Dark Ma er from Higgs Boson A come back of the Higgsino Kid
Leszek Roszkowski* BayesFITS Group Na onal Centre for Nuclear Research (NCNR/NCBJ) Warsaw, Poland
*On leave of absence from University of Sheffield
L. Roszkowski, PACIFIC-2014, 19 Sep. 2014 1 Outline
² Brief Introduc on ² Implica ons of mh~125 GeV and direct limits on SUSY: DM: ~1 TeV higgsino
² Prospects for detec on ² (Issue of fine tuning) ² Summary
Based on BayesFITS Group papers: • arXiv:1302.5956, Two ul mate tests of constrained supersymmetry, K. Kowalska, L. Roszkowski, E. M. Sessolo JHEP 1306 (2013) 078 • arXiv:1402.1328, Low fine tuning in the MSSM with higgsino dark ma er and unifica on constraints, K. Kowalska, L. Roszkowski, E. M. Sessolo, S. Trojanowski JHEP 1404 (2014) 166 • arXiv:1405.4289, What next for the CMSSM and the NUHM: Improved prospects for superpartner and dark ma er detec on, L. Roszkowski, E. M. Sessolo, A. J. Williams • … plus some earlier papers L. Roszkowski, PACIFIC-2014, 19 Sep. 2014 2 ! aospeeetal eoe akmte eaiet the t to choose sub- we relative component, of stellar matter concentrated stripping centrally dark more As bright removes Way. 9 preferentially Milky the host the haloes that that in those spheroidals to subhaloes correspond dwarf simulated to the likely fair most a choose are provide To must subhaloes. we simulated the comparison in radii same bythe determined spheroidals dwarf Way Milky (2011). al. bright et Boylan-Kolchin 9 the of eoiydseso) ahbxi . p nasd.Nt h s the Note case. side. CDM a the on in defined, Mpc well 1.5 less is although velo present, box density-weighted also Each are projected the dispersion). hue velocity and density, the of iey h eann uhle r hw sepycircles. in- resp empty circles as are 2 shown filled the mas- represents are centre red Sub- most area and subhaloes shaded the halo blue remaining occurs. with the as main subhaloes tively; shown maximum WDM the are and this progenitors of CDM sive which 12 300kpc The at within cluded. radius lying the haloes and velocity 4. Figure 3. Figure c r [kpc] 01RS MNRAS RAS, 2011 max 10.0 20.0 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 10 h orlto ewe uhl aiu circular maximum subhalo between correlation The mgso h D lf)adWM(ih)lvl2hle at haloes 2 level (right) WDM and (left) CDM the of Images There is more out there than meets the eye 000 20 , σ V ?? max ofiec einfrpsil hosts possible for region confidence –8 [kms 30 − 1 ] Warm (Top 12) Cold (Top 12) Warm Cold 40 50 60 70
L. Roszkowski, PACIFIC-2014, 19 Sep. 2014 al. et Frenk3 80 iydseso,rnigfo le(o eoiydispersio velocity (low blue from ranging dispersion, city The ec- o apcutc iil tlrerdii h D mg,severa image, WDM the in radii large at visible caustics harp iuainhscnegdt etrthan better to converged has simulation aswti 0p nteA-2adA-3smltosis simulations the Aq-W3 of and ratio Aq-W2 the the W of in median 200pc the at within that within mass find check masses We first radius. subhalo this must simulated least we the simulations of the convergence the with Leo- data symbols. satellite circular as radius,the plotted half-light The smallest also the are CDM. has (2010) and II al. satellites 9 et WDM Wolf the by of both sured radius half-light for the 5 are within infall velocities Fig. at progenitors in massive most shown the had which haloes aesmlrcnrlmse oteosre aelt galax satellite observed the to masses central similar have aki satellites Sagittarius. large and appropri- Clouds host Magellanic where might the that but, to those subhaloes highlight all we retain ate, we follows, what ltdsbaosta aeteevle tifl swl as well as infall at values these V have that subhaloes ulated olnKlhne l yohsz htteetregalaxie three of these values that have all hypothesize al. as di et o is bright Boylan-Kolchin process mass current the as its in so galaxies disrupted is being Sagittarius hosting while the in Clouds, above, Magellanic exceptional noted the As is us. by Way by considered and Milky spheroidals (2011) dwarf al. et 9 Boylan-Kolchin the than luminous more case. CDM mletsbaoi aho u ape a nifl mass The infall halo. an main has the samples into our falls of 3 it each of as in essentiall object subhalo is the smallest This of subhalo. pro- mass surviving maximum the each the for with mass luminosity genitor satellite final associate max 2 /W . z 2 scnb nerdfo i.5 h D subhaloes WDM the 5, Fig. from inferred be can As at curves velocity circular The h M,SCadteSgtaisdafaeall are dwarf Sagittarius the and SMC LMC, The > =0 .I n t e n s i t yi n d i c a t e st h el i n e - o f - s i g h tp r o j e c t e ds q u a r × 3 40kms 10 ∼ 9 M 1 . 2 .. h aswti 0p nteAq-W2 the in 200pc within mass the i.e., 22, ! − 1 nteWMcs,ad6 and case, WDM the in V ttepeetdyfo hi nlss In analysis. their from day present the at max aelt aaisi WDM in Galaxies Satellite > 60kms − 1 tifl n xld sim- exclude and infall at z ∼ =0forthe12sub- 0p.T compare To 200pc. ∼ ffi . 0 )t elw(high yellow to n) utt estimate. to cult 22%. × 10 9 M lofwhich ! nthe in mea- 5 n y s e - f ! aospeeetal eoe akmte eaiet the t to choose sub- we relative component, of stellar matter concentrated stripping centrally dark more As bright removes Way. 9 preferentially Milky the host the haloes that that in those spheroidals to subhaloes correspond dwarf simulated to the likely fair most a choose are provide To must subhaloes. we simulated the comparison in radii same bythe determined spheroidals dwarf Way Milky (2011). al. bright et Boylan-Kolchin 9 the of eoiydseso) ahbxi . p nasd.Nt h s the Note case. side. CDM a the on in defined, Mpc well 1.5 less is although velo present, box density-weighted also Each are projected the dispersion). hue velocity and density, the of iey h eann uhle r hw sepycircles. in- resp empty circles as are 2 shown filled the mas- represents are centre red Sub- most area and subhaloes shaded the halo blue remaining occurs. with the as main subhaloes tively; shown maximum WDM the are and this progenitors of CDM sive which 12 300kpc The at within cluded. radius lying the haloes and velocity 4. Figure 3. Figure c r [kpc] 01RS MNRAS RAS, 2011 max 10.0 20.0 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 10 h orlto ewe uhl aiu circular maximum subhalo between correlation The mgso h D lf)adWM(ih)lvl2hle at haloes 2 level (right) WDM and (left) CDM the of Images 000 20 , σ V ?? max ofiec einfrpsil hosts possible for region confidence –8 [kms 30 The WIMP Reigns −
1 ] Warm (Top 12) Cold (Top 12) Warm Cold 40 50
60 …but remains elusive
70
L. Roszkowski, PACIFIC-2014, 19 Sep. 2014 4 80 iydseso,rnigfo le(o eoiydispersio velocity (low blue from ranging dispersion, city The ec- o apcutc iil tlrerdii h D mg,severa image, WDM the in radii large at visible caustics harp iuainhscnegdt etrthan better to converged has simulation aswti 0p nteA-2adA-3smltosis simulations the Aq-W3 of and ratio Aq-W2 the the W of in median 200pc the at within that within mass find check masses We first radius. subhalo this must simulated least we the simulations of the convergence the with Leo- data symbols. satellite circular as radius,the plotted half-light The smallest also the are CDM. has (2010) and II al. satellites 9 et WDM Wolf the by of both sured radius half-light for the 5 are within infall velocities Fig. at progenitors in massive most shown the had which haloes aesmlrcnrlmse oteosre aelt galax satellite observed the to masses central similar have aki satellites Sagittarius. large and appropri- Clouds host Magellanic where might the that but, to those subhaloes highlight all we retain ate, we follows, what ltdsbaosta aeteevle tifl swl as well as infall at values these V have that subhaloes ulated olnKlhne l yohsz htteetregalaxie three of these values that have all hypothesize al. as di et o is bright Boylan-Kolchin process mass current the as its in so galaxies disrupted is being Sagittarius hosting while the in Clouds, above, Magellanic exceptional noted the As is us. by Way by considered and Milky spheroidals (2011) dwarf al. et 9 Boylan-Kolchin the than luminous more case. CDM mletsbaoi aho u ape a nifl mass The infall halo. an main has the samples into our falls of 3 it each of as in essentiall object subhalo is the smallest This of subhalo. pro- mass surviving maximum the each the for with mass luminosity genitor satellite final associate max 2 /W . z 2 scnb nerdfo i.5 h D subhaloes WDM the 5, Fig. from inferred be can As at curves velocity circular The h M,SCadteSgtaisdafaeall are dwarf Sagittarius the and SMC LMC, The > =0 .I n t e n s i t yi n d i c a t e st h el i n e - o f - s i g h tp r o j e c t e ds q u a r × 3 40kms 10 ∼ 9 M 1 . 2 .. h aswti 0p nteAq-W2 the in 200pc within mass the i.e., 22, ! − 1 nteWMcs,ad6 and case, WDM the in V ttepeetdyfo hi nlss In analysis. their from day present the at max aelt aaisi WDM in Galaxies Satellite > 60kms − 1 tifl n xld sim- exclude and infall at z ∼ =0forthe12sub- 0p.T compare To 200pc. ∼ ffi . 0 )t elw(high yellow to n) utt estimate. to cult 22%. × 10 9 M lofwhich ! nthe in mea- 5 n y s e - f Dark Matter - Evidence
among the oldest puzzles in cosmology
Dark Matter - Evidence
Zwicky (’33): Comaamong the cluster oldest puzzles in cosmology spiral galaxiesvisible mass not enough to bound it clusters of galaxies FootprintsKnows and of Dark don’tMa er knows about DM Zwicky (’33): Coma cluster gravitational lensing colliding clusters: Bullet cluster CMB Planck Collaboration: Cosmological parameters …felt but not seen Dark MatterCMB: precision - Evidence measurements evidence for dark matter is convincing COBE->WMAP -> PLANCK among the oldest puzzles in cosmology ... but only through gravitational effects arc imagesComa ( of distantZwicky quasars, 1933) Planck Collaboration: The Planck mission Angular scale Zwicky (’33): Coma cluster European! 90 18 1 0.2 0.1 0.07 6000 Darkspiral galaxies MatterSpace - Evidence Temperature-Temperature clusters of galaxies 5000 Agency! ΛCDM 26% gravitational lensing Dark Matter - Evidence among the oldest puzzles in cosmology Dark Matter - Evidence
] 4000 L. Roszkowski, Taipei, 8 November ’11 – p.5 PLANCK !2 Cosmic!
