (1)

4

The following conclusions hold independent of whetherφ is a real or complex scalar field, whether it has gaugeinteractions or not. Gravity contributions to this systemwere computed, e.g., in [46, 47, 56–59].

We split the beta function in a part that stems frommatter fluctuations βλ,matter and in a part that stemsfrom the graviton fluctuations fλ:

βλ = βλ,matter + fλλ . (2)

In [47], the contribution fλ was computed in an Einstein-Hilbert like truncation:

fλ =1

8πG

(20

(1− 2Λ)2+

1

(1− Λ/2)2

)+

1

8π

Gm4φ

λ

(80

(1− 2Λ)3+

1

(1− Λ/2)3

), (3)

where G = Gµ2, Λ = Λ/µ2, and mφ = mφ/µ are thedimensionless versions of the Newton coupling, cosmo-logical constant and scalar mass, respectively, and µ isthe RG scale. Importantly, the gravitational contribu-tion allows for a Gaußian fixed point λ∗ = m∗φ = 0,which is also a fixed point of βλ,matter, assuming thatthe gauge and Yukawa couplings are vanishing. Indeedthe Gaußian fixed point was found to be the only fixedpoint of the system [46, 47]. The fixed point becomesalmost Gaußian, if the gauge and Yukawa couplings arenot vanishing, typically with a small negative value forthe quartic coupling, λ∗ ≈ 0.

The predictive quality of the quartic scalar coupling[39] stems from the fact that it is UV repulsive at this(almost) Gaußian fixed point [46, 47]. This entails thatonly one trajectory leads to the fixed point and the cou-pling value is fully determined at the Planck scale. Thisleads to the prediction

λ(MPl) ≈ 0 . (4)

The same boundary condition is, for example, also ob-tained in the ’flatland scenario’ [60, 61].

B. Gauge coupling

We now discuss the graviton contribution to the run-ning of the gauge coupling, which was computed, e.g.,in [42, 51, 52, 62–64]. We again split the beta functionin the standard matter part βg,matter and into a gravitypart fgg:

βg = βg,matter − fgg . (5)

The contribution fg does not depend on the type of gaugesymmetry. In Ref. [64] it was computed with the result

fg =G

16π

(8

1− 2Λ− 4

(1− 2Λ)2

). (6)

Again, G = Gµ2 and Λ = Λ/µ2 are the dimensionlessversions of the Newton coupling and cosmological con-stant. Importantly, fg is positive for all relevant valuesof the gravity couplings, see [64], which makes the contri-bution to the beta function negative. Typical values of fgare of the order O(10−2) [41] and here we use fg ≤ 0.04.

Gravity supports asymptotic freedom for non-Abeliangauge theories and the gauge couplings flow into theGaußian fixed point g∗ = 0 [63, 64]. These directions ofthe Gaußian fixed point are relevant and thus the gaugecouplings approach it slowly beyond the Planck scale.No prediction can be made for their values at the Planckscale.

For Abelian gauge theories and asymptotically non-free non-Abelian gauge theories, this negative contribu-tion can prevent the Landau pole of the gauge coupling[42, 62]. To be more precise, if the graviton contributionsare strong enough compared to the strength of the gaugecoupling, then the Landau pole is avoided and the gaugecoupling becomes either asymptotically free or safe. Fora given gravity contribution fg this results in an upperbound for the gauge coupling at the Planck scale. Forexample if we look at the beta function of the gauge cou-pling at one loop

βg = βg,1-loop g3 − fgg , (7)

then the upper bound for the gauge coupling at thePlanck scale is given by

g(MPl) ≤

√fg

βg,1-loop. (8)

C. Yukawa coupling

The story for Yukawa couplings is similar to theAbelian gauge coupling. The gravitational contributionneeds to be negative to be phenomenologically viable.This has been extensively discussed in Refs. [57, 58, 65–67]. The negative contribution leads to a UV attractiveGaußian fixed point and a UV repulsive interacting fixedpoint. In combination, this yields an upper bound forthe Yukawa couplings at the Planck scale.

We split the beta function into its contributions andlook only at the one-loop contribution in the matter sec-tor

βy = βy,1-loop-yukaway3 − βy,1-loop-gaugey − fyy , (9)

where βy,1-loop-gauge is positive and depends on the gaugecouplings. Then the upper bound at the Planck scale isgiven by

y(MPl) ≤

√fy + βy,1-loop-gaugeβy,1-loop-yukawa

. (10)

Note again, that βy,1-loop-gauge depends on the gauge cou-plings, which might go to zero quickly. Hence, the truebound on the Yukawa coupling might be even tighter.

5

D. Summary of predictivity

In summary, the asymptotic safety scenario for quan-tum gravity leads to the boundary conditions at thePlanck scale displayed in (4), (8) and (10). There is noboundary condition for non-Abelian gauge couplings, as-suming that they are asymptotically free by themselves.Below the Planck scale, the contributions from gravitonfluctuations are strongly suppressed and we compute therunning of the couplings with standard perturbative betafunctions.

The existence of boundary conditions at the Planckscale raises the question of the compatibility of the SMcouplings at the Planck scale with their known values atthe electroweak scale. The hypercharge and the Yukawacouplings would not be compatible if the values for fgand fy in (8) and (10) were too small. This results inlower limits fg ≥ 9.8 · 10−3and fy ≥ 10−4, assuming onlySM matter content [41]. These values are in agreementwith non-perturbative computations, see, e.g., (6).

The critical coupling is the quartic Higgs coupling λh.Fixing the Higgs mass to its observed value and usingthe SM RG running, one obtains a prediction for thequartic Higgs coupling which is slightly negative at thePlanck scale λh(MPl) = −0.0143 for a top pole massof mt = 173 GeV [68]. On the other hand, if we fixλh(MPl) ≈ 0 and use the SM RG running down to theelectroweak scale, the Higgs mass is mh ≈ 130 GeV usingtwo-loop RG equations and mh ≈ 136 GeV with one-loop RG equations, compared to the experimental valueof mh = 125 GeV. It has to be emphasized, that thiscomputation still has some uncertainty due to the uncer-tainty of the top mass, and also extensions of the SM doinfluence the value of the Higgs mass, see, e.g., [69]. In-deed, in the latest measurements the top pole mass wasdetermined with mt = 171± 1 GeV [70, 71], which hintstowards a smaller tension between the UV and the IRvalue of the quartic Higgs coupling.

In order to investigate the constraints for SM exten-sions with DM, we demand that the Higgs mass pre-diction should not be significantly worse than in theSM alone. That means that using one-loop RG equa-tions, the resulting Higgs mass should lie in the intervalmh = (125± 10) GeV.

IV. DARK MATTER MODELS

For a successful DM model, we need to generate portalinteractions of the dark sector with the SM and preserveDM stability. The basic realization is an interaction thatrespects a Z2 symmetry. The simplest such interactionis provided by an Abelian gauge field. Furthermore, theSM extension has to show stable RG trajectories and notfeature low lying Landau poles or vacuum instabilities.Thus, we are naturally led to an extension that mimicsthe SM particle content in the sense that it is a gauge-Yukawa theory.

The new symmetry, let us call it U(1)X , radiativelygenerates the scalar portal below the Planck scale. Itis important to include the kinetic mixing between thehypercharge U(1)Y group and the dark U(1)X group.The kinetic mixing guarantees that the scalar portal isgenerated even if the Higgs is not charged under the newsymmetry.

The Lagrangian of the dark sector reads

LD ∼ Lscalar + Lfermion + Lgauge (11)

∼ 1

2DµSD

µS∗ + λpH†HSS∗ + λS(SS∗)2 +

m2S

2SS∗

+ iψD/ψ +Mψψψ + yψ Sψψc + h.c.

+1

4FXµνF

µνX +

ε

2FYµνF

µνX +

M2Z′

2

(Z ′µ − ∂µζ

)2.

