constraints on supersymmetry using the latest data from cosmology, dm searches and lhc
DESCRIPTION
Constraints on Supersymmetry using the latest data from cosmology, DM searches and LHC. C. Beskidt , W. de Boer, D. Kazakov, F. Ratnikov. Introduction to Supersymmetry (SUSY). Predictions of SM of particle physics in good agreement with experimental results - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
KIT – Universität des Landes Baden-Württemberg undnationales Forschungszentrum in der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft
Institut für Experimentelle Kernphysik
www.kit.edu
Constraints on Supersymmetry using the latest data from cosmology, DM searches and LHC
C. Beskidt, W. de Boer, D. Kazakov, F. Ratnikov
2Conny Beskidt, IEKP GK Workshop, Bad Liebenzell, 10.10.2012
Introduction to Supersymmetry (SUSY)
Predictions of SM of particle physics in good agreement with experimental results
BUT: still good arguments for physics beyond the SM
No dark matter candidate, that can give the right amount of DMQuadratic divergences on the Higgs massHiggs mechanism has to be introduced ad hocGravitation cannot be included within QFTetc.
→ need a theory beyond the SM
Supersymmetry,…
3Conny Beskidt, IEKP GK Workshop, Bad Liebenzell, 10.10.2012
Introduction to SUSY
SUSY = symmetry between fermions and bosons Minimal supersymmetric SM (MSSM): SM particles + SUSY partners + 2 Higgs Doublets (h,H,A,H±)
SUSY leads to equal masses of superpartners → broken symmetrySoft Breaking would lead to over 100 free parameters → no prediction possible
R Parity +1 R Parity -1
4Conny Beskidt, IEKP GK Workshop, Bad Liebenzell, 10.10.2012
Introduction to SUSY – Constrained MSSM
Assuming unified SUSY masses and couplings at the GUT (~ 1016 GeV) scale → 4 free parameters and one free sign
m0: common spin 0 mass
m1/2: common spin ½ mass
tanβ: ratio between the vev’s of the two Higgs fieldsA0: trilinear coupling
sign(μ): sign of higgs mixing parameter
Which combination of 4 free parameters are allowed?
5Conny Beskidt, IEKP GK Workshop, Bad Liebenzell, 10.10.2012
Outline
Find allowed parameter space in CMSSM using a 2 method based on LHC SUSY searches, Higgs discovery, relic density, flavour constraints, electroweak constraints, direct DM searches
Problem 1: Free CMSSM parameters are highly correlated Solution 1: Multi-step fitting approach → highly correlated parameters are fitted first for fixed other CMSSM parameters
Problem 2: Higgs of 125 GeV and large BR hard to accommodate in CMSSMSolution 2: go to NMSSM
6Conny Beskidt, IEKP GK Workshop, Bad Liebenzell, 10.10.2012
Constraints used for the 2-function
Relic Density h2 = 0.1131 ± 0.0034B → BRexp(B→) = (1.68 ± 0.31)·10-4
Myon g-2 Δa=(30.2 ± 6.3 ± 6.1) ·10-11
b →s BRexp(b→s) = (3.55 ± 0.24)·10-4
Bs→ BRexp(Bs→) < 4.5·10-9
Higgs Mass mh mh > 114.4 GeV
LHC direct searches had < 0.001 – 0.03 pb
XENON100 N < 1.8·10-45 - 6·10-45 cm2
Pseudo-scalar Higgs mA mA > 510 GeV for tanβ ~ 50
For more details see CB et al., EPJ C
7Conny Beskidt, IEKP GK Workshop, Bad Liebenzell, 10.10.2012
Combination of all constraints
2 = 2 – min2
For each 95% CL exclusion contour 2 = 5.99
Best fit point χmin2 = 4.3
95% CL → Δχ2 < 5.99
Contour
1 2 3 4 5
68% CL → Δχ2 < 2.3
~LSP
For more details see CB et al., EPJ C or backup slides
LHC direct searches Bs→ mh > 114.4 GeV mA XENON100
8Conny Beskidt, IEKP GK Workshop, Bad Liebenzell, 10.10.2012
Influence of g-2
Preferred region by g-2 if the errors are added quadratically or linearly
g-2 gives a light preference for light SUSY masses but light SUSY masses are already excluded by the LHC direct searches → errors underestimated or additional loop contribution
tan10010132
10
SUSY
SUSY
mGeVa
52
2
TDDeviation from SM 2-3: for heavy mSUSY
9Conny Beskidt, IEKP GK Workshop, Bad Liebenzell, 10.10.2012
(SM?) - Higgs found at the LHC
Both the CMS and ATLAS experiment measured a Higgs within the errors of about 126 GeV
What does this mean for the allowed CMSSM parameter space?