K 69% among the oldest puzzles in cosmology Variance among the oldest puzzlesL. Roszkowski, in cosmology Taipei, 8 November ’11 – p.5 µ
Satellite! [ 3000 Bullet cluster, 2006 8 Gravita onal D lensing spirals hot gas, 10 K Data 2000 DM separated from baryons ∼ Zwicky (’33): Coma cluster Released! Zwicky1000 (’33): Coma cluster Fig. 10. Planck TT power spectrum. The points in the upper panel show the maximum-likelihood estimates of the primary CMB { ZwickyPlanck (’33):+ + Coma cluster spiral galaxies March 21, ! spectrum computed as described in the text for the best-fit foreground and nuisance parameters of the WP highL fit listed Ωi = ρi/ρcrit spiralin Table galaxies5. The red line shows the best-fit base CDM spectrum. The lower panel shows the residuals with respect to the theoretical 2013 model. The0 error bars are computed from the full covariance matrix, appropriately weighted acrossspiral each galaxies band (see Eqs. 36a and clusters of galaxies 36b), and include2 beam uncertainties10 and50 uncertainties500 in the foreground1000 model parameters.1500 2000 2500 clusters of galaxies clusters of galaxies Multipole moment, gravitational lensing gravitational lensingL. Roszkowski, Taipei, 8 November ’11 – p.5 Fig. 19. The temperature angular power spectrum of the primary CMB from Planck, showing a precise measurement of seven acoustic peaks, that are well fit by a simple six-parameterTemperature-Polarization CDM theoretical modelconcordance (the model plotted is the one labelled [Planck+WP+highL]ΛPolarization- inCDM Planck Collaboration! model works well colliding clusters: Bullet cluster collidingXVI (2013)). The clusters: shaded area around Bullet the best-fit cluster curve represents cosmic variance, including the sky cut used. The errorPolarization bars on individual points also include cosmic variance. The horizontal axis is logarithmic up to ⇥ = 50, and linear beyond. The vertical scale is ⇥(⇥ + 1)Cl/2 . The measured spectrum shown here is exactly the same as the one shown in Fig. 1 of Planck Collaboration XVI (2013), but it has been rebinned to show better the low-⇥ region. Bullet cluster main components: dark energyHot gas in clusters and cold dark matter Angular scale tected by PlanckL. Roszkowski, PACIFIC-2014, 19 Sep. 2014over the entire sky, and which therefore con- 5 90 18 1 ΛCDM0.2 0.1 tains both Galactic and extragalactic objects. No polarization in- 6000 formation is provided for the sources at this time. The PCCS 5000 di⇥ers from the ERCSC in its extraction philosophy: more e⇥ort has been made on the completeness of the catalogue, without re- 2
] 4000 ducing notably the reliability of the detected sources, whereas 2
K the ERCSC was built in the spirit of releasing a reliable catalogΩCDMh =0.1120 0.0056 µ
[ 3000
suitable for quick follow-up (in particular with the short-lived Fig. 11. Planck T E (left) and EE spectra (right) computed as described in the text. The red lines show the polarization spectra from L. Roszkowski, Taipei, 8 November ’11 – p.5 D Herschel telescope). The greater amount of data, di⇥erent selec- ± the2000 base CDM Planck+WP+highL model, which is fitted to the TT data only. tion process and the improvements in the calibration and map- 1000 making processing (references) help the PCCS to improve the performance (in depth and numbers) with respect to the previ- 0 2 10 50 500 1000 1500 2000 ous ERCSC. Multipole moment, The sources were extracted from the 2013 Planck frequency maps (Sect. 6), which include data acquired over more than two Fig. 20. The temperature angular power spectrum of the CMB, esti- sky coverages. This implies that the flux densities of most of mated from the SMICA Planck map. The model plotted is the one la- the sources are an average of three or more di⇥erent observa- belled [Planck+WP+highL] in Planck Collaboration XVI (2013). The tions over a period of 15.5 months. The Mexican Hat Wavelet shaded area around the best-fit curve represents cosmic variance, in- L. Roszkowski, Taipei, 8 November ’11 – p.5 24 algorithm (Lopez-Caniego´ et al. 2006) has been selected as the cluding the sky cut used. The error bars on individualL. Roszkowski, points do Taipei, not in- 8 November ’11 – p.5 baseline method for the productionWhat of the PCCS. However, one is the dark matter? clude cosmic variance. The horizontal axis is logarithmic up to ⇥ = 50, additional methods, MTXF (Gonzalez-Nuevo´ et al. 2006) was and linear beyond. The vertical scale is ⇥(⇥ + 1)Cl/2 . The binning scheme is the same as in Fig. 19. implemented in order to support the validation and characteriza- tion of the PCCS.
8.1.1. Main catalogue The source selection for the PCCS is made on the basis of Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR). However, the properties of the L. Roszkowski, Taipei, 8 November ’11 – p.6 The Planck Catalogue of Compact Sources (PCCS, Planck background in the Planck maps vary substantially depending on Collaboration XXVIII (2013)) is a list of compact sources de- frequency and part of the sky. Up to 217 GHz, the CMB is the
27 DM: The Big Picture L.R. (2000),Well-mo vated hep-ph/0404052 par cle candidates for dark ma er 0 DM: The Big Pictureneutrino ν – hot DM neutrino ν ADM -5 L.R. (2000), hep-ph/0404052WIMP neutralino χ -10 neutralino χ neutrino ν – hot DM -15 neutralino“generic”χ WIMP / pb)
int -20 σ ( 10 axion a axino ~a “generic”axion WIMPa S log -25 1307.3330 Sterile neutrino N (updated in axionaxinoa a U -30 1407.0017) axino a -35 gravitino g3/2 gravitino G S
µeV keV GeV MGUT ! -40 gravitino G Y -18 -15 -12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 ! vast ranges oflog10 interactions(mDM / GeV) and masses ! vastdifferent ranges production of interactions mechanisms and masses in the early Universe! (thermal, non-thermal) Fig. 4. (Color online) Several well-motivated candidates ofDMareshown.σ is differentneed to production go beyond mechanisms the Standard in the Model early Universe (thermal,int non-thermal) the typical strength of theneed interaction to go beyond with the ordinary Standard matte Modelr. The red, pink and blue colors represent HDM, WDMWIMP and candidates CDM, respectively. testable at present/near We updated futurethe previous WIMP candidates testable at present/near future figures [375,304] by includingaxino, the gravitino sterile neutrino EWIMPs/superWIMPs DM [95,96,4]. not directly testable, but some hints from LHC axino, gravitino EWIMPs/superWIMPs not directly testable, but some hints from LHC
L. Roszkowski, PACIFIC-2014, 19 Sep. 2014L. Roszkowski, Obserwatorium Astronomiczne UW, Vernal Equinox6 2012 – p.10 L. Roszkowski, Obserwatorium Astronomiczne UW, Vernal Equinox 2012 – p.10 the visible-sector particles was performed by Lee and Weinberg [331]. This was followed by Goldberg [209] for the case of SUSY neutralinos and has been reviewed extensively in the case of SUSY models in [266]. In Fig. 4, we list several DM candidates in the cross-section vs. mass plot, which started from Ref. [331]. In the case of SUSY WIMPs, the introduction of a Z2 symmetry was needed, which is usually taken to be R-parity. Other unbroken discrete symmetries are also possible for an absolutely stable particle in SUSY models [252].
The simplest example of a discrete symmetry is Z2 or parity P because then all the visible-sector particles are simply assigned with 0 (or +) modulo 2 quantum number of Z2 (or parity P ). Because most of the visible-sector par- ticles are assumed to be lighter than the WIMP, the WIMP is assigned with 1modulo2quantumnumberofZ (or of parity P ). The WIMP which is 2 − responsible for CDM is the lightest Z2 =1(modulo2)particle,orthelightest P = 1particle.Thiscaseisveryelementarybecausethenonemayclassify − particles into two sectors: the visible sector with Z2 =evenandtheother sector with Z2 =odd.ForaSUSYWIMP,anexactZ2R has been used such that the lightest Z2R-odd particle can be the WIMP [222,220]. With a bigger discrete symmetry, classification of particles according tothequantumnum- bers of the discrete symmetry is more complex, but may also result in a stable WIMP.
18 Where is the WIMP?
Ø Mass range: at least 20 orders of magnitude
Ø Interac on range: some 32 orders of magnitude
L. Roszkowski, PACIFIC-2014, 19 Sep. 2014 7 L. Roszkowski, PACIFIC-2014, 19 Sep. 2014 8 Direct Detec on AD 2011 - Before LHC 5
-39 10 We acknowledge support from NSF, DOE, SNF, UZH, XENON100 (2012) DAMA/Na ]
2 observed limit (90% CL) -40 Volkswagen Foundation, FCT, R´egion des Pays de la 10 Expected limit of this run: CoGeNT ± 1 σ expected Loire, STCSM, NSFC, DFG, Stichting FOM, Weizmann DAMA/I ± 2 σ expected 10-41 Institute of Science, and the friends of Weizmann Insti- SIMPLE (2012) XENON10 (2011) tute in memory of Richard Kronstein. We are grateful to 10-42 CRESST-II (2012) LNGS for hosting and supporting XENON. COUPP (2012)
ZEPLIN-III (2012) 10-43 EDELWEISS (2011/12) XENON100 (2011) CDMS (2010/11) 10-44
WIMP-Nucleon Cross Section [cm Electronic address: [email protected]
10-45 † Electronic address: [email protected] 6 7 8 910 20 30 40 50 100 200 300 400 1000 [1] N. Jarosik et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. 192,14(2011); WIMP Mass [GeV/c2] K. Nakamura et al. (PDG), J. Phys. G37,075021(2010). preLHC! [2] G. Steigman and M. S. Turner, Nucl. Phys. B253,375 FIG.Confusion 3: New region result on spin-independentmo vated WIMP-nucleon by theory (SUSY) scat- (1985); G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, and K. Griest, tering from XENON100: The expected sensitivity of this run Phys. Rept. 267,195(1996). is shown by the green/yellowL. Roszkowski, PACIFIC-2014, 19 Sep. 2014 band (1 /2MasterCode ) and the, BayesFITS result- 9 [3] G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, Phys. Rept. 405,279 ing exclusion limit (90% CL) in blue. For comparison, other (2005). experimental results are also shown [19–22], together with [4] M. W. Goodman and E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D31,3059 the regions (1 /2 ) preferred by supersymmetric (CMSSM) (1985). models [18]. [5] E. Aprile et al. (XENON100), Astropart. Phys. 35,573 (2012). [6] E. Aprile et al. (XENON100), Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, the benchmark region fluctuates to 2 events is 26.4% and 131302 (2011). confirms this conclusion. [7] M. Aglietta et al. (LVD), Phys. Rev. D58,092005(1998). [8] E. Aprile et al. (XENON100) Astropart. Phys. 35,43 A 90% confidence level exclusion limit for spin- (2011). independent WIMP-nucleon cross sections ⇥ is calcu- [9] E. Aprile et al., Phys. Rev. C79,045807(2009). lated, assuming an isothermal WIMP halo with a lo- [10] X. Du et al., Rev. Sci. Instr. 75,3224(2004). 3 cal density of =0.3 GeV/c , a local circular veloc- [11] E. Aprile et al. (XENON100), (2012), arXiv:1207.3458. ity of v0 = 220 km/s, and a Galactic escape velocity of [12] E. Aprile et al. (XENON100), Phys. Rev. D84,052003 (2011). vesc = 544 km/s [17]. Systematic uncertainties in the en- ergy scale as described by the parametrization of [6] [13] S. Yellin, Phys. Rev. D66,032005(2002). Le [14] G. Plante et al., Phys. Rev. C84,045805(2011). and in the background expectation are profiled out and [15] E. Aprile et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 97,081302(2006). represented in the limit. Poisson fluctuations in the num- [16] M. M. Szydagis et al., JINST 6,P10002(2011). ber of PEs dominate the S1 energy resolution and are [17] M. C. Smith et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 379,755 also taken into account along with the single PE resolu- (2007). tion. The expected sensitivity of this dataset in absence [18] Combined region using C. Strege et al., JCAP 1203, of any signal is shown by the green/yellow (1⇥/2⇥) band 030 (2012); A. Fowlie et al. (2012), arXiv:1206.0264; in Fig. 3.Thenewlimitisrepresentedbythethickblue O. Buchmueller et al. (2011), arXiv:1112.3564. [19] C. Savage et al., JCAP 0904,010(2009). line. It excludes a large fraction of previously unexplored [20] C. E. Aalseth et al. (CoGeNT), Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, parameter space, including regions preferred by scans of 131301 (2011). the constrained supersymmetric parameter space [18]. [21] G. Angloher et al. (CRESST-II), Eur. Phys. J. C72,1971 The new XENON100 data provide the most strin- (2012). 2 gent limit for m > 8 GeV/c with a minimum of [22] Z. Ahmed et al. (CDMS), Science 327,1619(2010); 45 2 2 Z. Ahmed et al. (CDMS), Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, ⇥ =2.0 10 cm at m = 55 GeV/c . The max- imum gap analysis uses an acceptance-corrected expo- 131302 (2011); E. Armengaud et al. (EDEL- WEISS), Phys. Lett. B 702,329(2011);J.Angle sure of 2323.7 kg days (weighted with the spectrum of a et al. (XENON10), Phys. Rev. Lett. 107,051301(2011); 2 100 GeV/c WIMP) and yields a result which agrees with M. Felizardo et al. (SIMPLE), Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, the result of Fig. 3 within the known systematic di er- 201302 (2012); E. Behnke et al. (COUPP) (2012), ences. The new XENON100 result continues to challenge arXiv:1204.3094; D. Y. Akimov et al. (ZEPLIN- the interpretation of the DAMA [19], CoGeNT [20], and III), Phys. Lett. B 709, 14 (2012); E. Armengaud CRESST-II [21] results as being due to scalar WIMP- et al. (EDELWEISS) (2012), arXiv:1207.1815. nucleon interactions. Direct Detec on Nov. 2013 38 10 DAMIC I PDG update 2013 XENON10-LE CDMS-LE (1204.2373) CoGeNT EDELWEISS-LE limit 40 10 CoGeNT DAMA/LIBRA ROI