Note that given a transformation property of ζ → ζ + δfor a gauge transformation Z ′µ → Z ′µ + ∂µδ, the massterm for the new gauge boson is gauge invariant [72].The gauge quantum numbers of the fermion and scalarfields are nψ and nS = 2nψ respectively. The fermionsare vectorlike, i.e., the left- and right-handed componentsof the fields carry the same quantum numbers such thatthe model is anomaly free. We rotate the U(1) sector inorder to eliminate the mixing term ε FYµνF

µνX , see App. A

for details. The system is then described by the mix-ing gauge coupling gε and the dark gauge coupling gD.The dark gauge boson covariant derivative acting on thefermion fields reads

Dµ = ∂µ + i (gDnψ + gε Yf )Z ′µ , (12)

where nψ is the dark fermion gauge charge and Yf thehypercharge of a SM fermion. It is convenient to defineαD ≡ (nψgD)2/4π and αε ≡ (Yfgε)

2/4π.This system has two relevant DM phases depending on

the mass hierarchy of the involved fields.

A. Scalar dark matter

In the case that MS Mψ ≈ MZ′ and 〈S〉 = 0, thelightest particle in the spectrum is the complex scalarfield S, as discussed in Ref. [73]. Since the scalar fielddoes not develop a vev at the low energy scale, we areleft with the SM extended by a singlet scalar field andan emergent Z4 symmetry (S → −S and ψ → iψ), thatforbids its decay. On the other hand, in this mass hier-archy, the heavy-fermion field has to decay in order notto be overproduced. The simplest way to do so is toidentify the gauge symmetry of the dark sector with theB-L symmetry, which is anomaly free in the SM withthree right-handed neutrinos. Now the interaction withthe Higgs and lepton fields yDHLψR and yDHLψ

cL is al-

lowed, SM leptons are part of the Z4 symmetric subsector(L→ iL) and given that nψ = 1 and the ψ fermions candecay.

However, the fermion interactions induce a decay forthe DM scalar by a dimension six operator, the final

6

states of the decay are light neutrinos. The lifetime con-straints for DM imply that the fermion mass has to beabove Mψ > yD 1014 GeV, where yD is the coupling ofthe fermion decay operator. Decay channels involvingthe Z ′ are forbidden by B-L symmetry. Since the factthat the B-L symmetry is unbroken is directly linked toDM stability in this scenario, it implies that SM neutri-nos are pure Dirac particles. In reverse conclusion, thisimplies that if lepton number violating neutrinoless dou-ble beta decay is experimentally confirmed, this scenariowould be ruled out.

As discussed in the previous section, asymptotic safetypredicts vanishing quartic scalar couplings at the Planckscale

λp(MPl) = λS(MPl) ≈ 0 . (13)

For the U(1) gauge couplings it predicts an upper bound

gD(MPl) ≤

√fg

βgD,1-loop,

gε(MPl) ≤

√fg

βgε,1-loop. (14)

The one-loop beta functions βgD,1-loop and βgε,1-loop aredisplayed in App. B. This leads to Fig. 1, where wedisplay the favored (green) and disfavored (red) cou-pling values at the Planck scale for fg = 0.04. In thegreen region, the couplings gD and gε become asymptot-ically free, while in the red region they run into a Lan-dau pole. The system has three interacting fixed pointsat (g∗D, g

∗ε ) = (0.86,−0.67) and (g∗D, g

∗ε ) = (0,±0.69),

where the couplings become asymptotically safe. How-ever, these fixed points depend on the hypercharge cou-pling g, and for g → 0 they turn into a line of fixedpoints.

In the scalar DM phase, the system shows the followingfeatures:

• The gauge interaction induces the scalar portal cou-pling between the DM scalar and the Higgs field.

• The fermionic contributions ensure the vacuum sta-bility of the scalar field S.

• The RG evolution of the portal coupling allowsplacing an upper bound on its value at the lowscale.

As discussed in Sec. III D, we require the predicted Higgsmass to lie within 10 GeV around the experimentallymeasured value.

In Fig. 2 we display an example of an RG evolutionof the marginal couplings, where all boundary conditionsat the Planck scale are fulfilled and also the Higgs massis correct. The Higgs potential is metastable, but thelifetime of the electroweak vacuum is longer than in theSM due to the positive contributions of the new gaugeinteractions to the running of the quartic Higgs coupling.

-

-

ϵ

Figure 1. Favored (green) and disfavored (red) and couplingvalues of gD and gε at the Planck scale in the B-L model.The arrows indicate the RG flow towards the UV beyond thePlanck scale, i.e., the favored coupling values flow toward theasymptotically free fixed point, while the disfavored couplingsrun towards a Landau pole. The asymptotically safe fixedpoints are marked with blue dots.

By scanning the parameter space of gD and gε, we findupper bounds for the portal coupling as a function of fg.We fitted the values for the maximal portal coupling andthe corresponding minimal Higgs mass

|λp(TeV)| . 2.1 fg + 88 f2g , (15)

mh,min ≈ (136− 119 fg + 2.6 · 104f2g ) GeV . (16)

These bounds are derived by combining the two predic-tions from quantum gravity: i) the quartic couplings atthe Planck scale are approximately vanishing λp(MPl) =λs(MPl) ≈ 0; ii) the U(1)/kinetic mixing couplings gDand gε, which generate the portal coupling, are limitedby an upper bound at the Planck scale. A third, impor-tant constraint is the vacuum stability of the dark scalarS. Given such boundary conditions, the RG evolutionwithin this model does not permit larger values of theportal coupling.

As expected from (14), the portal coupling dependsroughly quadratically on the graviton contribution fg.The Higgs mass for fg = 0 is precisely the result for SMrunning at one loop. This shifts with two-loop runningto 130 GeV at a top pole mass of mt = 173 GeV andconsequently we expect (16) to be globally shifted byabout 6 GeV at two-loop order.

The fitted expressions (16) illustrate an interestingmechanism in this system: large values of the portal cou-pling λp can only be reached in exchange for a small Higgsmass. This can be understood from the following consid-eration. A larger portal coupling can be achieved with a

7

-

-

[]

ϵ

|λ|

λ

|λ|

-

-

-

-

[]

Figure 2. An example of the running couplings in the B-L model with scalar DM. In this example we set gD(MPl) = 0.1 andobtain λp(TeV) = −0.0025 for the portal coupling. Left: gauge and top-Yukawa couplings. Right: quartic scalar couplings.

larger value of either gD or gε. The running of λh, andthus the resulting Higgs mass, does not directly dependon gD, but a large value of gD triggers a vacuum instabil-ity in the dark scalar S. This constraint is tighter thanthe quantum gravity constraint for fg = 0.04 and forbidstoo large values of gD. Hence, one needs to increase gεto enhance the portal coupling without triggering a vac-uum instability. However, gε affects the resulting Higgsmass at leading order and this, in summary, links a largeportal coupling with a small Higgs mass.

As explained before, we restrict the Higgs mass to theinterval mh = (125± 10) GeV. In that case we find

|λp(TeV)| ≤ 0.15 . (17)

If we restrict the Higgs mass to an even tighter intervalmh = (125 ± 1) GeV, we find a correspondingly tighterbound on the portal coupling, |λp| ≤ 0.1.

In Fig.3, we show that experiments exclude DM massesaway from the Higgs resonance up to ∼ 2 TeV. In order toreach masses above 2 TeV, a portal coupling |λp| ≥ 0.45is needed, which in turn requires fg ≥ 0.06 and comes atthe cost of a Higgs mass of mh = 50 GeV. Such a smallHiggs value is too far from its measured value and hencewe either need to add new particles to change the RGflow or violate the boundary conditions at the Planckscale. In consequence, masses above 2 TeV are indeednot compatible with our assumptions, independent of thevalue of fg We emphasize that in the scalar phase of ourDM model, we obtain a very stringent prediction for theDM parameters, as we will discuss in more detail in thecoming section.