CMS (CMS-PAS-HIG-12-020) ATLAS (ATLAS-CONF-2012-093)
(125.3 ± 0.4 (stat) ± 0.5 (syst)) GeV (126.5 ± 0.6 (stat) ± 0.6 (syst)) GeV
10Conny Beskidt, IEKP GK Workshop, Bad Liebenzell, 10.10.2012
125 GeV Higgs within the CMSSM
A 125 GeV light Higgs is possible within the CMSSM if the SUSY masses are heavy enough and if the trilinear coupling A0 is negative
The allowed parameter space is largely determined by the assigned error → strong dependence on the theoretical errorExp. ~ 2GeV, theo. ~ 3GeV, non-Gaussian → lin. addition → 5GeV
best fit points for different errors
(2=5.99) 95% C.L. contour
125123
121
119
Higgs mass contours
11Conny Beskidt, IEKP GK Workshop, Bad Liebenzell, 10.10.2012
Summary so far
125 GeV Higgs hard to accomodate in CMSSM (unless one stretches the errors)
In addition, couplings have tendency to deviate from SM (see next slides)
Heavier Higgs and non-SM couplings easy to accomodate if mixing between Higgs doublet and additionally singlet, as proposed in NMSSM to solve -problem (Kim, Nilles Phys. Lett. B 138, 150 (1984))
12Conny Beskidt, IEKP GK Workshop, Bad Liebenzell, 10.10.2012
NMSSM versus MSSMNMSSM (Next to MSSM):
Mixing: larger Higgs mass couplings to up and down type fermions can be different
new free parameters: couplings , trilinear couplings A, A mixing parameter eff = <S> (in addition to m0, m1/2, A0, tan)
...ˆ3
ˆˆˆ 3
,3,3,33
,2,2,22
,1,1,11
SHHSW
SSHSHSH
SSHSHSH
SSHSHSH
duNMSSM
suudd
suudd
suudd
MSSM
NMSSM
Higgs content
3 CP even 2 CP odd 1 singlet
13Conny Beskidt, IEKP GK Workshop, Bad Liebenzell, 10.10.2012
Fit to SM couplings (scale factors)
CF = scale factor for coupling to fermions
CV = scale factor for coupling to vector bosons
Best fit point: CF ≈ 0.5 CV ≈ 1.0
SM: CF = CV = 1
(CMS-PAS-HIG-12-020)
SM
Best fit point
14Conny Beskidt, IEKP GK Workshop, Bad Liebenzell, 10.10.2012
Higgs mass
MSSM
NMSSM: Mixing with singlet
Hall, Pinner, Ruderman,arXiv 1112.2703
loop corrections
2
~
2
2~
2
2
2~
2
4
2222
121ln
432cos
t
t
t
t
t
ttZh m
XmX
mm
vmmm
Increases Higgs mass for large
2
222222
,,,,2cos2sin
SS
SZ
mAMvAMvMv
M
2Zm 2130GeV
cot ttt AmX
15Conny Beskidt, IEKP GK Workshop, Bad Liebenzell, 10.10.2012
Benchmark points in NMSSM
Analyses have been done e.g. Ellwanger, Hugonie (arXiv:1203.5048 using GUT scale parameters), Mühlleitner et al. (arXiv:1201.2671 using low energy values of parameters)Benchmark points fulfill Higgs mass and couplings, but one needs very specific singlet mixing to obtain simultaneously mH=125 GeV, large branching into , small branching into
M0 m1/2 A0 A A tan eff
600 600 -1550 -275 -625 2.40 0.545 0.253 120
960 525 -1140 -360 -575 2.29 0.600 0.321 122
E.g. Benchmark points from Ellwanger, Hugonie, arXiv:1203.5048
Input at MSUSY
Input at MGUT
BM I
BM II