42 10 CDMS-Si CRESST II LHC:
] (normalised to nucleon) ZEPLIN III 2 CDMS+EDEL WEISS theory region has moved down and cMSSM-preLHC 44 right 10 68% section [cm XENON100 Neutrino in a very specific way Background LUX Cross Projection for pMSSM- 95% postLHC Smoking gun 46 Direct Detection 10 0 1 2 3 of SUSY? 10 10 10 10 2 WIMP Mass [GeV/c ] preLHC! mo vated by theory (SUSY) Confusion region gone L. Roszkowski, PACIFIC-2014, 19 Sep. 2014MasterCode , BayesFITS 10 5 erage of the two scalar top masses), based on the been provided by the CMS CollaborationSearch [2]: Strategy (I) relevant two-loop Renormalization-Group Equa- Main news from the LHC so far… + +1.0 9 tions (RGEs) [49], see [50] and references therein BR(Bs µ µ )CMS =(3.0 0.9) 10 , 5 ⌅ ⇥ for details. The e⇥ects of this new correction + +2.1 10 BR(Bd µ µ )•CMSZZ→=(34! events.5 1 form.8) the10 dominant , and(2) ⌅ ⇥ Z→4! Peak starterage at of the the twothree-loop scalar top order. masses), It has based been on en- the Ø SM-like Higgs par cle at ~125 been provided by theirreducible CMS background Collaboration GeV [2]: suredrelevant that two-loop the resummed Renormalization-Group logarithms, which Equa- are and the LHCb Collaboration [3]: + • Some additional+1. 0reducible background9 obtainedtions (RGEs) in the [49],MS scheme, see [50] are and correctly references matched therein BR(Bs µ µ )CMSfrom=(3 sources.0 such0.9) as Z+jets,10 ttbar,, etc. ⌅ + +1.1 ⇥ 9 Signal Peak ontofor details.the one- and The two-loop e⇥ects of corrections this new in correction the on- BR(Bs µ +µ )LHCb =(2.9+21.1.0) 10 10 , BR(Bd ⌅ µ µ )CMS =(3.5 1.8) ⇥10 , (2) shell scheme that were already included previ- Ø ⌅ + • Higgs signal produces+2.4 ⇥ a sharp10 bump5 start at the three-loop order. It has been en- No (convincing) devia ons BR(Bd µ µ )LHCb =(3.7 2.1) 10 . (3) ICHEP’14 ously [36]. The main e⇥ect is an upward shift ⌅ on a smooth background ⇥ mass sured that the resummed logarithms, which are and the LHCb Collaborationdistribution [3]: ofobtainedMh for in stop the MS masses scheme, in the are multi-TeV correctly matched range, from the SM These numbers correspond to time averaged (TA) erage of the two scalar top masses), based on the been provided+ by the4 CMS Collaboration+1.1 [2]:9 asonto well the as one- the possibility and two-loop of a corrections refined estimate in the on- of branchingBR(Bs fractions,µ µ )•LHCbWeand can=(2 see are. 9the in1 signal.0 good) peak10 agreement building, relevant two-loop Renormalization-Group Equa- ⌅ ⇥ theshell theoretical scheme thatuncertainty were already that is incorporated included previ- in with the SM++ TA expectationsup around+1 m(4.+20! [56]). ~4 125 (see GeV9 also10 [57]): tions (RGEs) [49], see [50] and references therein BR(BR(BBsd µµ µµ )CMS)LHCb=(3=(3.0 .70.9)2.1)10 10, . (3) ⌅⌅ ⇥ ⇥ ourouslyfor global details. [36]. fits. The ThisThe main e shift⇥ects e⇥ inect ofM this ish relaxes an new upward correction substan- shift + +2.1 10 BR(B µ µMSUGRA/CMSSM: ) tan=(3β = 30, A =. -2m5 0, µ>0 ) 10 , (2) MSUGRA/CMSSM: tanβ = 30, A = -2m0, µ>0 d + CMS 0 1.8 9 0 of Mh for stop masses in the multi-TeV range, BR(TheseBs numbers⌅ µ µ correspond)SM =(3.65 to time0⇥.23) averaged10 (TA), tially the constraints from the Higgs mass on the ~ q ATLAS ATLAS start at the three-loop order. It has been en- 900 (2200 GeV) Preliminary Preliminary
H (124 GeV) H (125 GeV) H (126 GeV) ⌅ [GeV] 4 ± ⇥ -1 1/2 -1 5000 as well as the possibility of a refined estimate of branching fractions,+ and are in L good dt = 20.3 fb , agreements=8 TeV 10 L dt = 20.3 fb , s=8 TeV CMSSMsured thatand NUHM1 the resummed and related logarithms, models which [33]. are and the LHCbm Collaboration [3]: ∫ ∫ BR(Bd µ800 µ )SMq ~ =(1.06 0.09) 10 . (1800 GeV) g~ (1800 GeV) 0-lepton combined the theoretical uncertainty that is incorporated in with the⌅ SM TA expectations± [56]0-lepton (see combined⇥ also [57]): Aobtained numerical in the analysisMS scheme, in the are CMSSMcorrectly matched includ- SUSY SUSY 4000 Observed limit (±1 σtheory)
Observed limit (±1 σ ) (4)squark mass [GeV] theory +700 g~ (1600 GeV) +1.1 9 Expected limit (±1 σ ) our global fits. This shift in Mh relaxes substan- BR(B µ µ ) =(2.9 ) Expected10 limit (±,1 σ ) exp s LHCb exp ingonto leading the one- three-loop and two-loop corrections corrections to M inh theusing on- Ø Stringent lower limits 4 1.0 + 9 Stau LSP ~ ⌅ q ⇥Stau LSP 3000 600 (1400 GeV) ~ tiallyshell the scheme constraints that were from already the Higgs included mass on previ- the BR(Bs µ+ µ )SM =(3g (1400 GeV) .65+2.40.23) 1010 , the code H3m [51]) was presented in [52]. It was AnBR( oB⇧d cial⌅µ combinationµ )LHCb =(3 of.7 the±2.1) CMS10⇥ and. LHCb(3) + ~ 10 CMSSM and NUHM1 and related models [33]. on superpartner⌅ 500 masses g (1200 GeV) ⇥ shownously that [36]. the The leading main three-loop e⇥ect is an terms upward can have shift resultsBR(Bd canµ beµ found )SM =(1 in the.06 conference0.09) 10 note [58]:. 2000 ⌅ ~ ± ⇥ A numerical analysis in the CMSSM includ- g (1000 GeV) a strongof Mh impactfor stop on masses the interpretation in the multi-TeV of the range, mea- These numbers400 correspond to time averaged (TA)(4) 1000 ingas leading well as the three-loop possibility corrections of a refined to estimateMh using of + 4 9 ATLAS-CONF-2013-047 SUSY masses pushed to 1 branching fractions,300 and are inTeV good+ scale… agreement sured Higgs mass value in the CMSSM. Here, BR(Bs µ µ )1000exp =(2 2000.9 30000.7) 400010 5000 , 6000 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 the code H3m [51]) was presented in [52]. It was ⌅ ± ⇥ m [GeV] the theoretical uncertainty that is incorporated in An o⇧cial combination of the CMS and0 LHCb gluino mass [GeV] with the new version of FeynHiggs, we go beyond with the SM+ TA expectations+1 [56].6 (see also10 [57]): shownour global that the fits. leading This shift three-loop in M relaxes terms can substan- have BR(resultsBd canµ beµ found )exp =(3 inL. Roszkowski, PACIFIC-2014, 19 Sep. 2014 the.6 conference1.4) 10 note. [58]:(5) 11 h ⌅ ⇥ this analysis by including (formally) subleading Figure+ 5: Exclusion limits for MSUGRA/CMSSM9 models with tan = 30, A = 2m and µ>0 pre- a strongtially the impact constraints on the from interpretation the Higgs mass of the on mea- the BR(Bs µ µ )SM =(3.65 0.23) 10 , 0 0 three-loop corrections as well as a resummation ⌅sented+ (left) in the m –m /±plane and⇥ (right)9 in the mg–m plane. Exclusion limits are obtained by using suredCMSSM Higgs and mass NUHM1 value and in related the CMSSM. models [33]. Here, InBR( allBs newµ+ physicsµ )exp =(2 (NP)0 .91 2 models0.7) 10 with 10, mini-˜ q˜ BR(Bd ⌅theµ signalµ ) regionSM =(1 with. the06 best±0 expected.09)⇥ 10 sensitivity . at each point. The blue dashed lines show the expected to all orders of the logarithmic contributions to mal flavour⌅ + violation (MFV)+1± .6 [59],⇥ including10 the withA the numerical new version analysis of FeynHiggs in the CMSSM, we go beyond includ- BR(B limitsµ atµ 95%) CL,=(3 with.6 the light) (yellow)10 bands. (4) indicating(5) the 1⇤ excursions due to experimental and M , see above. d exp 1.4 + thishing analysis leading by three-loop including corrections (formally) to subleadingMh using CMSSM⌅background-theory and the NUHM1, uncertainties. BR(B⇥ Observeds µ limitsµ ) are and indicated by medium (maroon) curves, where the + ⌅ three-loopthe code H3m corrections[51]) was as presented well as a in resummation [52]. It was BR(An oB⇧dcialsolid combinationµ contourµ ) represents can deviateof the the nominal CMS from limit, and their and LHCb the corre- dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross- The new version of FeynHiggs also includes In all⌅ new physics (NP) models with mini- antoshown all updated orders that the estimate of the leading logarithmic of three-loop the theoretical contributions terms can have un- to spondingresultsmal flavour cansection SM be violation predictions, found by the theoretical in (MFV) the but conference scale their[59], and PDF including ratio note uncertainties. remains [58]: the The black star indicates the MSUGRA/CMSSM benchmark model used in5 Fig. 3(left). + Mah, strong see above. impact on the interpretation of the mea- fixed at the SM value [60]: certainty, Mh FH, due to missing higher- CMSSM and+ the NUHM1, BR(Bs µ9 µ ) and BR(Bs µ µ+ )exp =(2.9 0.7) 10⌅ , sured Higgs mass| value in the CMSSM. Here, BR(B µ µ ) can deviate from their corre- ordercontributionsThe new version to ofMhFeynHiggs[36], whichalso is typically includes d⌅ In+ the absence of a statistically± ⇥ significant excess limits are set on contributions to the SRs from new with the new version of FeynHiggs, we go beyond BR(Bs ⌅ µ+ µ )NP +1.6 10 inan the updated range 1.0 estimate to 1.5 GeV of the in the theoretical favoured un-re- BR(spondingBd ⌅physics. SMµ µ predictions, Model)exp =(3 independent.6 but=1.4 31) limits their.4110 are ratio2 listed..19 remains. in Table(5)(6) 4 for the number of new physics events and the this analysis by including (formally) subleading ⌅ + 5 ⇥ fixedBR(B atd thevisibleµ SMµ cross-section value)NP [60]:⇤vis (defined as± the product of the production cross-section times reconstruction gionscertainty, of the parameterMh FH, due spaces to we missing sample. higher- The MFV three-loop corrections as well as a resummation In all new⌅e⇥ciency physics times acceptance), (NP) models computed with assuming mini- an absence of signal in the control regions. ordercontributions| to M [36], which is typically theoreticalto all orders uncertainty of the logarithmic ish to be incorporated contributions in to Data+ from all the channels are used to set limits on SUSY models, taking the SR with the best 2 WemalBR( exploit flavourBs µ violationthisµ property)NP (MFV) to [59], combine including BR(B thes thein the global range⇥ 1.0function to 1.5 via GeV a contribution in the favoured of the re- ⌅expected sensitivity at each= 31 point.41 in several2+.19 . parameter(6) spaces. A profile log-likelihood ratio test in Mh, see above. + + + ⌅ µCMSSMBR(µ B)d and andµ BR( theµ B NUHM1,)dNP µ µ BR( )B measurementss ±µ µ ) and into formgions of the parameter spaces we sample. The ⌅combination+ with⌅ MFV the CLs prescription⌅ [68] is used to derive 95% CL exclusion regions. The nominal The new version of FeynHiggs also includes aBR( singleBd constraintsignalµ µ cross-section ) can in the deviate and CMSSM the uncertainty from (NUHM1) their are taken corre- from pa- an ensemble of cross-section predictions using theoretical uncertainty is to be incorporated2 in ⌅ an2 updated2 estimate(Mh,FH ofM theh,exp theoretical) un- rameterspondingWe exploit space.di SM erent this predictions, PDF In property particular, sets and factorisationbut to their combine for each ratioand renormalisation of BR( remains theBs four scales, as described in Ref. [69]. Observed limits the⇥ ( globalM )=⇥ function via a contribution. of(1) the 5 ⌅ h 2 2 fixedµ+µ at) and theare calculated SM BR( valueB for [60]: bothµ+ theµ nominal) measurements cross-section, and into1⇤ uncertainties. Numbers quoted in the text are certainty, ( MMh hFHFH,) due+( toMh missingexp) higher- measurements ind (2) and (3) we determine the± form | | | evaluated from⌅ the observed exclusion limit based on the nominal cross-section less one sigma on the ordercontributions to Mh [36], which is typically a single constraint in the CMSSM (NUHM1) pa- Conservatively, in this paper we assume2 a fixed ratio theoretical+ uncertainty. 2 (Mh,FH Mh,exp) rameterBR(Bs space.