Relic density

The only important DM interaction in the IR is theHiggs portal interaction. Thus, the upper bound onthe portal coupling leads to a prediction for the DMmass. Computing the s-channel diagrams mediated bythe Higgs boson provides the required interaction crosssection [74]

(σvrel.) =8λ2pv

2h

gS√s

Γh(√s)

(m2h − s)2 + Γh(mh)2m2

h

, (18)

where gS is the number of scalar degrees of freedom,mh, vh the Higgs boson mass and vev and Γh(

√s) the

momentum dependent Higgs decay width.We apply the boundary layer method [75] to obtain

an asymptotic solution for the Boltzmann equation anddetermine the relic density. Note that since we are inter-ested in values close to the Higgs resonance, the full ther-mal average of the cross sections has to be performed [76]

〈σvrel.〉 =

∫ ∞4M2

S

(σvrel.) s√s− 4M2

S K1(√s/T )

16T M4S K

22 (MS/T )

ds . (19)

Here, K1 and K2 are modified Bessel functions of thefirst and second kind and M2

S = m2S + λpv

2h is the DM

mass.In Fig. 3, we show the values of the portal coupling

as a function of the DM mass for which the cosmologi-cal relic density constraint is satisfied. The upper boundfrom quantum gravity is indicated by the horizontal line.As displayed, the relic density constraint is only satisfiedif the DM mass is in the vicinity of the Higgs resonance45 GeV< MDM < 500 GeV. In that case, the annihilation

8

-

-

-

-

[]

λ

Ω>

λ

Figure 3. The values of portal coupling as a function ofDM mass at which the correct relic abundance is reproduced(blue line), below that line there is too much DM. Superposedare constraints from the XENON1T experiment (green line)and the FermiLAT dwarf galaxy observations (red). The greyshaded region of the parameter space is disfavored by thequantum gravity boundary conditions. The inset on the topright shows a zoom out from the resonant region to the fullportal coupling parameter space.

is resonantly enhanced and, despite the small coupling,enough DM annihilates away to reproduce its cosmolog-ical abundance. Current experimental constraints fromXENON1T [77] and the FermiLAT [78] experiment re-strict the allowed parameter space even further aroundthe Higgs resonance, leaving the viable DM mass in anarrow range 56 GeV< MDM < 63 GeV. We find that inthe scalar DM phase the model is highly predictive.

The FermiLAT bounds are derived from the limits onthe annihilation cross section to b-quarks, since this is thedominant channel in the considered mass range. For theXENON1T limits, we used the DM-nucleon cross sectiongiven by

σSI =λ2pf

2Nm

2Nµ

2

πm4hM

2S

, (20)

where µ is the reduced mass of the DM-nucleon systemand fN the effective Higgs-nucleon coupling, with thebest current value of fN ≈ 0.308± 0.018 [79].

B. Fermionic dark matter

In the case that Mψ MS and MZ′ MS , the light-est stable particle in the dark sector is the new fermion.For non-zero values of the quantum number nψ, the

-

-

ψ

ϵ

Figure 4. Favored (green) and disfavored (red) and couplingvalues of nψ gD and gε at the Planck scale in the U(1)X model.The arrows indicate the RG flow towards the UV beyond thePlanck scale, i.e., the favored coupling values flow toward theasymptotically free fixed point, while the disfavored couplingsrun towards a Landau pole. The asymptotically safe fixedpoints are marked with blue dots.

coupling to the lepton doublet through the Higgs field(LHψ) is forbidden and the new fermion does not de-cay to SM particles. The stability is thus accidental andrelated to the quantum number choice of the fermion.The mass of the gauge boson of the dark sector forcehas a contribution from the Stueckelberg term in (11).Furthermore, the scalar S can get a vev, in which casethe gauge boson has two mass contributions. Both thescalar and vector fields are unstable due to the presenceof Yukawa and gauge interaction in the sector. As wediscuss shortly, the heavy scalar does not play a role forDM phenomenology in this mass hierarchy.

The requirement of an asymptotically safe theory in-cluding quantum gravity limits the values of the newgauge coupling and the kinetic mixing. As shown in (14)this upper bound depends on the one-loop coefficient ofthe gauge beta function, which in turn depends on thequantum number of the fermion. This is a crucial in-gredient for the predictivity of the model in this masshierarchy: If the fermion has a small quantum number,then the gauge coupling can have a large value at thePlanck scale. On the other hand, a large quantum num-ber restricts the gauge coupling to be small at the Planckscale. For the relic density, only the combination of thequantum number with the gauge coupling enters and thismechanism keeps this roughly constant.

In Fig. 4, we show the range for the couplings gDand gε favored by asymptotically safe quantum grav-ity for fg = 0.04. In the green region, the couplingsgD and gε become asymptotically free, while in the red

9

region they run into a Landau pole. This system hasthree interacting fixed points at (g∗D, g

∗ε ) = (1.26, 0) and

(g∗D, g∗ε ) = (0,±0.69). Again, these fixed points depend

on the hypercharge coupling g, and for g → 0 they turninto a line of fixed points. If we consider each couplingseparately, we obtain the bounds

nψ gD(MPl) ≤ 1.26 ,

|gε(MPl)| ≤ 0.69 . (21)

The lowest relic density, and consequently the largestmass is, however, obtained with the largest product ofthe two couplings as detailed in the next section. Conse-quently, this translates into the following upper boundson the interaction parameters

nψgD(MPl)gε(MPl) ≤ 0.43 . (22)

Since the gauge boson provides the link between the DMand the SM sector, those couplings are the most impor-tant ones for our considerations. At low energy scales, therelatively mild RG running of those couplings leads to thefollowing maximally attainable values nψgD(TeV) ≤ 0.51and gε(TeV) ≤ 0.16 or equivalently

αD(TeV) ≡ (nψgD(TeV))2

4π≤ 0.021 ,

αε(TeV) ≡ (Yfgε(TeV))2

4π≤ 2 · 10−3 . (23)

In this scenario the Higgs mass is only affected at thepercent level and does not provide additional constraintson the model parameters.

Relic density

If MZ′ > Mψ, then the relic density is set by an s-channel process where the new gauge boson is exchanged.The coupling to the SM particles is controlled by thekinetic mixing between the dark sector gauge boson andthe hypercharge gauge boson. The cross section for theannihilation into a pair of SM fermions is given by

(σvrel.) =4παDαε

3s

√s−4m2

f

M2ψ

(2m2

f + s)(

2M2ψ + s

)(M2

Z′ − s)2 + Γ2XM

2Z′

,

(24)

For the total cross section, we sum over all kinematicallyaccessible final states. As in the scalar DM case, thethermal average is performed following [76], since we aredealing with processes close to the resonance.

An additional annihilation channel is possible, if thedark sector scalar gets a vev and a mixing with the Higgsboson is induced

(σvrel.) =y2ψ sin2(θ)

(s− 4M2

χ

)Γh(√s)

√s(

(M2S − s)

2+ Γ2

SM2S

) . (25)

103 104 10510-3

10-2

10-1

1

10

102

103

[]

Ω/Ω

<

=

=

=

Figure 5. The relic density for different fermionic DM massesgiven three mediator mass choices assuming maximal cou-plings that are still compatible with asymptotically safe quan-tum gravity. The maximal DM mass at which DM is notoverproduced is 50 TeV, in maximal resonance with a 100 TeVforce mediator. The gauge couplings are such that their prod-uct maximizes the quantum-gravity bound, see (23).

However, this cross section is velocity suppressed, asit is a p-wave process. Additionally, in the mass hi-erarchy regime MS mh, given the quantum gravitybound on the portal coupling, the mixing angle sin(θ) =λpvhvS/M

2S ≈ λpvh/MS is bound to be below O(10−4).

The Yukawa coupling, as discussed in Sec. III C, is alsobounded by the quantum gravity boundary condition tobe yψ . O(1). We therefore assume, that even if thedark scalar is of similar mass as the dark gauge boson,the cross section of the Yukawa channel is subdominant.