16Conny Beskidt, IEKP GK Workshop, Bad Liebenzell, 10.10.2012
Typical Higgs masses and couplings
126 126
Components of H2
Hd 0.26 0.04
Hu 0.85 -0.54
S -0.45 0.84
2HM
BM I II
100 121
Components of H1
Hd 0.39 0.50
Hu 0.34 0.74
S 0.86 0.45
1HM
BM I II
Strong mixing with singlet → R can be enchanced
It is possible that 126 GeV is not the lightest Higgs
Lightest Higgs H1 Second lightest Higgs H2
17Conny Beskidt, IEKP GK Workshop, Bad Liebenzell, 10.10.2012
2 including R, Mh and h2 constraint
Allowed region in -plane for BM I
Parameters strongly constrained by Mh=125, R=1.7, h2=0.11(all other parameters fixed)
2 including R and Mh constraint
18Conny Beskidt, IEKP GK Workshop, Bad Liebenzell, 10.10.2012
2 including R, Mh and h2 constraints. Parameters , and eff have been varied, A0, A and A fixed large allowed region within m0m1/2-plane
Allowed region in m0m1/2-plane
02~ fm
ex. by h2
excluded by R
19Conny Beskidt, IEKP GK Workshop, Bad Liebenzell, 10.10.2012
Allowed region in m0m1/2-plane
Even though other constraints have not been included to the previous fit, the result is in good agreement with b s, Bs, B and g-2
g-2
Bs b s
B
Similar to CMSSM:Including g-2 to 2 constantoffset at largeMsusy
20Conny Beskidt, IEKP GK Workshop, Bad Liebenzell, 10.10.2012
Summary
125 GeV Higgs within CMSSM only possible for high SUSY massesAllowed CMSSM parameter space depends on total error of the Higgs massWithin NMSSM one can get a 125 GeV Higgs and in addition an enhancement/reduction in Rγγ/ττ “naturally” because of large mixing with additional Higgs singletOther constraints fulfilled like in CMSSM, e.g. h2 ,b →s, Bs→, B →, and g-2 → good starting point to do same minimization as in CMSSM → work in progress…
21Conny Beskidt, IEKP GK Workshop, Bad Liebenzell, 10.10.2012
BACKUP
22Conny Beskidt, IEKP GK Workshop, Bad Liebenzell, 10.10.2012
Details on χ2-function
Relic Density B →τνMyon g-2b →sγ
Bs→μμ BRexp(Bs→μμ) < 4.5·10-9
Higgs Mass mh mh > 114.4 GeV
LHC direct searches σhad < 0.003 – 0.03 pb
DDMS σχN < 8·10-45 - 2·10-44 cm2
Pseudo-scalar Higgs mA mA > 480 GeV for tanβ ~ 50
Experimental Values
Defined in a straight forward way:
2
2exp2
XX SUSY
23Conny Beskidt, IEKP GK Workshop, Bad Liebenzell, 10.10.2012
Details on χ2-function?
Relic Density Ωh2 = 0.1131 ± 0.0034B →τν BRexp(B→τν) = (1.68 ± 0.31)·10-4
Myon g-2 Δaμ=(30.2 ± 6.3 ± 6.1) ·10-11
b →sγ BRexp(b→sγ) = (3.55 ± 0.24)·10-4
Bs→μμ
Higgs Mass mh
LHC direct searches σhad < 0.003 – 0.03 pb
DDMS σχN < 8·10-45 - 2·10-44 cm2
Pseudo-scalar Higgs mA mA > 480 GeV for tanβ ~ 50
95% CL only added if XSUSY > X95% XSUSY
= model value of BR(Bs→μμ) or mh X95% can be determined from requirement Δχ2=5.99 at 95% CL exclusion limit
24Conny Beskidt, IEKP GK Workshop, Bad Liebenzell, 10.10.2012
Details on χ2-function?