µ µ In)NP particular, for each of the four ⇥in( theMh)= range 1.0 to 1.5 GeV in the favoured. (1) re- ⌅ = 31.41 2.19 . (6)= A = m µ> / value Mh FH =1.5 GeV2 in our evaluation2 In+ Fig. 5 the+ results are interpreted in the tan 30, 0 2 0, 0 slice of MSUGRA CMSSM ( Mh FH) +( Mh exp) measurementsBR(Bd BR(µBqµ2 in)NPµ (2)MFVµ and)exp (3) we± determine the gions of the| parameter spaces we sample. The ⌅models . The best performing signal regions are E-tight for m0 & 1500 GeV and C-tight for m0 . of (1), pending a more| complete| evaluation of Rµµ = ⌅ (q = s, d) , (7) theoretical uncertainty is to be incorporated in ratio 1500 GeV. Results+ are presented in both the m –m and m –m planes. The sparticle mass spectra and Conservatively, in this paper we assume a fixed We exploitBR( thisBq propertyµ µ )SM to combine BR(B0 1/2 g˜ q˜ Mh FH in a future2 version of FeynHiggs. decay tables⌅ are calculated with SUSY-HIT [70]s interfaced to the SOFTSUSY spectrum generator [71] and valuethe| global Mh ⇥FH function=1.5 GeV via a contributionin our evaluation of the + + + ⌅ 4µTheµ results) andBR(SDECAY from BR(Bq [72].B thedµ ATLASµµ )µexp [53],) measurements CDF [54] and DØ into [55] form | + R = ⌅ (q = s, d) , (7) 2.5.of (1), The pending BR(B a moreµ completeµ ) and evaluation BR(B of µµ ⌅ + s d Collaborationsa singleBR( constraintAnB areq interpretation not inµ consideredtheµ ) CMSSM ofSM the results in our (NUHM1) is study, also presented as pa- they in Fig. 6 as a 95% CL exclusion region in the M + in a future!(M version ofM FeynHiggs)2 . ! hµ2FHµ ) Constraintsh,FH h,exp haverameter significantly space.(mg˜ , mq˜)-plane In⌅ less particular, precision for a simplified than for set each the of phenomenological results of the of four CMS MSSM (Minimal Supersymmetric extension of ⇥|(Mh)= 2 2 . (1) 4 andThe LHCb. resultsthe from SM) models the ATLAS with m⌅ [53],0 equal CDF to 0, [54] 395 and GeV DØ or [55]695 GeV. In these models the gluino mass and the ( Mh FH)+ +( Mh exp) measurements in (2) and (3)˜1 we determine the 2.5.To date, The BR( theB mosts | preciseµ µ ) measurements and| BR(Bd of 5CollaborationsThe numericalmasses valueare of the not in ‘light’-flavour (6) considered is obtained squarks in ourtaking (of study, the into first accountas two they generations, including bothq ˜R andq ˜L, and assum- Conservatively,+ + in! this paper we assume+ a fixed! ratio BR(Bsµ µ µ)µ Constraints ) and BR(Bd µ µ )have thehave latest significantly SMing mass inputs degeneracy)less from precision Ref. are [56]. setthan to the the values results shown of CMS on the axes of the figure. All other supersymmetric value ⌅ Mh FH =1.5 GeV in⌅ our evaluation and LHCb.particles, including+ the squarks of the third generation, are decoupled. BR(B µ µ ) To date, the| most precise measurements of R5The= numericalq value⌅ in (6) isexp obtained(q = takings, d) , into account(7) of (1), pending+ a more complete evaluation+ of µµ + BR(Bs µ µ ) and BR(Bd µ µ )have the latestBR( SMB inputsq µ fromµ ) Ref.SM [56]. Mh FH in a future version of FeynHiggs. 2Five⌅ parameters are needed to specify a particular MSUGRA/CMSSM model: the universal scalar mass, m , the universal | ⌅ ⌅ 0 4The resultsgaugino from mass them ATLAS1/2, the universal [53], trilinear CDF scalar [54] coupling,and DØA0 [55], the ratio of the vacuum expectation values of the two Higgs fields, + tan , and the sign of the higgsino mass parameter, µ = . 2.5. The BR(Bs µ µ ) and BR(Bd Collaborations are not considered in our study, as± they + ! ! µ µ ) Constraints have significantly less precision than the results of CMS and LHCb. 13 To date, the most precise measurements of 5The numerical value in (6) is obtained taking into account + + BR(B µ µ ) and BR(B µ µ )have the latest SM inputs from Ref. [56]. s ⌅ d ⌅ …and from the media…
April 2012
L. Roszkowski, PACIFIC-2014, 19 Sep. 2014 12 Supersymmetry
Symmetry among par cles
bosons <-> fermions
www. mesofindiatravel.com
L. Roszkowski, PACIFIC-2014, 19 Sep. 2014 13 SUSY and dark ma er
Candidates for a WIMP
• Weakly interac ng • Massive • stable
WIMP = lightest supersymmetric par cle
L. Roszkowski, PACIFIC-2014, 19 Sep. 2014 14 The 125 GeV SM-Like Higgs Boson
A blessing or a curse for SUSY?
L. Roszkowski, PACIFIC-2014, 19 Sep. 2014 15 The 125 GeV Higgs Boson and SUSY
A blessing…
Ø Fundamental scalar --> SUSY Ø Light and SM-like --> SUSY Rough Higgs-mass range predictions Excl. by LEP
Low energy SUSY predic on: SM (valid up to MP) Higgs mass up to ~135 GeV {
weakly-coupled models MSSM
Constrained SUSY predic on: Composite PGB Higgs SM-like Higgs with mass up to ~130 GeV { Higgsless strongly-coupled models GeV 50 100 150 200 Higgs mass Pomarol L. Roszkowski, PACIFIC-2014, 19 Sep. 2014 16 16
BayesFITS (2012)
2500 Light Higgs mass mh mh:81-117GeV CMSSM, µ>0 117 - 119 GeV with (g 2)µ 119 - 122 GeV LHC (5/fb)+ m 125 GeV 122 - 128 GeV 2000 h'
1500 (GeV) 2
/ to compare those results with our recent CMSSM analysis [25]. In doing so, one needs to take into 1 1000 m account the di⇤erences between the numerical codes and constraints adopted in both studies. We summarize them here. to compare those results with our recent CMSSM analysis [25]. In doing so, one needs to take into 1. In this study we use NMSSMTools for calculating the supersymmetric spectrum, while in [25] 500 account the di⇤erences between the numerical codes and constraints adopted in both studies. We we used SoftSUSY. We have repeatedly cross-checkedsummarize the spectra them here. obtained in the MSSM limit of the NMSSM with the ones generated by SoftSUSY,1. finding In this some study di we⇤erences, use NMSSMTools especially with for calculating respect the supersymmetric spectrum, while in [25] 0 to loop corrections giving the largest values of the lightest Higgs mass. In some regions of the 05001000150020002500300035004000 we used SoftSUSY. We have repeatedly cross-checked the spectra obtained in the MSSM limit of the parameter space the di⇤erenceThe 125 between the two generatorsGeV amounted Higgs to 0.5 1 GeV. Boson Given the and SUSY m0 (GeV) NMSSM with the ones generated⇧ by SoftSUSY, finding some di⇤erences, especially with respect experimental and theoretical uncertainties into the loop Higgs corrections mass, such giving di⇤erence the largest amounts values to of0 the.25 lightest Higgs mass. In some regions of the 2 ⇧ (a) units of ⌅ , which is not significant for(b) the purposeparameter of the space global the scan. di⇤erence between the two generators amounted to 0.5 1 GeV. Given the + ⇧ 2. In this paper we have applied a new limitexperimental on BR (Bs andµ theoreticalµ ), obtained uncertainties from the combina-in the Higgs mass, such di⇤erence amounts to 0.25 ⌃ + ⇧ Figure 11: (a) Scatter plot showing the valuetion of m ofh in LHCb, the (m ATLAS0, mA 1/ and2)curse plane CMS of data the… [33]. CMSSM Weunits have for of the⌅ further2, case which with modeled is not the significant the Bs forµ µ the likelihood purpose of the global scan. ⌃ + assumed light Higgs mass around 125 GeV. (b)according Marginalized to the posterior procedure pdf described in the parameters is Sec. 3.1. TheX2.t vs In SMM this rateSUSY paper rescaled, relevant we have by the applied time dependent a new limit asym- on BR (Bs µ µ ), obtained from the combina- + 9 ⌃ + for the loop correctionsmetries to the [34] Higgs is now mass, BR (B fors theµ sameµ )SM case.=(3.53tion0 of.38) LHCb,10 ATLAS, which and is a CMS value data more [33]. appropriate We have further modeled the Bs µ µ likelihood In SUSY ⌃ Higgs mass is a ± calculated⇥ quan ty9 ⌃ for comparison with the experimental rate thanaccording the unscaled, to the procedure3.2 10 described , one. is Sec. 3.1. The SM rate rescaled by the time dependent asym- ⇧ MS⇥ + 9 3. We have updated the nuisance parametersmetriesMt [34]and ism nowb(m BRb) (Bfollowings µ µ [31];)SM =(3 see Table.53 0 2..38) 10 , which is a value more appropriate plane, for the signal case. One can see that Higgs masses compatible with 125 GeV at 1⇥ can be obtained in large ⌃ ± ⇥ 9 The upgrade in Mt has significant implicationsfor for comparisonmh . The with leading the experimental one-loop corrections rate than to the the unscaled, 3.2 10 , one. number across the whole plane. Particularly, the mass distributionØ presented 1 loop in Fig.correc on 11(a) has one interesting1 aspect. ⇧ ⇥ Higgs mass squared are given by 3. We have updated the nuisance parameters M and m (m )MS following [31]; see Table 2. The one-loop contribution to the Higgs mass in the decoupling limit (m m ) for moderate-to-large tan is given t b b A Z The upgrade in M has significant implications for m . The leading one-loop corrections to the by [56] ⇤ 4 2 2 t 2 h1 2 3mt MSUSYHiggs massXt squared areX givent by mh = 2 2 ln 2 + 2 1 2 , (18) 2 2 4⇤2 v mt MSUSY 12MSUSY 2 MSUSY Xt Xt ⇤ ⇥ ⇥⌅4 2 2 2 mh ln + 1 , (18)2 3mt MSUSY Xt Xt 2 2 2 4 m = ln + 1 , (18) ⌅ mwheret mMisSUSY the running 12 topMSUSY quark mass, M is the geometricalh average2 2 of the physical2 stop 2 2 t ⇥ SUSY 4⇤ v mt M 12M 2 4 ⇤ ⇥ SUSY SUSY ⇥⌅ masses, MSUSY mt˜1 mt˜2 , and Xt = At µe cot .Since mh mt it is now easier to generate where mt is the top quark mass, MSUSY is the geometrical average⌅ of the physical stop masses, and Xt = At µ⌥cot . 4 Higgs masses in agreement with the experimentalwhere values.mt is the In particular, running top as quark we highlighted mass, M inSUSY [25],is the geometrical average of the physical stop While the presence of a relatively heavy Higgs is not a surprise in the A-funnel region, where the one-loop contribution 2 4 a Higgs mass compatible with the observed excessmasses, atM 125SUSY GeV was mt˜ rathermt˜ , and di⌃cultXt = toAt achieveµe cot over .Since mh mt it is now easier to generate to mh is driven up by a large SUSY scale, it is more striking in the⇤ ˜-coannihilation region. This e⇥ect is particularly⌅ 1 2 ⌥ strong in the case of a putative Higgs signal. Asthe anticipated CMSSM parameter above, to ensure space. such That a tension heavy hasHiggsHiggs now mass masses become in the in somewhat agreement region of reduced, with the and experimental we will show values. In particular, as we highlighted in [25], below that the correct Higgs mass can be obtaineda Higgs in mass the CMSSM compatible limit with of the the CNMSSM. observed excess at 125 GeV was rather di⌃cult to achieve over low m0 and m1/2, the contribution from the Xt factor in Eq. (18) should be significant. (Xt At almost throughout the whole parameter space.) In fact, it turns out that the⇤ ˜-coannihilation region is thethe only⇥ CMSSM region parameterof parameter space. That tension has now become somewhat reduced, and we will show space where the factor X /M reaches values4.1 close!"#$9,22($1,M#=,"&&- Impact to 2 of.5, the the maximalrelic density contributionbelow from that the stop-mixing.the correct Higgs mass can be obtained in the CMSSM limit of the CNMSSM. | t| SUSY ⇥ The interplay between M and X just described6*(7"&#(#%(X%:*'(#1*('$A*'$1%%:(0%(#%("&"'Z@*(d(L%00$V'*(0.*&"+$%0^ is often claimed in the literature to be an indication of fine- SUSY t To set the groundOnly for the m_h~125 presentationGeV of our and CMS numericallower results, we first comment on the role of the tuning [57], thus making the CMSSM a less natural model than, for instance, the Next-to-Minimal4.1 Impact Supersymmetric of the relic density P<((((((((((((((((((((b*S((("relic!"#$% density of DM(M
4Note that running top quark mass is related to the pole mass through the formula given in Eq. (10) of Ref. [64]. 11 11 Constrained Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (CMSSM)
G. L. Kane, C. F. Kolda, L. Roszkowski and J. D. Wells, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 6173
figure from hep-ph/9709356
In general supersymmetricL. Roszkowski, PACIFIC-2014, 19 Sep. 2014 SM too many free parameters 18 ~125 GeV Higgs in the CMSSM !"#$9,22($1,M#=,"&&- 1302.5956 6*(7"&#(#%(X%:*'(#1*('$A*'$1%%:(0%(#%("&"'Z@*(d(L%00$V'*(0.*&"+$%0^• Include only m_h~125 GeV and lower limits from direct P<((((((((((((((((((((b*S((("& '!"#$% (M<((((((((((((((((((((b*S((((("& '!"#$% d<(((((((((((((((((((((((((b*S"& '"& '!"#$% ! " SUSY searches! " 2B.8(B/(:*Q*&*+"#*8( 2B.H0$Q&"'8(B/(*0."L*:5 2B/H0$Q&"'8(B.(*0."L*:5 ((((((((0$Q&"'(0**0(V%#15 (m 125.8GeV)2 h 2 2 D7$0.8*"<&E&.0#&F,(((-.G<<*.0&%&(#1*(BWb!;C(X"00(,+%X()>B(e +⇥ L
We use DR-bar AH7%G<*"0&9"G0#<(%&(#1*(#+C(">)$(C4B(%,(#1*(_!IDED)EDI(JWbbB(,+%X()>B approach (So Susy). It gives larger m_h. A curse… ~125 GeV Higgs mass implies
!"#$%&'()*+)'*,'& "-./01&23./3mul -TeV scale for SUSY ( A weak upper bound Consistent with: on M_SUSY • SUSY direct search lower limits at LHC …except at very small tanb- • constraints from flavor >1 where it goes away 125 GeV - worst possible value (G. GiudiceL. Roszkowski, PACIFIC-2014, 19 Sep. 2014) 19 If mh were, say, 116 GeV. . .