If Mψ > MZ′ , then the dominant process is a t-channelinteraction leading to ψ + ψ → Z ′µ + Z ′µ and the gaugebosons Z ′µ decay into SM particles due to kinetic mixing.The dominant s-wave contribution to the cross section isgiven by

〈σvrel.〉 ≈πα2

D

M2ψ

(1− M2

Z′

M2ψ

)3/2(1− M2

Z′

2M2ψ

)−2. (26)

Since αε can be very small in this scenario, we used theglobal maximum, as a limit for the dark gauge couplingαD < 0.03. Note that since αD is restricted to rela-tively small coupling values, the Sommerfeld enhance-ment, which is possible in this regime, if MZ′ Mψ, isonly marginal during the freeze-out, but might becomerelevant at low velocities today.

In Fig.5, the relic abundance is shown as a function ofthe mass of the fermionic DM candidate ψ. In the heavymediator regime, i.e., MZ′ > Mψ, the measured DM relic

10

density can only be obtained close to the resonant regime.Analogously to Refs. [48, 80–82], an upper bound can beobtained on the DM mass in this case, by assuming maxi-mal on-resonance annihilation. Our upper bound is morerobust than previously assumed as the DM gauge chargeenters the effective coupling αD and is, thus, constrainedby the requirement of asymptotic safety as well. In con-trast, to [48], where the upper bound was a function ofthe free DM gauge charge, in our case, the DM mass isgenerically bounded to be Mψ . 50 TeV.

One may ask the question of whether reducing the cou-pling value of αε, which leads to smaller gauge boson de-cay width, if one may reach a more extreme resonanceand, thus, a larger DM mass in this finely tuned regime.However, due to thermal effects on the velocity averagedcross section a further reduction in the decay width doesnot compensate for the scaling of the cross section withαε. Thus, in this manner no larger DM masses can bereached.

The derived upper bound on the mass holds also in amixed scenario, where scalar and fermion fields are sta-ble. Assuming that part of the DM is made up of stablescalar particles S, as discussed in the previous section,less DM can be made of heavy fermions ψ. Since its relicdensity scales as Ωψ ∝ M2

ψ, the upper mass bound onlygets tighter in such a multi-component DM scenario.

In the case that MZ′ < Mψ, the upper mass bound iseven more severe and the maximal attainable DM massis Mψ < 2 TeV. For this scenario to be phenomenologi-cally viable, however, the coupling related to the kineticmixing parameter αε has to be very small leading to rela-tively long life-times for the Z ′µ, see for example Ref. [83].Since the annihilation process through the vector medi-ator is an s-wave process, severe bounds from the CMBrule out DM masses below O(10) GeV [84] and a com-bined analysis of indirect detection experiments leads toO(20) GeV [85].

Finally, there is one configuration, which can also leadto a very light (sub-GeV) DM scenario. This is possible ifthe scalar S decays through mixing with the Higgs bosonand serves as the mediator to the SM. This scenario is un-constrained by CMB observations since the annihilationproceeds through a p-wave process and is strongly sup-pressed at late times. The mass hierarchy MS > Mψ isexcluded in the light DM scenario [86]. However, in theopposite regime MS < Mψ DM as light as O(10) MeVcan be thermally produced.

C. Experimental Searches

In this section, we briefly summarize the viable DMscenarios in the gauge-Yukawa dark sector embedded inasymptotically safe quantum gravity and discuss theirexperimental accessibility.

1. Scalar DM coupled via the Higgs portal in theresonant configuration, with MDM ≈ mh/2. The

portal coupling in this regime can be as small asλp ≈ 10−4, however, even with such small couplingsthe spin-independent nucleon cross section is of theorder of σSI ≈ 5 · 10−49 cm2. Despite being small,this cross section is above the neutrino floor and,thus, testable by large volume liquid noble gas de-tectors, such as DARWIN [87]. On the other hand,searches for the annihilation signal in space will beable to probe this parameter region as well once animprovement of about two orders of magnitude insensitivity takes place. Intriguingly, there are as-trophysical observations, which might be explainedby DM annihilation in that mass range [50, 88, 89].Given the branching ratios of the Higgs boson, thisscenario predicts a gamma line with Eγ ≈ 60 GeV,corresponding to an annihilation cross section of〈σvrel.〉γγ ≈ 10−29 cm3/s.

Also searches for antiparticles in cosmic rays canprovide a confirmation of this scenario. A cru-cial observable is the ratio of anti-helium to anti-deuterons R3 =3He/d and R4 =4He/d. In this DMscenario, with the dominant annihilation mode be-ing DMDM → bb, those ratios are expected to beR3 ≈ 3× 10−2 and R4 ≈ 10−5, exceeding those ex-pected from astrophysical sources R3 ≈ 10−2 andR4 ≈ 10−8 , see Ref. [89] for a detailed discussion.Overall, the flux of heavier antiparticles from DMannihilation in this scenario is expected to be atleast an order of magnitude larger than the fluxfrom astrophysical sources and within reach of theAMS-02 experiment [90].

2. Fermion DM coupled via the Z ′ portal. Here, twomass hierarchy regimes can lead to distinctly differ-ent phenomenologies. The first is the light mediatorregime with MDM > MZ′ with allowed DM massesbetween O(10) GeV < MDM < 2 TeV. Here, due toa potentially large life-time of the mediator, theannihilation signal from Dwarf galaxies and theGalactic center can be significantly softened andchallenging to detect. However, searches that mea-sure the total energy injections, such as CMB obser-vations [91] or radio wave observations of the earlyUniverse [92], can explore this scenario efficiently.Since in this case, we do not have a prediction forthe coupling strength αε from the freeze-out condi-tion, the direct detection signal can potentially bevery small.

The second is the heavy mediator massregime, where the correct relic abundancecan only be reproduced close to the s-channel resonance, i.e., MDM ≈ 2MZ′ . Thespin independent cross section is given byσSI ≈ 1.8 · 10−38αD αε(TeV/MDM)2 cm2 ≈1.5 · 10−42(TeV/MDM)2 cm2. Thus, in the res-onant scenario XENON1T excludes DM massesbelow 2.5 TeV and the cross section remains abovethe neutrino floor up to a DM mass of 9 TeV.

11

However, in the heavy mediator mass regime DMmasses can be as large as MDM ∼ 50 TeV andthe most promising search strategy seems thesearch for the annihilation signals with futureexperiments, such as the Cherenkov TelescopeArray, CTA [93].

A further bound is provided by hidden U(1) gaugeboson searches at the LHC [94]. Here, the kinetic-

mixing coupling ε = −gε/√g2Y + g2ε is constrained

as a function of the mediator mass. For MZ′ ≤2.5 TeV (1 TeV) the bound is |gε| ≤ 0.22 (0.015),while there is no bound for larger MZ′ . However,for these mediator masses, we can choose gε smallenough and still reach the correct DM relic abun-dance. The same holds in the light-mediator regimewhere gε can be chosen very small. Hence, collidersbecome insensitive to this scenario. On the otherhand, observations of the sun can investigate partsof the parameter space with long-lived Z ′ [95].

3. Fermion DM coupled though the scalar-Higgs por-tal. In this scenario, masses of the order ofa few GeV are already excluded by direct de-tection searches, but the mass window betweenO(10) MeV < MDM < O(5) GeV remains open.The relic density can be set in this mass regimeif the scalar mediator mass is lower than the DMfermion mass [84]. Annihilation signals are stronglysuppressed in this scenario, and the best way toexplore its parameter space is direct searches withlower detection thresholds, see Refs. [96, 97].

V. DISCUSSION OF UNCERTAINTIES

Given our results, it is important to discuss the uncer-tainties and caveats of the approach.

Our most basic hypothesis is that we consider onlymodels that are asymptotically safe after the inclusionof quantum gravity. Quantum gravity is treated here asa fundamental non-perturbative QFT. In the case of adifferent embedding of the SM such as string theory, ourresults only hold if the asymptotically safe fixed pointserves as an attractor of the RG flows [98].