Relic Density Ωh2 = 0.1131 ± 0.0034B →τν BRexp(B→τν) = (1.68 ± 0.31)·10-4
Myon g-2 Δaμ=(30.2 ± 6.3 ± 6.1) ·10-11
b →sγ BRexp(b→sγ) = (3.55 ± 0.24)·10-4
Bs→μμ BRexp(Bs→μμ) < 4.5·10-9
Higgs Mass mh mh > 114.4 GeV
LHC direct searches DDMS Pseudo-scalar Higgs mA
95% CL exclusion contours Define χ2=(XSUSY - X95%)2/σ95%
2 XSUSY = model value of mA or hadronic cross section or χN elastic scattering cross section σ95% can be determined from 1σ band given by experiments X95% determined from requirement Δχ2=5.99 at 95% CL exclusion contour
25Conny Beskidt, IEKP GK Workshop, Bad Liebenzell, 10.10.2012
Typical Sparticle masses and LSP mixing (NMSSM)
Components of
0.20 0.25
-0.16 -0.20
0.48 0.52
-0.70 -0.70
0.46 0.37
0.10 0.10
01
BM I II
Sparticle masses
1388 1254
1318 1397
359 463
1001 1060
528 900
108 108
77 78
BM I II
gm~
qm~
1~tm
1~bm
1~m
1
m
01
m
B~
W~
dH~
uH~
S~
2h
26Conny Beskidt, IEKP GK Workshop, Bad Liebenzell, 10.10.2012
Start with Relic Density Constraint
2/12 mmmA
f
f
A
χ
χ
~
~
tan(β)·mfd
mW
8
N1N3(4)
tan(β)·mfd ↔ tan(β)mfu
f
f
A
χ
χ
~
~
tan(β)·mfd
mWmW
88
N1N3(4)
tan(β)·mfd ↔ tan(β)mfu
1+( /mχ )2 – (mW/mχ )2
8
W
W+
χi+
χ
χ
~
~
~
Z
Z
χi
χ
χ
~
~
~
1mχ+
i 1+( /mχ )2 – (mW/mχ )2
88
W
W+
χi+
χ
χ
~
~
~
W
W+
χi+
χ
χ
~
~
~
Z
Z
χi
χ
χ
~
~
~
Z
Z
χi
χ
χ
~
~
~
1mχ+
i mχ+
i
f
f
Z
χ
χ
~
~
mχ mf
mZ2
8
(N3(4))2
_
f
f
Z
χ
χ
~
~
mχ mf
mZ2mZ2
88
(N3(4))2
_
f
f
f
χ
χ
~
~
~
mχmf
mf2~
8
_
f
f
f
χ
χ
~
~
~
mχmf
mf2~
8
f
f
f
χ
χ
~
~
~
mχmf
mf2~ mf2~
88
_
4
2tan
Am
Problem: for excluded first diagram too small. Last diagram also small → can get correct relic density by mA s-channel annihilation
qm~
mA can be tuned with tanβ for any m1/2 → tanβ ≈ 50 (see next slide)
27Conny Beskidt, IEKP GK Workshop, Bad Liebenzell, 10.10.2012
tan 50
Co-annihilation
Relic Density Constraint – Dependence on tanβ
22
21
2 mmmA
arXiv:1008.2150
(Tree Level)
bh
2
21
2222
21
22
2123
222
21
2121 28
..,2
HHgHHggchHHmHmHmHHVtree
th
running < 0 → if ht and hb similar → small mA for tan= mt/mb 50
Fit of Ωh2 determines mA and tanβ
m1 runningm2 running
mAm1/2
28Conny Beskidt, IEKP GK Workshop, Bad Liebenzell, 10.10.2012
tanβ ≈ 50
(CMS PAS HIG-11-009)Atlas similar
For tanβ ≈ 50mA > 440 GeV
What about Higgs mA limit?
29Conny Beskidt, IEKP GK Workshop, Bad Liebenzell, 10.10.2012
Examples for high correlation
χ2 for Bs → μμ and Ωh2
co-annihilation region
mA exchange
focus point region
Origin of correlation:Both strongly dependent ontanβ
Bs → μμ Ωh2
For given m0 only very specific values of tan
For given tan only very specific values of A0
30Conny Beskidt, IEKP GK Workshop, Bad Liebenzell, 10.10.2012
Origin of correlation
Upper Limit for Bs → μμ (LHCb, CMS)
exp. Value Ωh2
Upper limit for tanβ for upper limit on Bs → μμ
Best tanβ for Ωh2
A0=0
31Conny Beskidt, IEKP GK Workshop, Bad Liebenzell, 10.10.2012
Origin of correlationUpper Limit for Bs → μμ exp. Value Ωh2
A0=1580 GeV
Best tanβ for Bs → μμ and Ωh2 simultaneously
Common tanβ can only be found for specific A0 value
32Conny Beskidt, IEKP GK Workshop, Bad Liebenzell, 10.10.2012
Reason for strong A0 dependence of Bs → μμ
Becomes small, ifcan be achieved by adjusting At, till mixing term ~ (At – μ/tanβ) becomes small.Important only for light SUSY masses (see blue region)
arXiv:hep-ph/0203069v2
21~~ tt
Stop mass difference
33Conny Beskidt, IEKP GK Workshop, Bad Liebenzell, 10.10.2012
Combination of Bs → μμ and Ωh2
Tension at large tan from Bs can be removed by large A0
Tension can’t be removed by varying A0 because A0 < 3m0, A0 not high enough to get small BR
Tension still there although A0 large enough to get small BR
34Conny Beskidt, IEKP GK Workshop, Bad Liebenzell, 10.10.2012
Why there‘s still a tension for large m0?