…would have created significant tension with LHC bounds on SUSY
L. Roszkowski, PACIFIC-2014, 19 Sep. 2014 20 The 125 GeV SM-Like Higgs Boson
A blessing or a curse for DM?
L. Roszkowski, PACIFIC-2014, 19 Sep. 2014 21 CMSSM: numerical scans
§ Perform random scan • Very wide ranges: 1302.5956 over 4 CMSSM +4 SM 100 GeV m0 20 TeV (nuisance) parameters 100 GeV m1/2 10 TeV simultaneously 8
CMSSM parameter Description20 TeV APrior0 Range 20 TeVPrior Distribution m0 Universal scalar mass 100, 4000 Log m1/2 Universal gaugino mass 100, 2000 Log A0 Universal trilinear3 couplingtan-7000, 7000 62 Linear tan ⇥ Ratio of Higgs vevs 3, 62 Linear sgn µ Sign of Higgs parameter +1 or 1 Fixeda Nuisance Description Central value std. dev. Prior Distribution § ± Use Nested Sampling Mt Top quark pole mass 173.5 1.0GeV Gaussian MS ± mb(mb)SM Bottom quark mass 4.18 0.03 GeV Gaussian algorithm to evaluate MS ± s(MZ ) Strong coupling 0.1184 0.0007 Gaussian MS ± 1/ em(MZ ) Inverse of em coupling 127.916 0.015 Gaussian posterior ± a The sign of parameter µ is fixed for a given scan.
§ Use 4 000 live points Table II: Priors for the parameters of the CMSSM and for the SM nuisance parameters used in our scans. Masses Use Bayesian andapproachA0 are in GeV. (posterior)
C. The Higgs likelihood L. Roszkowski, PACIFIC-2014, 19 Sep. 2014 22 In this paper we investigate the impact of the Higgs discovery at the LHC on the CMSSM. In the CMSSM, so long as mA mZ , the lightest Higgs boson is to a very good accuracy SM-like, i.e., its couplings to ZZ and WW are almost⇤ the same as those of the SM Higgs (the so-called decoupling regime) [? ]. This has been a conclusion of many previous studies, and has been also carefully checked in Ref. [? ] with experimental constraints available at that time (among which the constraints on m0 and m1/2 were clearly weaker than those available now). We will show in Sec. III A that this assumption is justified a posteriori, given the present constraints. While the results from the LHC on the Higgs boson do indicate that the discovered boson is indeed SM-like, here we will assume that it is the lightest Higgs boson of the CMSSM that has actually been discovered. Note that in our analysis we will be using information about the Higgs mass but will not be applying constraints on its couplings, in particular on the one to . In setting up the Higgs likelihood function one has to take into account an appreciable theoretical error on the light Higgs mass calculation in the MSSM which comes primarily from neglecting higher-order loop corrections, renormalization scheme di erences, etc., which is estimated to be around 2 3 GeV [? ]. One therefore has to distinguish between the “true” value of the Higgs massm ˆ h which would result from an exact calculation (and which we identify with the physical mass), and the value of the Higgs mass, denoted here by mh, calculated within a given approximation encoded in one or another spectrum calculator.3 The Higgs mass can initially be measured with only a limited precision. We assume that the mass of a SM-like Higgs is measured atm ˆ h = 125 GeV with a Gaussian experimental uncertainty of ⇥ =2 GeV,
p(d mˆ )=exp (125 GeV mˆ )2/2⇥2 . (13) | h h Since we have only an imperfect Higgs mass calculation, we assume that the⇥ Higgs masses calculated with SOFT- SUSY are Gaussian-distributed around the “true” Higgs masses, that is
p(ˆm m )=exp (ˆm m )2/2⇤ 2 , (14) h| h h h with a theoretical error of ⇤ =2GeV.4 Our likelihood is defined as a convolution⇥ of the two functions [? ],
(m )= p(d mˆ ) p(ˆm m )dˆm . (15) L h | h ⇥ h| h h ⇤ We choose to add the experimental and theoretical errors in quadrature, finally obtaining
2 2 2 m 125 GeV(mh)=exp (125 GeV mh) /2(⇤ + ⇥ ) . (16) L h ⇥
3 In our numerical scans we use SOFTSUSY version 3.2.4 [? ]butoneshouldbeawarethatallavailableHiggsmasscodespresentlyhave similar (or larger) theoretical errors. 4 Alternatively we could take a linear, rather than Gaussian distribution, which would be much more conservative. 9
Measurement Mean or Range Exp. Error Th. Error Likelihood Distribution Ref. CMS razor 4.4/fb analysis See text See text 0 Poisson [2] SM-like Higgs mass mh 125 2 2 Gaussian [8, 9, 44] 2 ⇥⇥h 0.1120 0.0056 10% Gaussian [46] 2 sin ⇤e 0.23116 0.00013 0.00015 Gaussian [47] mW 80.399 0.023 0.015 Gaussian [47] SUSY 10 ⇥ (g 2)µ 10 28.7 8.0 1.0 Gaussian [47, 48] ⇥ 4 BR B Xs 10 3.60 0.23 0.21 Gaussian [47] ⇤ ⇥ 4 BR (Bu ⌃⇧) 10 1.66 0.66 0.38 Gaussian [49] ⇤ ⇥ MBs 17.77 0.12 2.40 Gaussian [47] + 9 BR Bs µ µ Hide and seek with SUSY < 4.5 10 0 14% Upper limit – Error Fn [23] ⇤ ⇥ Table III: The experimental measurements that we apply to constrain the CMSSM’s parameters. Masses are in GeV.
Measurement Mean or Range Error: (Exp., Th.) Distribution Ref. The experimental constraintsCombination applied of: in our scans are listed in Table III. In comparison with our previous papers CMS razor 4.4/fb , ⇧s =7TeV+ See text See text Poisson [15] Ref. [25, 26], the new upper limit on BR (Bs µ µ ) is used, which is evidently more constraining than the old one. Note also that LEPCMS and T Tevatron11.7/fb , ⇧ limitss =8TeV on⌅ the HiggsSee text sector andSee superpartner text masses are not listedPoisson in Table III[14] because the subsequentmh LHCby CMS limits were generally stronger,125.8GeV and in any0.6GeV case, in3GeV this paper we considerGaussian only the case[3] 2 of the Higgs signal. The⇥⇥h razor and Higgs limits are included0.1120 as described0.0056, in Sec. 10% II. Gaussian [48] SUSY 10 In Ref. [26] we showed⇤ (g that2)µ the e10⇥ect of the current28.7 limits from FermiLAT8.0, 1.0 and XENON100 stronglyGaussian depends on[49, 50] ⇥ 4 a proper treatment ofBR astrophysicalB Xs⇥ uncertainties.10 If3 the.43 uncertainties0 are.22, treated 0.21 in a conservative way,Gaussian both direct[51] ⌅ ⇥ 4 and indirect limits fromBR ( DMBu searches⌥⌃) 10 are not more constraining1.66 than0 the.33, accelerator 0.38 ones, hence weGaussian ignore them in[52] ⌅ ⇥ 1 1 1 the present analysis. MBs 17.719 ps 0.043 ps , 2.400 ps Gaussian [49] 2 We have developedsin a new⌅e numerical code, BayesFITS,0.23116 similar in spirit0.00012, to 0 the.00015 MasterCode [50] andGaussian Fittino [51][49] frameworks (which performMW frequentist analyses), and80. to385 SuperBayeS0. [52]015, and 0.015 PySUSY5 (which performGaussian Bayesian[49] + 9 analyses). BayesFITSBR engagesBs severalµ µ current external,10 publicly3.2 available packages:+1.5 for1.2, sampling 10% (0.32) it uses MultiNestGaussian [53] with[5] ⌅ + ⇥ 9 BR Bs µ µ 10 3.5 (3.2⇥) 0.18 (0.16⇥), 5% [0.18 (0.16⇥)] Gaussian [5] 4000 live points, evidence tolerance⌅ factorproj ⇥ set to 0.5, and sampling e⌅ciency equal to 0.8. The mass spectrum is computed with SOFTSUSYWe will and also written consider in the the form case of of projected SUSY Les uncertainties Houches Accord around files, the current which are measured then taken central as value. input ⇤ 9 SM value: 3.5 10 + files to compute various observables. We use SuperIso Relic v3.2 [54] to calculate BR B 'Xs⇥ ,BR(B⇥ s µ µ ), TableSUSY 1: The experimental constraints that we apply to constrain⌅ model parameters.⌅ 2 BR (Bu ⌃), and ⇤ (g 2) , and FeynHiggs 2.8.6 [55] to calculate the electroweak variables mW ,sin⌅e , ⌅ most important µ (by far) ⇥ and MBs . The DM observables, such as the relic density and direct detection cross sections, are10 calculateddof with MicrOMEGAs 2.4.5 [56]. Below we will present the results of our scans as one-dimensional (1D) or two-dimensional (2D) marginalized posterior pdf mapsin of parametersour scans the and top observables. massL. Roszkowski, PACIFIC-2014, 19 Sep. 2014 is one In evaluating of the nuisance the posterior parameters pdf’s, and we marginalize the e⇥ect of over varying the23 given it is SUSY model’s otherincluded parameters parametrically. and the SM’s nuisance parameters, as mentioned above and described in detail in Refs. [25, 26]. 2. The projected ‘best-case’ scenario for the determination of BR (B µ+µ ), where s ⇥ the experimental and theoretical uncertainties are both reduced to 5% of the measured A. The CMSSM with (g 2) value (see bottom row in Table 1), as explained inµ Sec. 2. In addition, as a sensitivity test, we considered both the case where the measurement will be narrowed down to the time- In Figs. 2(a) and 2(b) we show the marginalized posterior9 pdf in the (m0, m1/2) plane and in the (A0, tan ) plane, respectively. In theseaveraged and the following SM value, plots 3.5 we10 show , the and Bayesian the case 68.3% where (1 the⌥) credible current regions central in LHCb dark blue, experimental encircled 9 by solid contours, andvalue, the 95%3.2 (210⌥ ) credible, will be regions confirmed in light by blue,future encircled sensitivities. by dashed This contours. second case can in principle The posterior presentedimprove in the Fig. fit 2(a) for features the AF aregion bimodal in the behavior,µ<0 with case, two since well-defined the branching 1⌥ credible ratio there regions. assumes One mode, smaller in size,values which more is located than 1 at⇥ below small m the0,isthe˜ SM determination -coannihilation (see region, Fig. 1 whereas(d) and a [16 much]). Finally, more extended we will mode lies in the A-funnel region. Although the bimodal behavior is superficially similar to what was already observed in Ref. [25], there aredouble substantial the assumed di⇥erences. error Most around notably, the SM the highvalue, probability again as amode sensitivity which, in test. that paper and in Ref. [26], was spread overFollowing the focus thepoint procedure (FP)/hyperbolic already branch adopted (HB) in region our previous at large m papers,0 and m we didm not0, has include now 1/2 ⇤ moved up to the A-funnelthe XENON100 region. upper bound explicitly in the likelihood function. The theory uncertainties The reason for the di⇥erent behavior of the posterior with respect to Ref. [25] is twofold. On the one hand, we have are very large (up to a factor of 10) and strongly a⇥ect the impact of the experimental found that the highest density of points with the right Higgs mass can be found at m1/2 > 1 TeV, which moves the posterior credible regionslimit on up the in the parameter plane. On space. the other The hand, main some source points of error with (the a large so-calledmh⇥can also N term be found [55]) in arises the FP/HB region but thefrom scan di⇥ tendserent, to and ignore in them fact partly in favor incompatible, of points in the resultsA-funnel following region over from which di⇥erent the b-physics calcula- + constraints are better satisfied. The new upper bound on BR (B µ µ ) from LHCb also yields a substantial tions based on di⇥erent assumptions and methodologies.s ⌅ Such uncertainties do not follow a particular statistical distribution, and are not well suited for inclusion in a likelihood function. Moreover, we showed in a previous publication [47] that, when smearing out 5 Written by Andrew Fowlie,the XENON100 public release forthcoming, limit with see a theoreticalhttp://www.hepforge.org/projects uncertainty of order. ten times the given value of SI ⇥p the e⇥ect on the posterior is negligible for regions of parameter that appear up to one order of magnitude above (and below) the experimental limit. However, even if we do not include the XENON100 bound in the likelihood, below we shall comment on its possible e⇥ects on the posterior pdf. The likelihood for limits from direct SUSY searches deserves a more detailed explana- tion, which we give in the following subsection.