While there are many hints for the existence of theasymptotically safe fixed point, quantitative control overthe fixed point is not yet achieved. This is related tothe enormous amount of tensor structures in gravity andthe scheme dependence of graviton contributions. Hence,using a certain value for, e.g., the coefficient fg has to betaken with caution. Thus, we have used a rather largerange for fg, trying to account for the large uncertainty.We emphasize, however, that in the case of the scalar DMscenario, coupled to the SM through the Higgs portal, ourconclusions are essentially independent of the exact valueof fg.

In our approach quantum gravity provides Planck-scaleboundary conditions and thus it would be interesting to

study more general guiding principles, which can provideboundary conditions at high energies. For example, scaleinvariance or conformal symmetry could be such conceptsand questions such as the value of the Higgs mass [99]and the viability of SM extensions has been investigatedunder this assumption, see for example [100–103].

Additionally, to the discussion of the generality of ourapproach to estimating the effects of quantum gravity,we can also raise the question of how general our DMframework is. As argued in [104], a simplified DM modelcan be only a part of a UV complete sector, but efficientlycapture the relevant information for the DM productiondetection. However, in our approach, we go further andraise the question of what a dark sector can look likewith fields at a much lower scale than the Planck scale.In particular, this implies that there should be no Landaupoles between the low energy scale and the Planck scale,given that we consider an Abelian SM extension. Wefind that RG stability favors a gauge-Yukawa theory. Inthat sense, our dark sector construction is indeed rathergeneral.

A logical extension of this scenario would be the intro-duction of a DM candidate charged under a non-Abelianinteraction. This interaction could be either of a SMforce, see for example Refs. [13, 105] or a new non-Abelian interaction, see Refs. [106–108]. Relevant con-straints can also be obtained in these scenarios, in partic-ular, if the non-Abelian gauge coupling is not asymptot-ically free by itself. However, we defer the investigationof non-Abelian dark sectors embedded in asymptoticallysafe quantum gravity to future work.

VI. CONCLUSIONS

In this work, we have investigated the interplay of darkmatter and asymptotically safe quantum gravity. The as-sumption that quantum gravity and all matter couplingsare asymptotically safe or free leads to boundary condi-tions at the Planck scale. These boundary conditions,in turn, lead to the mass constraints of the dark mattercandidate.

We applied this formalism to two minimal dark matterscenarios. The requirement that the dark matter candi-date is stable or long-lived and has a portal couplingto the SM, as well as stable RG trajectories up to thePlanck scale naturally led us to a gauge-Yukawa theory.We introduced a new U(1)X gauge group, a scalar via theHiggs portal and dark vectorlike fermions. Depending onthe mass hierarchy, either the scalar or the fermion is thedark matter candidate.

For the scalar dark matter, we identified the new gaugegroup with B-L. The model is predictive because quan-tum gravity demands a vanishing portal coupling at thePlanck scale and sets an upper bound on the new gaugeinteractions. As a consequence, only small portal cou-plings are reachable in the IR. We find that the modelis highly predictive in this scenario. Due to the exper-

12

imental constraints of XENON1T and FermiLAT, theallowed mass range for the dark matter candidate is56 GeV< MDM < 63 GeV.

For fermionic dark matter, the predictive power of themodel relies on an interesting mechanism. The bound-ary conditions from quantum gravity on the new gaugecouplings depend on the quantum number of the darkfermion. However, also the production rate depends onthis number and, remarkably, these dependencies can-cel each other. This makes this model highly predictive.If the mediator gauge boson is heavier than the darkfermion, the mass bound is given by Mψ ≤ 50 TeV. Ifthe mediator gauge boson is lighter, then the bound iseven tighter, Mψ ≤ 2 TeV.

Acknowledgements We thank John Beacom, Christo-pher Cappiello, Astrid Eichhorn, Kevin Ingles, PavelFilevies Perez, Stuart Raby, Frank Saueressig, MasatoshiYamada and Bei Zhou for very helpful comments on themanuscript. This work is partially supported by the Dan-ish National Research Foundation grant DNRF:90. JSacknowledges support by the Alexander von Humboldtfoundation.

Appendix A: Kinetic mixing

An important ingredient for the scalar DM model is thekinetic mixing between the two U(1) gauge sectors. Thisallows us to generate the portal coupling λp without theHiggs boson being charged under the new gauge groupU(1)X . We present here the computational details andfollow closely the discussions in Refs. [109, 110].

The Lagrangian including kinetic mixing is given by

L ∼ 1

4FYµνF

µνY +

1

4FXµνF

µνX +

ε

2FYµνF

µνX . (A1)

The term FY FX can be eliminated by a rotation and arescaling of the gauge fields. The transformation

(A1µ

A2µ

)=

1√2

(1√1−ε −

1√1+ε

1√1−ε

1√1+ε

)(B1µ

B2µ

), (A2)

brings (A1) in diagonal shape. The price to pay is thatthe covariant derivative is now non-diagonal

Dµ = ∂µ + i(qY g11 + qXg21)Bµ1+ i(qY g12 + qXg22)Bµ2 , (A3)

where qY and qX are the charges under the respectivegauge group and the couplings gij are given by

1√2

(g1 00 g2

)( 1√1−ε −

1√1+ε

1√1−ε

1√1+ε

)=

(g11 g12g21 g22

). (A4)

The computation of the beta functions is most convenientin this basis. We obtain the beta functions for g11, g12,g22, and g22 from PyR@TE 2 [111, 112]. However, thesecouplings are not independent, which is visible in (A4).They fulfil the relation

g11 g22 = −g12 g21 . (A5)

For the physics, it is more convenient to parameterize thecouplings in terms of the three independent couplings gY ,gε, and gD. This is achieved by the rotation(

gY 0gε gD

)=

(g11 g12g21 g22

)OTR , (A6)

where

OR =1√

g222 + g221

(g22 −g21g21 g22

). (A7)

With this we arrive at the covariant derivative given in(12). This rotation also transforms the gauge field intotheir standard form(

BµZ ′µ

)= OR

(B1µ

B2µ

). (A8)

In order to obtain the beta functions for gY , gε, andgD we take a scale derivative of (A6). We plug in thecomputed beta functions of g11, g12, g22, and g22. Finally,(A6) together with (A5) allows us to express g11, g12,g22, and g22 in terms of gY , gε, and gD. This yields thebeta functions for gY , gε, and gD displayed in the nextappendix.

Appendix B: Beta functions

We used the package PyR@TE 2 [111, 112] for the derivation of the beta functions. In all considered models thebeta functions for the SM gauge couplings remain unchanged at one-loop order (up to the gravity contributions).They are given by

(4π)2βg = −fgg +41

6g3 , (4π)2βg2 = −fgg2 −

19

6g32 , (4π)2βg3 = −fgg3 − 7g33 , (B1)

where we introduced fi = (4π)2fi.

13

1. B-L model

The beta functions in the B-L model are given by

(4π)2βgD = −fggD + (12 +2

3Nf )g3D +

32

3g2Dgε +

41

6gDg

2ε , (B2)

(4π)2βgε = −fggε +32

3g2gD +

41

3g2gε + (12 +

2

3Nf )g2Dgε +

32

3gDg

2ε +

41

6g3ε , (B3)

(4π)2βλh = fλλh +3

8g4 +

3

4g2g22 +

3

4g2g2ε − 3g2λh +

9

8g42 +

3

4g22g

2ε

− 9g22λh +3

8g4ε − 3g2ελh + 24λ2h + λ2p − 6y4t + 12λhyt , (B4)

(4π)2βλs = fλλs + 96g4D − 48g2Dλs + 20λ2s + 2λ2p − 16Nfy4ψ + 8Nfy

2ψλs , (B5)

(4π)2βλp = fλλp −3

2g2λp + 12g2Dg

2ε − 24g2Dλp −

9

2g22λp −

3

2g2ελp + 12λhλp + 8λpλs + 4λ2p + 6λpy

2t + 4Nfy

2ψλp ,

(B6)

(4π)2βyt = −fyyt −17

12g2yt −

2

3g2Dyt −

5

3gDgεyt −

9

4g22yt − 8g23yt −

17

12g2ε yt +

9

2y3t , (B7)

(4π)2βyψ = −fyyψ + 6y3ψ − 6g2Dyψ . (B8)

Here, Nf refers to the degrees of freedom counted in Weyl fermions of the vectorlike fermion ψ.