Small Stau masscontribute to Ωh2
Bs →μμ needs large A0 for large tanβ
Ωh2 too high for large A0
mA high → small cross section
Bs →μμ smaller than SM value, even at large tanβ
m0=1000 m1/2=250 SM value
35Conny Beskidt, IEKP GK Workshop, Bad Liebenzell, 10.10.2012
How to treat theoretical errors?• Theoretical errors can be treated as nuisance parameters and
integrated over in the probability distribution (=convolution for symm. distr.)
• If errors Gaussian, this corresponds to adding the experimental and theoretical errors in quadrature
• Assume σtheo ~ σexp (only then important)
Convolution of 2 GaussiansConvolution of Gaussian + “flat top Gaussian” (expected if theory errors indicate a range)
Adding errors linearly more conservative approach for theory errors.
2exp
22 theo exp~ theo
36Conny Beskidt, IEKP GK Workshop, Bad Liebenzell, 10.10.2012
SUSY particles can be produced in pp collisions at the LHC
Combination of the different cross sections of
Direct searches for SUSY particles
qqqgggpp ~~,~~,~~
qq~~
qg~~gg~~
95% CL exclusion by CMS + Atlas (Jets+MET)CMS PAS SUS-11-003
arXiv:1109.6572
Contribution to σtot=0,1pb
Parametrization of with σeff
2 that Δχ2 = χ2 – χ2
min = 5,99
222efftot
37Conny Beskidt, IEKP GK Workshop, Bad Liebenzell, 10.10.2012
Direct search for dark matter (DDMS)
Assume Neutralino is LSP and therefore perfect WIMP candidateDirect detection of WIMPs through elastic scattering on heavy nuclei
Coherent scattering: σ ~ N2 and effective coupling on proton/neutron fp/fn
Effective coupling includes couplings of WIMPs on quarks fq
n/fqp
90% CL → Δχ2 = 4,21(arXiv:1005.0380)
38Conny Beskidt, IEKP GK Workshop, Bad Liebenzell, 10.10.2012
Including DDMS constraint into χ2
UncertaintiesLocal DM density (0,3/1,3 GeV/cm³)Effective coupling (especially s-quark) because of different calculations
;02.0
;026.0
;02.0
ps
pd
pu
f
f
f
;02.0
;036.0
;014.0
ps
pd
nu
f
f
f
;26.0
;033.0
;023.0
ps
pd
pu
f
f
f
;26.0
;042.0
;018.0
ps
pd
nu
f
f
f
lattice πN
conservative
39Conny Beskidt, IEKP GK Workshop, Bad Liebenzell, 10.10.2012
Excluded parameter space by XENON100
Scattering cross section is proportional to the product of gaugino und higgsino component → Increase of the cross section if higgsino component is increasingHiggsino component increases for high values of m0 → DDMS is sensitive for high m0 in contrast to the direct searches at the LHC
40Conny Beskidt, IEKP GK Workshop, Bad Liebenzell, 10.10.2012
Comparison to other groups
Strong correlation between A0 and tanβ
Buchmueller et al. arXiv: 1110.3568
If one include the exclusion limit of the LHC, the difference between the 95% CL contour of the quadratic and linear addition of the errors vanishes.
41Conny Beskidt, IEKP GK Workshop, Bad Liebenzell, 10.10.2012
Exclusion because of Ωh2 for large values of m1/2
Excluded region for large values of m1/2 and small m0 because of the relic densityFor this combination of m0 and m1/2 one needs a high value of tanβ for the correct relic densityFor such high values of tanβ the Neutralino is not the LSP anymore
Χ2 contribution of Ωh2
m0=500 GeV m1/2=1300 GeV
LSP~
Contributors to CF and CV