– 11 – The CMSSM with DM relic density
Global scan, Bayesian Kowalska, LR, Sessolo, total posterior probability regions arXiv:1302.5956
~1 TeV higgsino DM
bino DM (a) (previously (b) favored) (a) (b) ~1 TeV higgsino-like WIMP: Higgs mass CMSSM: these are the only only DM-favored regions implied by ~125 GeV Higgs
L. Roszkowski, PACIFIC-2014, 19 Sep. 2014 24
(c) (d)
Figure 4: Marginalized 2D posterior pdf in (a) the (m0, m1/2) plane of the CMSSM for µ>0, (b)(c) the (A0, tan ) plane for µ>0, (c) the(d) (m0, m1/2) plane for µ<0, and (d) the (A0, tan ) plane for µ<0, constrained by the experiments listed in Table 1,withthe Figure 4: Marginalizedexclusion of 2D⇥ ( posteriorg 2) for pdfµ< in0.(a) Thethe 68% (m credible0, m1/2 regions) plane are of shown the CMSSM in dark blue, for and the µ µ>0, (b) the (95%A0, credible tan ) plane regions for inµ> light0, blue.(c) Thethe dashed (m0, m red1/2 line) plane shows for theµ< CMS0, combined and (d) 95% CL the (A0, tan ) planeexclusion for bound.µ<0, constrained by the experiments listed in Table 1,withthe exclusion of ⇥ (g 2) for µ<0. The 68% credible regions are shown in dark blue, and the µ 95% credible regions in light blue. The dashed red line shows the CMS combined 95% CL the correct Higgs mass. (See [16] for a detailed discussion, and also [32]wherewediscussed exclusion bound.in detail the CMSSM limit of the CNMSSM, and adopted the same updated values of experimental constraints as in this study.) 3 the correct Higgs mass.As a (See side remark,[16] for wea detailed note that discussion, in [16] the and best-fit also point [32]wherewediscussed was located in the AF region. in detail the CMSSM3It was limit also emphasized of the CNMSSM, there that the and location adopted of the best-fit the same point updatedin the CMSSM values is very of sensitive to experimental constraints as in this study.) As a side remark, we note that in [16] the best-fit point was located in the AF region.3
3 It was also emphasized there that the location of the best-fit– point 17 – in the CMSSM is very sensitive to
– 17 – CMSSM and DD DM searches µ>0 1405.4289 (update of 1302.5956)
~1 TeV higgsino DM
A-funnel
(a) Stau coan’n (b)
(a) (b)
Focus point region ruled out by LUX (already tension with X100) SI Figure 7: (a) Marginalized 2D posterior distribution for the CMSSM with µ>0inthe(m , ⇥p ) plane. The red solid line shows the 90% C.L. upper bound as given by LUX, here included in the likelihood function. The gray dot-dashed line shows the 2012 XENON100 90% C.L. bound and the blue dashed line shows projected sensitivity for ~1TeV higgsino DM: exi ng prospects2017 for LUX, X100 and 1t at XENON1T. (b) Marginalized 2Ddetectors posterior distribution for the CMSSM with µ>0inthe(m , ⇥v)plane. The blue dashed line shows the expected sensitivity of CTA under the assumption of a NFW halo profile. The blue L. Roszkowski, PACIFIC-2014, 19 Sep. 2014 25 dot-dashed line shows the corresponding sensitivity with Einasto profile. The dotted gray line shows the projected sensitivity of the CTA expansion considered in [73].
(c) (d)
Figure 3: Marginalized 2D posterior distribution for the CMSSM in (a) the (m0, m1/2)expected plane for µ>0, reach (b) the as a blue dashed line in Figs. 6(a) and 6(b). Approximately 50% of the points in (A0,tan ) plane for µ>0, (c) the (m0, m1/2) plane for µ<0, and (d) the (A0,tan ) plane for µ<0. The 68% credible regions are shown in dark blue and the 95% credible regions in light blue. For comparisonthe A-resonance we show the region fall within the expected sensitivity. 68% and 95% credible regions of [11] (KRS (2013) hereafter) encapsulated by thin gray dashed lines. The ATLAS 95% C.L. exclusion line is shown in red solid for reference. 3.2 Prospects for dark matter detection 95% regions obtained in [11], which we present for comparison to highlight the impact of the new constraints. SI In Fig. 7(a) we show the 2D posterior distribution in the (m , ⇥ ) plane for µ>0. The di erent As has been long standing practice, in the CMSSM the modes of the posterior pdf are identified p according to the respective mechanisms to satisfy the relic density constraint.regions The little, are round, well separated and can be identified from left to right as the stau-coannihilation, A- 95% credibility region just above the ATLAS line at low m0 is the stau-coannihilationresonance region and [62]; 1 TeV higgsino regions. We show the current LUX 90% C.L. exclusion as a red solid ⇥ line, the previous XENON100 [45] bound as a gray dot-dashed line, and the projected sensitivity 8 of XENON-1T as a blue dashed line. The bino-like neutralino typical of the stau-coannihilation and A-resonance regions has a suppressed coupling to the nucleus, so that both regions lie well below the current LUX bound and it is very unlikely they will be tested, even with the improved sensitivity of XENON-1T. In contrast, the 1 TeV higgsino region lies almost entirely within the ⇥ projected XENON-1T sensitivity. The entire 68% and nearly all of the 95% credibility region have the potential to be probed in the next few years, encompassing about 70% of the points in the scan. This makes dark matter direct detection searches the predominant tool for exploration of the CMSSM. SI 8 In the CMSSM the largest cross section values, ⇥p > 10 pb, are obtained in the focus point region. One can see the beginning of the horizontal branch⇥ joining the higgsino and focus point regions, at m 0.7 0.8TeV. The e ect of the LUX limit in the likelihood is visible, as the ⇤ credibility region is cut o rapidly after crossing the 90% C.L. bound, shown in red. In contrast to [11], this causes the focus point region to be disfavored by the scan. In the µ<0 scenario
14 ~1 TeV higgsino DM
² Robust, present in many SUSY models (both GUT-based and not) Condi on: heavy enough gauginos
When mB˜ > 1 TeV: ⇠ easiest to achieve h2 0.1 ' when m 1 TeV H˜ ' ² Implied by ~125 GeV Higgs mass
and relic density No need to employ special mechanisms (A-funnel or coannihila on) to obtain ² Most natural correct relic density ² Smoking gun of SUSY!? L. Roszkowski, PACIFIC-2014, 19 Sep. 2014 26 … generic
and m1/2 is relaxed and there remains a significant part of the low-fine-tuned parameter e.g., Next-to-MSSM (extra space to besinglet tested Higgs) at LHC14. Kaminska, Ross, Schmidt-Hoberg, 1308.4168
L. Roszkowski, PACIFIC-2014, 19 Sep. 2014 27
Figure 12: (i)The dark matter direct detection cross section as a function of the neu- tralino mass. It has been scaled (i.e. multiplied with (⇥h2)th/0.1199) to account for cases with underabundant neutralinos. Also shown is the latest bound from XENON100 [29]. (ii)The dark matter composition as a function of the relic density. Mostly bino-like LSPs are shown in blue, mostly Wino-like LSPs are shown in red and mostly higgsino- like LSPs are shown in green. (iii)The distribution of bino-, Wino-, and higgsino like LSPs in the a-b plane. For all points, in addition to the SUSY and Higgs cuts, a fine tuning < 100 was imposed.
What about the prospect of direct detection of dark matter? In Fig. 12 we plot, for relatively low-fine-tuned points, the direct detection cross section versus the mass of the lightest neutralino. Also shown is the latest bound from XENON100 [29] as well as the dark matter composition as a function of the relic density. In order to ascribe meaning to the density of points, we only show points from the scan with a uniform density in the input parameters. It can be seen that all of the points are below the XENON100 direct detection limit. Regarding the composition, we see that for the correct relic density or an underabundance the LSP is mainly composed of Wino and higgsino, with typically only a very small bino component. As in the MSSM the correct relic abundance seems to be more easily achieved with a higgsino-like LSP.
16 of fig. 3 the 1D posterior and profile likelihood for the lightest neutralino (left panel), the lighter chargino (middle panel) and the gluino (right panel). In each case, the secondary
bump observed in the posterior at mχ 1TeV, m ± 1TeVandmg! 6TeVisa ∼ χ1 ∼ ∼ reflection of the parameter space region leading to higgsino DM, as we will discuss in detail below. In the bottom row, we show the posterior and profile likelihood for the
pseudoscalar Higgs and sleptons. The non-universality of mHu and mHd in the NUHM can lead to a large positive value for the S parameter, defined in the RGEs as: S = m2 m2 +Tr m2 m2 2m2 + m2 + m2 ,wheretheparametersinboldfacedenote Hu − Hd Q − L − ¯u d¯ ¯e 3 3softmassparameters.Ingeneralthe! S parameter" is a fixed point in the RGEs of the Fall and × rise of higgsino DM CMSSM, but in the NUHM it can be nonzero and make large contributions to the running of many of the scalars, leading to, forLR, PLB 262 (1991) 59: in MSSM: example several light sleptons. However, we do not ² 1991: put to grave find this to be the case. • too li le DM un l mass >> 1 TeV The first column of Table 3 gives the best fit values for the NUHM(conflict with naturalness) base parameters and for a number of quantities of particular• bino favored interest, as wellastheoverallχ2 value and the pull of each observable. The dominant role of the (g 2)µ constraint in driving the p19MSSM (GUT scale) with higgsinoness > 99.9% ² 2004: first signs of being − 0.9 1 MSSM: Profumo & Yaguna, m~ - m < 100 GeV fit towards the small mass region will be discussed in more detail at the end ofg the 1 next subsection where we examine the higgsino-dominatedhep-ph DM/040703, and address the 0.8 question of its s ll (again?) alive 0.7 statistical viability. Arkani-Hamed, Delgado, 0.6
2 0.5
Giudice, hep-ph/0601041 h 1
3.2 Higgsino dark matter in the NUHM
0.4
² 2009: favored in unified 0.3 be mostly bino-like (like in the CMSSM) if the bino soft mass M1 < µ ,asuRoszkowski,fficiently Ruiz, heavy Trotta, Tsai & Varley (2009) 0.2 | | 4 Z < 0.3 higgsino-like state with µ
0.6 0.6 2 (TeV) 0 m 0.4 0.4
NUHM 1 NUHM NUHM
gaugino fraction Z 0.2 µ>0 gaugino fraction Z 0.2 µ>0 µ>0 posterior pdf profile likelihood log prior log prior log prior 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.5 1 0 1.5 0 1 2 3 4 m (TeV) m (TeV) m (TeV) χ χ 1/2
Relative probability density CMSSM: Cabrera et al., 1212.4821 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 ² 2012: favored by ~125 GeV Higgs mass NUHM: Strege et al., 1212.2636 Figure 4: A distribution of the gaugino fraction Z in theCMSSM & NUHM: Kowalska, et al., plane of (m ,m ) for samples Figure~1 5: TeVLeft panel: higgsino Posterior probability DM: distribution for the neutralino mass mχ and its g 1/2 0 gaugino fraction Zg. Right panel:uniformly corresponding selected profile likelihood. from our As MC above, chains. triangles The mark color the coding is1302.5956 as follows: red dots correspond to location of the best-fit points for each of the three differentL. Roszkowski, PACIFIC-2014, 19 Sep. 2014 DM compositions: mostly gaugino 28 NUHM: even atZ glow< 0.3 m_0, CMSSM: m_0 of (mostly higgsino), green squares tofew 0.3
To start with, in Fig. 4 we show in the plane (m1/2,m0)adistributionofsamples uniformly selected from our MC chains, which are color-codedaccordingtothegaugino fraction Zg of the lightest neutralino. Red circles correspond to a mostly higgsino state, –12– Zg < 0.3, green squares to a mixed state (0.3
The higgsino DM region corresponds to large values of m1/2 (within the 2σ posterior contour in the left panel of Fig. 1). As m1/2 becomes smaller, the bino-dominated fraction takes over, since in this region the neutralino mass is approximated by M1,whichscales with m1/2.Inbetweenthetwo,wefindarelativelysmallersampleofmixed-type neutralino cases. The triangles denote the best fit point for each cloud ofsamplesofagivenrespective
–14– Chances of susy signal at the LHC? 2 $
CMSSM: typical mass spectra: $ 5 1405.4289
(a) (b) • LHC – only stau coannihila on will LHC14 reach: Gluino: ~2.7 GeV be +/- covered • Squarks: ~3 TeV Need a lot of luck! CMSSM-like: chances look remote! General MSSM: much lower massesL. Roszkowski, PACIFIC-2014, 19 Sep. 2014 allowed 29
(c) (d)
Figure 3: Marginalized 2D posterior distribution for the CMSSM in (a) the (m0, m1/2) plane for µ>0, (b) the (A0,tan ) plane for µ>0, (c) the (m0, m1/2) plane for µ<0, and (d) the (A0,tan ) plane for µ<0. The 68% credible regions are shown in dark blue and the 95% credible regions in light blue. For comparison we show the 68% and 95% credible regions of [11] (KRS (2013) hereafter) encapsulated by thin gray dashed lines. The ATLAS 95% C.L. exclusion line is shown in red solid for reference.