2. U(1)X model

The beta functions in the U(1)X model are given by

(4π)2βgD = −fggD + (4n2ψ +1

3n2S)g3D +

41

6gDg

2ε , (B9)

(4π)2βgε = −fggε + (4n2ψ +1

3n2S)g2Dgε +

41

6g3ε +

41

3g2gε , (B10)

(4π)2βλh = fλλh +3

8g4 +

3

4g2g22 +

3

4g2g2ε − 3g2λh +

9

8g42 +

3

4g22g

2ε − 9g22λh +

3

8g4ε − 3g2ελh + 24λ2h − 6y4t + 12λhyt ,

(B11)

(4π)2βyt = −fyyt −17

12g2yt −

9

4g22yt − 8g23yt −

17

12g2ε yt +

9

2y3t . (B12)

The model can be extended with an additional Higgs portal scalar. The beta functions of λp and λS as well as theircontributions to βλh are then the same as in the B-L model. The contributions to the gauge couplings are displayedvia the quantum number nS .

[1] Y. Zeldovich, “Survey of Modern Cosmology”,Adv. Astron. Astrophys. 3 (1965) 241 [In-Spires:Zeldovich:1965gev].

[2] B.W. Lee, S. Weinberg, “Cosmological Lower Bound onHeavy Neutrino Masses”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 (1977) 165[InSpires:Lee:1977ua].

[3] G. Steigman, M.S. Turner, “Cosmological Con-straints on the Properties of Weakly Interacting Mas-sive Particles”, Nucl. Phys. B253 (1985) 375 [In-Spires:Steigman:1984ac].

[4] E.W. Kolb, M.S. Turner, “The Early Universe”, Front.Phys. 69 (1990) 1 [InSpires:Kolb:1990vq].

[5] G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, K. Griest, “Super-symmetric dark matter”, Phys. Rept. 267 (1995) 195[arXiv:hep-ph/9506380].

[6] G. Bertone, D. Hooper, J. Silk, “Particle dark matter:Evidence, candidates and constraints”, Phys. Rept. 405(2004) 279 [arXiv:hep-ph/0404175].

[7] G. Steigman, B. Dasgupta, J.F. Beacom, “Precise RelicWIMP Abundance and its Impact on Searches for DarkMatter Annihilation”, Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 023506[arXiv:1204.3622].

[8] G. Arcadi, M. Dutra, P. Ghosh, M. Lindner, Y.Mambrini, M. Pierre, S. Profumo, F.S. Queiroz,

14

“The waning of the WIMP? A review of models,searches, and constraints”, Eur. Phys. J. C78 (2018)203 [arXiv:1703.07364].

[9] L. Roszkowski, E.M. Sessolo, S. Trojanowski, “WIMPdark matter candidates and searches—current statusand future prospects”, Rept. Prog. Phys. 81 (2018)066201 [arXiv:1707.06277].

[10] M. Platscher, J. Smirnov, S. Meyer, M. Bartel-mann, “Long Range Effects in Gravity Theorieswith Vainshtein Screening”, JCAP 1812 (2018) 009[arXiv:1809.05318].

[11] Planck Collaboration, “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cos-mological parameters” [arXiv:1807.06209].

[12] K. Griest, M. Kamionkowski, “Unitarity Limits on theMass and Radius of Dark Matter Particles”, Phys. Rev.Lett. 64 (1989) 615 [InSpires:Griest:1989wd].

[13] J. Smirnov, J.F. Beacom, “TeV-Scale Thermal WIMPs:Unitarity and its Consequences”, Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 043029 [arXiv:1904.11503].

[14] S. Weinberg, “Ultraviolet Divergences in QuantumTheories of Gravitation” [InSpires:Weinberg:1980gg].

[15] M. Reuter, “Nonperturbative evolution equation forquantum gravity”, Phys. Rev. D57 (1996) 971[arXiv:hep-th/9605030].

[16] M. Reuter, F. Saueressig, “Renormalization group flowof quantum gravity in the Einstein-Hilbert truncation”,Phys. Rev. D65 (2001) 065016 [arXiv:hep-th/0110054].

[17] A. Codello, R. Percacci, C. Rahmede, “Investigatingthe Ultraviolet Properties of Gravity with a WilsonianRenormalization Group Equation”, Annals Phys. 324(2008) 414 [arXiv:0805.2909].

[18] J.A. Dietz, T.R. Morris, “Asymptotic safety inthe f(R) approximation”, JHEP 1301 (2012) 108[arXiv:1211.0955].

[19] D. Becker, M. Reuter, “En route to Background Inde-pendence: Broken split-symmetry, and how to restoreit with bi-metric average actions”, Annals Phys. 350(2014) 225 [arXiv:1404.4537].

[20] K. Falls, D.F. Litim, K. Nikolakopoulos, C. Rahmede,“Further evidence for asymptotic safety of quan-tum gravity”, Phys. Rev. D93 (2016) 104022[arXiv:1410.4815].

[21] M. Demmel, F. Saueressig, O. Zanusso, “A properfixed functional for four-dimensional Quantum EinsteinGravity”, JHEP 1508 (2015) 113 [arXiv:1504.07656].

[22] N. Christiansen, B. Knorr, J. Meibohm, J.M.Pawlowski, M. Reichert, “Local Quantum Gravity”,Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) 121501 [arXiv:1506.07016].

[23] H. Gies, B. Knorr, S. Lippoldt, “GeneralizedParametrization Dependence in Quantum Gravity”,Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) 084020 [arXiv:1507.08859].

[24] H. Gies, B. Knorr, S. Lippoldt, F. Saueressig, “Gravita-tional Two-Loop Counterterm Is Asymptotically Safe”,Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 211302 [arXiv:1601.01800].

[25] K. Falls, N. Ohta, “Renormalization Group Equationfor f(R) gravity on hyperbolic spaces”, Phys. Rev. D94(2016) 084005 [arXiv:1607.08460].

[26] J. Biemans, A. Platania, F. Saueressig, “Quan-tum gravity on foliated spacetimes: Asymptoticallysafe and sound”, Phys. Rev. D95 (2017) 086013[arXiv:1609.04813].

[27] T. Denz, J.M. Pawlowski, M. Reichert, “Towards appar-ent convergence in asymptotically safe quantum grav-ity”, Eur. Phys. J. C78 (2018) 336 [arXiv:1612.07315].

[28] N. Christiansen, K. Falls, J.M. Pawlowski, M. Re-ichert, “Curvature dependence of quantum gravity”,Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 046007 [arXiv:1711.09259].

[29] K.G. Falls, D.F. Litim, J. Schroder, “Aspects of asymp-totic safety for quantum gravity”, Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 126015 [arXiv:1810.08550].

[30] P. Dona, A. Eichhorn, R. Percacci, “Matter matters inasymptotically safe quantum gravity”, Phys. Rev. D89(2014) 084035 [arXiv:1311.2898].

[31] J. Meibohm, J.M. Pawlowski, M. Reichert, “Asymp-totic safety of gravity-matter systems”, Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 084035 [arXiv:1510.07018].

[32] J. Biemans, A. Platania, F. Saueressig, “Renormaliza-tion group fixed points of foliated gravity-matter sys-tems”, JHEP 1705 (2017) 093 [arXiv:1702.06539].

[33] A. Eichhorn, P. Labus, J.M. Pawlowski, M. Reichert,“Effective universality in quantum gravity”, SciPostPhys. 5 (2018) 031 [arXiv:1804.00012].

[34] N. Alkofer, F. Saueressig, “Asymptotically safe f(R)-gravity coupled to matter I: the polynomial case”, An-nals Phys. 396 (2018-09) 173 [arXiv:1802.00498].

[35] A. Bonanno, A. Platania, F. Saueressig, “Cosmologi-cal bounds on the field content of asymptotically safegravity–matter models”, Phys. Lett. B784 (2018) 229[arXiv:1803.02355].

[36] A. Eichhorn, S. Lippoldt, J.M. Pawlowski, M. Reichert,M. Schiffer, “How perturbative is quantum gravity?”,Phys. Lett. B792 (2019) 310 [arXiv:1810.02828].

[37] A. Eichhorn, S. Lippoldt, M. Schiffer, “Zooming in onfermions and quantum gravity”, Phys. Rev. D99 (2019)086002 [arXiv:1812.08782].

[38] B. Knorr, C. Ripken, F. Saueressig, “Form Factorsin Asymptotic Safety: conceptual ideas and computa-tional toolbox”, Class. Quant. Grav. 36 (2019) 234001[arXiv:1907.02903].

[39] M. Shaposhnikov, C. Wetterich, “Asymptotic safety ofgravity and the Higgs boson mass”, Phys. Lett. B683(2009) 196 [arXiv:0912.0208].

[40] A. Eichhorn, A. Held, “Top mass from asymptoticsafety”, Phys. Lett. B777 (2018) 217 [arXiv:1707.01107].

[41] A. Eichhorn, A. Held, “Mass difference for chargedquarks from asymptotically safe quantum gravity”,Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 151302 [arXiv:1803.04027].

[42] A. Eichhorn, F. Versteegen, “Upper bound on theAbelian gauge coupling from asymptotic safety”, JHEP1801 (2018) 030 [arXiv:1709.07252].

[43] A. Eichhorn, A. Held, C. Wetterich, “Quantum-gravitypredictions for the fine-structure constant”, Phys. Lett.B782 (2018) 198 [arXiv:1711.02949].

[44] A. Eichhorn, “An asymptotically safe guide to quantumgravity and matter”, Front. Astron. Space Sci. 5 (2018)47 [arXiv:1810.07615].

[45] A. Eichhorn, A. Held, C. Wetterich, “Predictivepower of grand unification from quantum gravity”[arXiv:1909.07318].

[46] A. Eichhorn, Y. Hamada, J. Lumma, M. Yamada,“Quantum gravity fluctuations flatten the Planck-scale Higgs potential”, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 086004[arXiv:1712.00319].

[47] J.M. Pawlowski, M. Reichert, C. Wetterich, M. Ya-mada, “Higgs scalar potential in asymptotically safequantum gravity”, Phys. Rev. D99 (2019) 086010[arXiv:1811.11706].

[48] M. Duerr, P. Fileviez Perez, J. Smirnov, “Simplified

15

Dirac Dark Matter Models and Gamma-Ray Lines”,Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) 083521 [arXiv:1506.05107].

[49] M. Duerr, P. Fileviez Perez, J. Smirnov, “Scalar Sin-glet Dark Matter and Gamma Lines”, Phys. Lett. B751(2015) 119 [arXiv:1508.04418].

[50] M. Duerr, P. Fileviez Perez, J. Smirnov, “Gamma-RayExcess and the Minimal Dark Matter Model”, JHEP1606 (2016) 008 [arXiv:1510.07562].

[51] U. Harst, M. Reuter, “QED coupled to QEG”, JHEP1105 (2011) 119 [arXiv:1101.6007].

[52] N. Christiansen, A. Eichhorn, “An asymptotically safesolution to the U(1) triviality problem”, Phys. Lett.B770 (2017) 154 [arXiv:1702.07724].

[53] C. Wetterich, “Exact evolution equation for theeffective potential”, Phys. Lett. B301 (2017) 90[arXiv:1710.05815].

[54] U. Ellwanger, “Flow equations for N point functionsand bound states”, Z. Phys. C62 (1993) 503 [arXiv:hep-ph/9308260].

[55] T.R. Morris, “The Exact renormalization group and ap-proximate solutions”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A9 (1993) 2411[arXiv:hep-ph/9308265].

[56] R. Percacci, D. Perini, “Asymptotic safety of grav-ity coupled to matter”, Phys. Rev. D68 (2003) 044018[arXiv:hep-th/0304222].

[57] A. Rodigast, T. Schuster, “Gravitational Corrections toYukawa and phi**4 Interactions”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104(2009) 081301 [arXiv:0908.2422].

[58] O. Zanusso, L. Zambelli, G.P. Vacca, R. Percacci,“Gravitational corrections to Yukawa systems”, Phys.Lett. B689 (2009) 90 [arXiv:0904.0938].

[59] G. Narain, R. Percacci, “Renormalization Group Flowin Scalar-Tensor Theories. I”, Class. Quant. Grav. 27(2009) 075001 [arXiv:0911.0386].

[60] M. Hashimoto, S. Iso, Y. Orikasa, “Radiative sym-metry breaking at the Fermi scale and flat potentialat the Planck scale”, Phys. Rev. D89 (2014) 016019[arXiv:1310.4304]

[61] M. Hashimoto, S. Iso, Y. Orikasa, “Radiative symmetrybreaking from flat potential in various U(1)′ models”,Phys. Rev. D89 (2014) 056010 [arXiv:1401.5944]

[62] J-E. Daum, U. Harst, M. Reuter, “Running Gauge Cou-pling in Asymptotically Safe Quantum Gravity”, JHEP1001 (2009) 084 [arXiv:0910.4938].

[63] S. Folkerts, D.F. Litim, J.M. Pawlowski, “Asymptoticfreedom of Yang-Mills theory with gravity”, Phys. Lett.B709 (2012) 234 [arXiv:1101.5552].

[64] N. Christiansen, D.F. Litim, J.M. Pawlowski, M. Re-ichert, “Asymptotic safety of gravity with matter”,Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 106012 [arXiv:1710.04669].

[65] K-. Oda, M. Yamada, “Non-minimal coupling inHiggs–Yukawa model with asymptotically safegravity”, Class. Quant. Grav. 33 (2016) 125011[arXiv:1510.03734].

[66] A. Eichhorn, A. Held, J.M. Pawlowski, “Quantum-gravity effects on a Higgs-Yukawa model”, Phys. Rev.D94 (2016) 104027 [arXiv:1604.02041].

[67] A. Eichhorn, A. Held, “Viability of quantum-gravity in-duced ultraviolet completions for matter”, Phys. Rev.D96 (2017) 086025 [arXiv:1705.02342].

[68] D. Buttazzo, G. Degrassi, P.P. Giardino, G.F. Giudice,F. Sala, A. Salvio, A. Strumia, “Investigating the near-criticality of the Higgs boson”, JHEP 1312 (2013) 089[arXiv:1307.3536].

[69] J.H. Kwapisz, “Asymptotic safety, the Higgs bosonmass, and beyond the standard model physics”, Phys.Rev. D100 (2019) 115001 [arXiv:1907.12521].

[70] CMS Collaboration, “Measurement of tt normalisedmulti-differential cross sections in pp collisions at

√s =

13 TeV, and simultaneous determination of the strongcoupling strength, top quark pole mass, and parton dis-tribution functions” [arXiv:1904.05237].

[71] ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the top-quarkmass in tt+1-jet events collected with the ATLAS detec-tor in pp collisions at

√s = 8 TeV”, JHEP 1911 (2019)

150 [arXiv:1905.02302].[72] E.C.G. Stueckelberg, “Interaction energy in electrody-

namics and in the field theory of nuclear forces”, Helv.Phys.Acta 11 (1938) 225 [InSpires:Stueckelberg:1900zz].

[73] J.M. Cline, K. Kainulainen, P. Scott, C. Weniger, “Up-date on scalar singlet dark matter”, Phys. Rev. D88(2013) 055025 [arXiv:1306.4710].

[74] M. Duerr, P. Fileviez Perez, J. Smirnov, “Scalar DarkMatter: Direct vs. Indirect Detection”, JHEP 1606(2016) 152 [arXiv:1509.04282].

[75] C.M. Bender, S. Sarkar, “Asymptotic Analysis of theBoltzmann Equation for Dark Matter Relics”, J. Math.Phys. 53 (2012) 103509 [arXiv:1203.1822].