95% regions obtained in [11], which we present for comparison to highlight the impact of the new constraints. As has been long standing practice, in the CMSSM the modes of the posterior pdf are identified according to the respective mechanisms to satisfy the relic density constraint. The little, round, 95% credibility region just above the ATLAS line at low m0 is the stau-coannihilation region [62];
8 Bayesian vs chi-square analysis (updated to include 3loop Higgs mass corrs)
9 Buchmueller et al 1312.5250
chi2
16
(a) (b) Reasonably good agreement in overlapping region
2 + Figure 7. The one-dimensional ⇧ likelihood function in the CMSSM for µ>0 for BR(Bs,d µ µ ) SI Figure 3. A compilation of parameter planes in⇤ the CMSSM for µ>0, including the (m0,m1/2) plane ~1 TeV higgsino-like WIMP: (left) andimplied the (m⇥˜0 , ⌅ by ~125 ) plane (right).GeV In bothHiggs panels, -> thelarge solid lines m1/2 and m0 are derived from a global analysis 1 p (upper left), the (m , tan ) plane (upper right), the (tan ,m ) plane (lower left), and the (M , tan ) ofL. Roszkowski, PACIFIC-2014, 19 Sep. 2014 the present data, and the dotted lines are derived from a reanalysis0 of the data used in [21], using30 the 1/2 A plane (lower right), after implementing the ATLAS 20/fb jets + /E , BR(B µ+µ ), M , ⇥ h2, implementations of the M and ⌅SI constraints discussed in Section 2. In the right panel, the red lines T s,d h h p LUX constraints and other constraints as described in the text. The results of the current CMSSM fit are denote the ⇧2 =2.30 contours, the blue lines denote the ⇧2 =5.99 contours in each case, and the indicated by solid lines and filled stars, and a fit to previous data [21] using the same implementations filled (open) green star denotes the corresponding best-fit point.SI of the Mh, ⇤p and other constraints is indicated by dashed lines and open stars. The red lines denote ⌅2 =2.30 contours (corresponding approximately to the 68% CL), and the red lines denote ⌅2 =5.99 pling regime 8, are quite similar to those in the(95% CL)3.2.1. contours. Parameter Planes with µ<0 SM and do not vary significantly9. We see in the upper left panel of Fig. 8 that parameterthere space, are so three we regionsdo not includeof the ( themm0,m in1/2) planewith the upper bound on m1/2 being provided by 2 3.2. CMSSM with µ<0 our analysis.that are The allowed lower limit at the on 95%m0 level,and the two low- small ‘reefs’the cosmological constraint on ⇥ h . The region mass ‘island’at relatively corresponds low masses to the stau (m ,m LSP bound-) (300, 1000)at small m and large m is in the focus-point 0 1/2 ⇥ 1/2 0 The case µ<0 has been studied less thanary andand the nearby (600, 2000) coannihilation GeV and a strip. more The extensive re- ‘con-region. > µ>0 (but see, e.g., [34,70]), for various reasons:gion at largetinent’m0 atand largerm1/2 massescontainingm0 the4000 best-fit GeV. The ⇥ Looking now at the (m , tan ) plane in the It worsens the discrepancy between the experi-point islower-mass in the rapid-annihilation ‘reef’ is in the funnel stau-connihilation region, re- 0 gion, as in the µ>0 case, but the higher-massupper right panel of Fig. 3, we see that the low- mental value of (g 2)µ and the SM calculation, it is in general more restricted by BR(b s⇥) ‘reef’ is in the stop-coannihilation region. Com- ⇤ pared to the high-mass ‘continent’ in the rapid- and it yields a smaller value of Mh for fixed val- ues of the other CMSSM parameters. However, annihilation funnel and focus-point regions, the ‘reef’ has smaller contributions to the global ⇧2 since the ATLAS 20/fb jets + /E T and other con- function for some electroweak and flavour observ- straints require relatively large values of m0 and m where the SUSY contribution to (g 2) ables, but is disfavoured by ATLAS 20/fb jets + (c) 1/2 µ (d) and BR(b s⇥) are small, it is appropriate to /E T . The best-fit point in the CMSSM for µ<0is reconsider⇤ the µ<0 case. shown as a yellow star: it is located in the high- mass ‘continent’, in the focus-point region. Figure 3: Marginalized 2D posterior distribution for the CMSSM in (a) the (m0, m1/2) plane for µ>0, (b) the (A0,tan ) plane for µ>0, (c) the (m0, m1/2) plane for µ<0, and (d) the (A0,tanThe ( m)0, planetan ) plane for µ< for µ<0. The0 is shown 68% in 8The fact that the light CMSSM Higgs boson should the upper right panel of Fig. 8 10. Here we credible regions are shown in dark bluebe and SM-like the was 95% already credible a pre-LHC regions predictionin of the light blue. For comparison we show the 68% and 95% credible regions of [11] (KRSmodel [69]. (2013) hereafter) encapsulated by thin10Here gray and in dashed subsequent lines. panels, we The restrict ATLAS attention to 9However, adding many channels of Higgs production and tan 40. The electroweak vacuum conditions can be 95% C.L. exclusion line is shown in reddecay solid properties for reference. whose measurements agree with the pre- satisfied for larger values of tan ,buttherangesofm0 2 dictions for a SM Higgs boson does yield a better ⇥ /dof. and A0 studied here give incomplete sampling in this case.
95% regions obtained in [11], which we present for comparison to highlight the impact of the new constraints. As has been long standing practice, in the CMSSM the modes of the posterior pdf are identified according to the respective mechanisms to satisfy the relic density constraint. The little, round, 95% credibility region just above the ATLAS line at low m0 is the stau-coannihilation region [62];
8 Unified vs pheno SUSY
Unified SUSY (Constrained MSSM) General SUSY (p9MSSM)
arXiv:1306.1567
(a) (b)
MSSM: SI Figure 7: (a) Marginalized 2D posterior distribution for the CMSSM with µ>0inthe(m , ⇥p ) plane. The red • solidmuch line showsbigger the ranges 90% C.L. allowed upper bound as given by LUX, here included in the likelihood function. The gray • dot-dashed~1 TeV line higgsino shows the DM: 2012 XENON100prospects 90% for C.L.detec on bound and the similar blue dashed to unified line shows SUSY projected sensitivity for 2017 at XENON1T. (b) Marginalized 2D posterior distribution for the CMSSM with µ>0inthe(m , ⇥v)plane. • Thenew blue LUX limit: dashed line showsstarted the expected to exclude sensitivity mixed of CTA ( underbino-higgsino the assumption) ofneutralino a NFW halo profile. The blue dot-dashed line shows the correspondingL. Roszkowski, PACIFIC-2014, 19 Sep. 2014 sensitivity with Einasto profile. The dotted gray line shows the projected31 sensitivity of the CTA expansion considered in [73].
expected reach as a blue dashed line in Figs. 6(a) and 6(b). Approximately 50% of the points in the A-resonance region fall within the expected sensitivity.
3.2 Prospects for dark matter detection SI In Fig. 7(a) we show the 2D posterior distribution in the (m , ⇥p ) plane for µ>0. The di erent regions are well separated and can be identified from left to right as the stau-coannihilation, A- resonance and 1 TeV higgsino regions. We show the current LUX 90% C.L. exclusion as a red solid ⇥ line, the previous XENON100 [45] bound as a gray dot-dashed line, and the projected sensitivity of XENON-1T as a blue dashed line. The bino-like neutralino typical of the stau-coannihilation and A-resonance regions has a suppressed coupling to the nucleus, so that both regions lie well below the current LUX bound and it is very unlikely they will be tested, even with the improved sensitivity of XENON-1T. In contrast, the 1 TeV higgsino region lies almost entirely within the ⇥ projected XENON-1T sensitivity. The entire 68% and nearly all of the 95% credibility region have the potential to be probed in the next few years, encompassing about 70% of the points in the scan. This makes dark matter direct detection searches the predominant tool for exploration of the CMSSM. SI 8 In the CMSSM the largest cross section values, ⇥p > 10 pb, are obtained in the focus point region. One can see the beginning of the horizontal branch⇥ joining the higgsino and focus point regions, at m 0.7 0.8TeV. The e ect of the LUX limit in the likelihood is visible, as the ⇤ credibility region is cut o rapidly after crossing the 90% C.L. bound, shown in red. In contrast to [11], this causes the focus point region to be disfavored by the scan. In the µ<0 scenario
14 DM direct detec on
10-38 CRESST-II (2014) 1407.0017 Reach of currently 10-40 XENON10 DAMA/LIBRA -LE running
CDMSII-Si experiments: KIMS LUX, Xenon100 10-42 CRESST-II ZEPLIN III ) per nucleon 2 CDMS,EDELWEISS 10-44 XENON100 Roszkowski CMSSM et al (2014) Neutrino >0 Background LUX µ ~2017 Buchmueller 10-46 et al (2013)
XENON1T(proj.) SI cross section (cm 10-48
10-50 100 101 102 103 104 WIMP Mass [GeV/c2]
Excellent prospects!
L. Roszkowski, PACIFIC-2014, 19 Sep. 2014 32 DM Direct detec on AD2014 7
1407.0017
L. Roszkowski, PACIFIC-2014, 19 Sep. 2014 33
SI FIG. 3: (Color online) Direct detection search limits in the mX vs. ⇥p plane. For comparison we show the latest theory predictions for the usual case of the CMSSM with µ>0 from global analyses of Buchmueller et al. (⇤2 approach) [133] and Roszkowski et al. (Bayesian approach) [534] (updated from [451]). The pMSSM region of Cahill-Rowley et al. has a much wider region [144]. The yellow region below is the neutrino background [108].
Xenon100 will reach down to explore a large fraction of . The rest of the 1 TeV higgsino region, as well as the stau co-annihilation and A funnel regions (at lower masses, from left to right), will have to wait for one-tonne detectors to be at least partially probed. It is worth stressing here, however, that in less constrained SUSY models the allowed ranges of both neutralino mass and spin-independent cross section tend to be wider, and in phenomenological SUSY scenarios, like the pMSSM, very much wider; for recent studies, see [144, 276]. In such models recent Xenon100 and SI 44 2 LUX limits have excluded a wide range of well-tempered neutralinos [77, 278, 451] lying at 10 cm . p Claims exist in the experimental community of possible detection of WIMP signals including seasonal variation of low mass ( 10 GeV) WIMP events in sodium iodide crystal in DAMA/Libra [102] and direct detection of low mass WIMPs at CoGeNT [2], CREST II [33] and CDMS/Si [18]. These low mass WIMP signals seem at face value inconsistent amongst themselves [214, 299], and are now also in strong conflict with recent null searches by Xenon100 [36], CDMSLite [13] and LUX [22], even after taking into account di erent CDM halo profiles and velocity distribution [212–215]. In addition, there exist a variety of claims from indirect detection experiments. The recent AMS-02 confirmation of an unexpected rise in the positron energy distribution confirms previous PAMELA data and may hint that WIMP- type DM can be around 700 GeV–1 TeV [19]. However, an alternative explanation occurs in that positrons may be created from ordinary pulsar processes [86, 345, 523], so it is unclear if this signal is really an indication of WIMP DM. The Fermi-LAT gamma ray telescope also sees a possible anomaly in the high energy gamma ray spectrum [584]. All these claims are weakened by large and often poorly understood astrophysical backgrounds. A fourth problem with the thermal WIMP-only CDM scenario is that it ignores other matter states that may necessarily come along with the DM particle in a complete theory and which therefore are likely to also play a role in Indirect detection
look for traces of WIMP annihilation in the MW halo (γ’s, e+’s, p¯, ...)
detection prospects often strongly depend on astrophysical uncertainties (halo models, astro bgnd, ...) Much activity: PAMELA Fermi neutrino telescopes, ATCs, ... L. Roszkowski, PACIFIC-2014, 19 Sep. 2014 34 L. Roszkowski, Taipei, 8 November ’11 – p.24 SUSY DM and positron flux Pamela (2008)
NEW AMS-02 18/09/2014
SUSY does not explain positron excess! AMS may help se le the issue: • if isotropic: DM(?) Also true for wino LSP (Hryczuk et al) L. Roszkowski, PACIFIC-2014, 19 Sep. 2014 •If direc onal: pulsar 35
CTA – New guy in DM hunt race h p://www.cta-observatory.org/ Ø ground-based gamma-ray telescope Ø Arrays in southern and northern hemisphere for full-sky coverageGC Halo Limits (bb channel)" Ø Energy range: tens of GeV to >100 TeV Ø Sensi vity: more than an order of mag improvement in 100 GeV – 10 TeV
Cherenkov Telescope Array MW Density Profile" HESS (112 hr)! Galac c Center DM Halo Fermi dSph !
15 pc 150 pc! (4 yrs +10 dsphs)!
Search Region! CTA ! 0.1° 1.0°! (NFW, 500 hr)!
L. Roszkowski, PACIFIC-2014, 19 Sep. 2014 36 diffuse gamma UCLA DMradia on 2014! from WIMP 12pair" annihila on
UCLA DM 2014! 13" CTA and Unified SUSY DM
(a) (b)(a) (b)
SI 1405.4289 Figure 11: (a) Marginalized 2D posteriorSI distribution in the (m , ⇥p )planeoftheNUHMwithµ>0. The solid Figure 7: (a) Marginalized 2D posterior distribution for the CMSSM with µ>0inthe(m , ⇥p ) plane. The red solid line shows the 90% C.L. upper bound as given by LUX,red here line shows included the in 90% the C.L. likelihood upper bound function. as given The by gray LUX, here included in the likelihood function. The dot-dashed dot-dashed line shows the 2012 XENON100 90% C.L. bound andgray the line blue shows dashed the 90% line C.L. shows 2012 projected bound sensitivityof XENON100. for The projected sensitivity for 2017 at XENON1T is shown in blue dashed. The dotted black line is the fundamental limit for WIMP direct detection due to the irreducible 2017 at XENON1T. (b) Marginalized 2D posterior distribution for the CMSSM with µ>0inthe(m , ⇥v)plane. The blue dashed line shows the expected sensitivity of CTA• underneutrino CTA to the background. assumptionprobe (b)of a Marginalized NFW large halo WIMP profile. 2D posterior The bluemasses distribution for the NUHM with µ>0inthe(m , ⇥v)plane. The blue dashed line shows the expected sensitivity of CTA under the assumption of a NFW halo profile. The blue dot-dashed line shows the corresponding sensitivity with Einasto profile. The dotted gray line shows the projected dot-dashed line shows the corresponding sensitivity with Einasto profile. The thin dotted line shows the projected sensitivity of the CTA expansion considered in [73]. • ~1 TeV higgsino DM: to be almost fully covered CTA sensitivity of the CTA expansion [73]. expected reach as a blue dashed line in Figs. 6(a) andthe first6(b). two Approximately generations, respectively. 50% of theL. Roszkowski, PACIFIC-2014, 19 Sep. 2014 points In Fig. in 10(e) we show the distribution for the gluino mass. 37 the A-resonance region fall within the expected sensitivity.The bulk of the squark mass distributions are peaked around mass values significantly smaller than in the corresponding 1 TeV higgsino region of the CMSSM, as the posterior does not extend as ⇥ 3.2 Prospects for dark matter detection much in m0, but they are still well outside the most optimistic reach for direct detection at the LHC. SI In Fig. 7(a) we show the 2D posterior distribution in the (m , ⇥ ) plane for µ>0. The di erent One observesp some solutions in common with the CMSSM, in the stau-coannihilation region, regions are well separated and can be identified from left to right as the stau-coannihilation, A- characterized by m˜ 1.5 TeV, mu˜ 3 TeV, or mg˜ 3 TeV, and a neutralino that can be as resonance and 1 TeV higgsino regions. We show the current LUX 90%t C.L.1 . exclusion asL a red. solid . ⇥ light as 0.4 TeV. Those might begin to be probed at the 14 TeV run of the LHC. However, as was line, the previous XENON100 [45] bound as a gray dot-dashed line, and the projected sensitivity explained above, the stau-coannihilation region in the NUHM extends significantly with respect to of XENON-1T as a blue dashed line. The bino-like neutralino typical of the stau-coannihilation the CMSSM, reaching quite large m values. Thus, it favors heavier gluinos, neutralinos, and and A-resonance regions has a suppressed coupling to the nucleus, so that both regions1/2 lie well scalars, and the statistical weight of the parameter space in reach of the LHC is much reduced. below the current LUX bound and it is very unlikely they will be tested, even with the improved Finally, we show for completeness in Fig. 10(f) the 1D pdf for the lightest chargino. One can see sensitivity of XENON-1T. In contrast, the 1 TeV higgsino region lies almost entirely within the ⇥ the predominant peak at m ˜ 1 TeV, encompassing models with higgsino-like⇥ ˜1±, accompanied projected XENON-1T sensitivity. The entire 68% and nearly all of the 95% credibility1± ⇤ region have by a lower tail that extends to larger mass values, typical of the wino-dominated charginos. the potential to be probed in the next few years, encompassing about 70% of the points in the scan. This makes dark matter direct detection searches the predominant tool for exploration of the CMSSM. 4.2 Prospects for dark matter detection SI > 8 SI In the CMSSM the largest cross section values, In⇥p Fig.10 11(a) pb, we are show obtained the marginalized in the focus 2D point posterior distribution in the (m , p ) plane. As was region. One can see the beginning of the horizontalthe branch case⇥ in joining the CMSSM, the higgsino shown and in Fig. focus 7(a), point one can easily identify the 1 TeV higgsino region as ⇥ regions, at m 0.7 0.8TeV. The e ect of thethe LUX large limit 68% in and the 95% likelihood credible is region visible, at asm the 1 1.2 TeV right below the LUX limit. ⇤ ⇤ credibility region is cut o rapidly after crossing the 90%The C.L. characteristics bound, shown of this in regionred. In are contrast largely independent of the model, so that the prospects to [11], this causes the focus point region to be disfavored by the scan. In the µ<0 scenario 20 14 CTA and general SUSY DM
Direct Detec on CTA reach
arXiv:1302.5956
General SUSY (p9MSSM) (a) arXiv:1306.1567 (b) MSSM: Figure 10: p9MSSM points allowed at 2⇤ by the basic constraints in the (m⇤, ⇤v) plane. The points consistent at 2⇤ with the basic and XENON100 constraints are shown for di⇥erent composition of • CTA to probe large WIMP massesthe neutralino: gaugino-like (green squares), mixed (blue circles), or higgsino-like (red stars). (a) = 43 12 MeV, (b) = 66 6 MeV. • ~1 TeV higgsino DM: to be completely⇥N covered± by DD and CTA ⇥N ± L. Roszkowski, PACIFIC-2014, 19 Sep. 2014 38 also be as low as 0.6. Di⇥erent mechanism of di-photon rate enhancement were discussed in the literature, including the e⇥ects of the light staus [13] or light charginos [128]. In our scan, di-photon rate enhancement is in general a combination of di⇥erent mechanisms.
4.4 Indirect detection of DM Having tested the compatibility of our model with the limits from XENON100, (g 2) and the µ LHC SUSY searches, we now proceed to examine the implications from ID of DM experiments on the allowed regions of the parameter space. We derive constraints from Fermi -ray data from the GC of the Milky Way as well as from its dSphs and from IceCube data on neutrinos from the Sun. The quantity relevant for indirect DM detection searches is the neutralino annihilation cross section in the limit of small momenta, ⇤v ⇤v p 0. In Fig. 10 we present the 95% confidence ⇤ | ⇥ regions obtained by adding the XENON100 likelihood to the basic set of constraints, projected onto the (m , ⇤v) plane. As was done in Fig. 6, we show the case with = 43 12 MeV in ⇤ ⇥N ± Fig. 10(a) and the one with = 66 6 MeV in Fig. 10(b). The color code describing the gaugino ⇥N ± fraction of the LSP is the same as in the previous figures. Di⇥erent mechanisms of generating the correct value of the relic density, associated with di⇥erent regions of the (M1, µ) plane in Fig. 5, can be also identified in Fig. 10(a). The first vertical branch on the left, characterized by gaugino-like neutralinos at m 60 GeV, corresponds to the HR ⇤ ⇧ region of the (M , µ) plane, while the adjacent gaugino region at ⇤v 10 26 cm3 s 1 corresponds 1 ⇧ to the bulk region. The second vertical branch at m 80 GeV, with mixed gaugino/higgsino composition, be- ⇤ ⇧ comes horizontal for larger masses and extends to 800 GeV. As we pointed out while discussing ⌅
20 Fine-tuning in ~1 TeV higgsino region
CMSSM: FT is enormous
But…
FT can be reduced as far down as ~20
(all constraints sa sfied)
Need to relax strict: • gauge coupling and 1402.1328 • mass unifica on(a) condi ons (b) • link mu to so masses ~1 TeV higgsino DM Figure 7: (a) Regions of low fine tuning in the (m0, M3) plane for di erent choices of (cH , bF )inthe NUGM ( 5:3:1)case. (b) Fine tuning of theL. Roszkowski, PACIFIC-2014, 19 Sep. 2014 three models shown in (a) (small violet dots) compared39 to (green crosses) the case shown in Fig. 4(b) (µ and m0 unrelated) and (blue dots) the CMSSM. here, by 15–20 times relative to the CMSSM.
4.2 Spectra and phenomenology
In Fig. 8(a) we show the spectrum of the point with lowest for cH =0.25, bF =0.88 in the NUGM ( 5 : 3 : 1). The spectra for c =0.20, b =0.89 and c =0.16, b =0.90 H F H F are shown in Fig. 8(b) and Fig. 8(c),respectively. Obviously, the scenario that shows the better prospects is the one characterized by lighter sparticles, shown in Fig. 8(a). Even in that case, though, the requirement of good relic density narrows down the neutralino mass to m 1 TeV, a value that will provide ⇥ a challenge for observation of other superpartners at the LHC, as it strongly limits the transverse momentum of the charged and colored SUSY particles produced in collisions. From this perspective, it does not seem surprising that SUSY particles have not been observed so far at the LHC and we fear that, if naturalness happened to be encoded in SUSY the way we analyzed in this paper, there will probably be little chance to see sparticles even in future runs. Rather than at the LHC, the best prospects for observation of this kind of scenarios come from dark matter direct detection experiments, particularly at 1-tonne detectors like XENON1T [122]. It has been shown, see e.g., [76], that there are good prospects for future detection of an m 1 TeV neutralino. We present in Table 2 the values of the spin- ⇥ independent neutralino-proton cross section for the points of lowest in the three cases given above.
Unfortunately, since these scenarios have approximately all the same m and the same higgsino composition, even upon detection at 1-tonne detectors it will be hard to distinguish
– 19 – To take home: Ø DM: jury is still out, discovery claims come and go, …but
Ø Higgs of 125 GeV à ~1TeV (higgsino) DM – robust prediction of unified (and pheno) SUSY: Smoking gun of SUSY!? • To be probed by 1-tonne DM detectors • Big bite by LUX already in 2014 • Independent probe by CTA • Other indirect detec on modes (nu, e^+, …): no chance • Far beyond direct LHC reach Ø (Fine-tuning can be reduced down to 1 in 20)
SUSY may be too heavy for the LHC DM searches may hopefully come to the rescue L. Roszkowski, PACIFIC-2014, 19 Sep. 2014 40