[76] P. Gondolo, G. Gelmini, “Cosmic abundances of stableparticles: Improved analysis”, Nucl. Phys. B360 (1991)145 [InSpires:Gondolo:1990dk].

[77] Xenon1T Collaboration, “Dark Matter Search Resultsfrom a One Ton-Year Exposure of XENON1T”, Phys.Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 111302 [arXiv:1805.12562].

[78] FermiLAT Collaboration, “Limits to Dark Matter An-nihilation Cross-Section from a Combined Analysis ofMAGIC and Fermi-LAT Observations of Dwarf SatelliteGalaxies”, JCAP 1602 (2016) 039 [arXiv:1601.06590].

[79] M. Hoferichter, P. Klos, J. Menendez, A. Schwenk,“Improved limits for Higgs-portal dark matter fromLHC searches”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) 181803[arXiv:1708.02245].

[80] M. Duerr, P. Fileviez Perez, “Theory for Baryon Num-ber and Dark Matter at the LHC”, Phys. Rev. D91(2015) 095001 [arXiv:1409.8165].

[81] P. Fileviez Perez, C. Murgui, “Dark Matter andThe Seesaw Scale”, Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 055008[arXiv:1803.07462].

[82] P. Fileviez Perez, E. Golias, R-H. Li, C. Murgui,“Leptophobic Dark Matter and the Baryon Num-ber Violation Scale”, Phys. Rev. D99 (2019) 035009[arXiv:1810.06646].

[83] M. Pospelov, A. Ritz, M.B. Voloshin, “SecludedWIMP Dark Matter”, Phys. Lett. B662 (2007) 53[arXiv:0711.4866].

[84] K. Bondarenko, A. Boyarsky, T. Bringmann, M. Huf-nagel, K. Schmidt-Hoberg, A. Sokolenko, “Direct detec-tion and complementary constraints for sub-GeV darkmatter” [arXiv:1909.08632].

[85] R.K. Leane, T.R. Slatyer, J.F. Beacom, K.C.Y. Ng,“GeV-scale thermal WIMPs: Not even slightly ruledout”, Phys. Rev. D98 (2018) 023016 [arXiv:1805.10305].

[86] G. Krnjaic, “Probing Light Thermal Dark-Matter Witha Higgs Portal Mediator”, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016)073009 [arXiv:1512.04119].

[87] DARWIN Collaboration, “DARWIN: towards the ul-timate dark matter detector”, JCAP 1611 (2016) 017[arXiv:1606.07001].

16

[88] R.K. Leane, T.R. Slatyer, “Revival of the DarkMatter Hypothesis for the Galactic Center Gamma-Ray Excess”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) 241101[arXiv:1904.08430].

[89] I. Cholis, T. Linden, D. Hooper, “Anti-Deuterons andAnti-Helium Nuclei from Annihilating Dark Matter”[arXiv:2001.08749].

[90] AMS Collaboration, “Antiproton Flux, Antiproton-to-Proton Flux Ratio, and Properties of Elementary Par-ticle Fluxes in Primary Cosmic Rays Measured withthe Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer on the InternationalSpace Station”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) 091103 [In-Spires:Aguilar:2016kjl].

[91] T.R. Slatyer, N. Padmanabhan, D.P. Finkbeiner, “CMBConstraints on WIMP Annihilation: Energy Absorp-tion During the Recombination Epoch”, Phys. Rev. D80(2009) 043526 [arXiv:0906.1197].

[92] G. D’Amico, P. Panci, A. Strumia, “Bounds on DarkMatter annihilations from 21 cm data”, Phys. Rev. Lett.121 (2018) 011103 [arXiv:1803.03629].

[93] CTA Collaboration, “Design concepts for theCherenkov Telescope Array CTA: An advanced facilityfor ground-based high-energy gamma-ray astronomy”,Exper. Astron. 32 (2010) 193 [arXiv:1008.3703].

[94] J. Jaeckel, M. Jankowiak, M. Spannowsky, “LHC probesthe hidden sector”, Phys. Dark Univ. 2 (2013) 111[arXiv:1212.3620]

[95] HAWC Collaboration, “Constraints on Spin-DependentDark Matter Scattering with Long-Lived Mediatorsfrom TeV Observations of the Sun with HAWC”, Phys.Rev. D98 (2018) 123012 [arXiv:1808.05624].

[96] Y. Hochberg, Y. Kahn, M. Lisanti, K.M. Zurek, A.G.Grushin, R. Ilan, S.M. Griffin, Z-F. Liu, S.F. Weber,J.B. Neaton, “Detection of sub-MeV Dark Matter withThree-Dimensional Dirac Materials”, Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 015004 [arXiv:1708.08929].

[97] S.A. Hertel, A. Biekert, J. Lin, V. Velan, D.N. McKin-sey, “Direct detection of sub-GeV dark matter using asuperfluid 4He target”, Phys. Rev. D100 (2019) 092007[arXiv:1810.06283].

[98] S. de Alwis, A. Eichhorn, A. Held, J.M. Pawlowski, M.Schiffer, F. Versteegen, “Asymptotic safety, string the-ory and the weak gravity conjecture”, Phys. Lett. B798(2019) 134991 [arXiv:1907.07894].

[99] M. Holthausen, K.S. Lim, M. Lindner, “Planck scale

Boundary Conditions and the Higgs Mass”, JHEP 1202(2011) 037 [arXiv:1112.2415].

[100] M. Holthausen, J. Kubo, K.S. Lim, M. Lindner,“Electroweak and Conformal Symmetry Breaking by aStrongly Coupled Hidden Sector”, JHEP 1312 (2013)076 [arXiv:1310.4423].

[101] M. Lindner, S. Schmidt, J. Smirnov, “Neutrino Massesand Conformal Electro-Weak Symmetry Breaking”,JHEP 1410 (2014) 177 [arXiv:1405.6204].

[102] P. Humbert, M. Lindner, J. Smirnov, “The InverseSeesaw in Conformal Electro-Weak Symmetry Break-ing and Phenomenological Consequences”, JHEP 1506(2015) 035 [arXiv:1503.03066].

[103] A.J. Helmboldt, P. Humbert, M. Lindner, J. Smirnov,“Minimal conformal extensions of the Higgs sector”,JHEP 1707 (2017) 113 [arXiv:1603.03603].

[104] J. Abdallah et al , “Simplified Models for Dark MatterSearches at the LHC”, Phys. Dark Univ. 9-10 (2016) 8[arXiv:1506.03116].

[105] V. De Luca, A. Mitridate, M. Redi, J. Smirnov, A. Stru-mia, “Colored Dark Matter”, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018)115024 [arXiv:1801.01135].

[106] O. Antipin, M. Redi, A. Strumia, E. Vigiani, “Acciden-tal Composite Dark Matter”, JHEP 1507 (2015) 039[arXiv:1503.08749].

[107] A. Mitridate, M. Redi, J. Smirnov, A. Strumia, “DarkMatter as a weakly coupled Dark Baryon”, JHEP 1710(2017) 210 [arXiv:1707.05380].

[108] R. Contino, A. Mitridate, A. Podo, M. Redi,“Gluequark Dark Matter”, JHEP 1902 (2019) 187[arXiv:1811.06975].

[109] C. Coriano, L. Delle Rose, C. Marzo, “Constraints onabelian extensions of the Standard Model from two-loopvacuum stability and U(1)B−L”, JHEP 1602 (2016) 135[arXiv:1510.02379].

[110] F. Lyonnet, “Impact of kinetic mixing in beta func-tions at two-loop”, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) 076008[arXiv:1608.07271].

[111] F. Lyonnet, I. Schienbein, F. Staub, A. Wingerter,“PyR@TE: Renormalization Group Equations for Gen-eral Gauge Theories”, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185(2014-03) 1130 [arXiv:1309.7030].

[112] F. Lyonnet, I. Schienbein, “PyR@TE 2: A Python toolfor computing RGEs at two-loop”, Comput. Phys. Com-mun. 213 (2017-04) 181 [arXiv:1608.07274].