EPJ manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor)

March 8, 2018 MS-TP-17-14

Realistic simplified gaugino-higgsino models in the MSSM

Benjamin Fuks1,2,3a, Michael Klasen4b, Saskia Schmiemann4c and Marthijn Sunder4d 1 Sorbonne Universit´es,Universit´ePierre et Marie Curie (Paris 06), UMR 7589, LPTHE, F-75005 Paris, France 2 CNRS, UMR 7589, LPTHE, F-75005, Paris, France 3 Institut Universitaire de France, 103 boulevard Saint-Michel, F-75005 Paris, France 4 Institut f¨urTheoretische Physik, Westf¨alische Wilhelms-Universit¨atM¨unster, Wilhelm-Klemm-Straße 9, D-48149 M¨unster,Germany

Abstract. We present simplified MSSM models for light neutralinos and charginos with realistic mass spectra and realistic gaugino-higgsino mixing, that can be used in experimental searches at the LHC. The formerly used naive approach of defining mass spectra and mixing matrix elements manually and independently of each other does not yield genuine MSSM benchmarks. We suggest the use of less simplified, but realistic MSSM models, whose mass spectra and mixing matrix elements are the result of a proper matrix diagonalisation. We propose a novel strategy targeting the design of such benchmark scenarios, accounting for user-defined constraints in terms of masses and particle mixing. We apply it to the higgsino case and implement a scan in the four relevant underlying parameters {µ, tan β, M1,M2} for a given set of light neutralino and chargino masses. We define a measure for the quality of the obtained benchmarks, that also includes criteria to assess the higgsino content of the resulting charginos and neutralinos. We finally discuss the distribution of the resulting models in the MSSM parameter space as well as their implications for supersymmetric dark matter phenomenology.

the characterisation of new phenomena, allowing for the rein- 1 Introduction terpretation of the results in a straightforward manner thanks to a reduced set of degrees of freedom. In the context of MSSM- inspired simplified models, the experimental attention was ini- Supersymmetry (SUSY) is one of the most popular theories tially mainly focused on the analysis of signatures that could beyond the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics. Extend- originate from the strong production of squarks and gluinos, ing the Poincar´ealgebra by relating the fermionic and bosonic the corresponding cross sections being expected to be larger degrees of freedom of the theory, supersymmetry provides a by virtue of the properties of the strong interaction. LHC null solution to many of the shortcomings and limitations of the results have implied that severe constraints are now imposed Standard Model. In particular, supersymmetric theories solve on the masses of these strongly interacting superpartners. In the infamous hierarchy problem plaguing the Standard Model, particular, the analysis of about 36 fb−1 of LHC collision data feature gauge coupling unification at high energy and generally at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV pushes the lower bounds include a natural explanation for the presence of dark matter on these masses far into the multi-TeV regime [7–23]. Pro- in the universe. Consequently, supersymmetry searches consti- cesses involving the production of a pair of electroweak super- tute a significant part of the LHC physics program. partners (neutralinos, charginos and sleptons) have also been Up to now, no evidence for supersymmetry has been found. considered for some time. The electroweak nature of these arXiv:1710.09941v2 [hep-ph] 7 Mar 2018 Limits on the masses of the supersymmetric partners of the processes yields, however, smaller production rates and sub- Standard Model particles are consequently pushed to higher sequently softer bounds on the corresponding masses [23–26]. and higher energy scales. Most of these results have, however, Neutralinos, charginos and sleptons of a few hundreds of GeV been derived either in the framework of the minimal super- are indeed still allowed by current data. symmetric realisation, known as the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) [1,2], or within MSSM-inspired sim- We focus in this work on simplified models describing elec- plified models for new physics [3–6]. troweak gauginos and higgsinos and their dynamics. Recent Simplified models are effective Lagrangian descriptions min- searches of both ATLAS and CMS are in general interpreted imally extending the Standard Model in terms of new particles within the framework of two sets of simplified models. In the and interactions. They have been designed as useful tools for first case, the Standard Model is extended by a set of mass- degenerate pure wino states, and the lightest superpartner is a [email protected] a pure bino state. The winos are then assumed to decay either b [email protected] into a system made of a bino and a weak gauge or Higgs boson, c [email protected] regardless of the fact that these decays are strictly speaking not d [email protected] allowed by supersymmetric gauge invariance, or into a bino and 2 B. Fuks et al.: Realistic simplified gaugino-higgsino models in the MSSM jets or leptons via intermediate off-shell sfermions. When the the sneutrinos. The gaugino-higgsino sector is thus described, gaugino-higgsino mixing is not negligible and the mass split- at tree-level, by four parameters that are the bino and wino ting between the lightest states is sufficiently large, the decays mass parameters M1 and M2, the supersymmetric higgs(ino) to weak gauge and Higgs bosons become allowed and provide off-diagonal mass parameter µ, and the ratio of the vacuum opportunities to obtain bounds on the MSSM parameter space. expectation values of the neutral components of the two Higgs The strength of the constraints then depends on the mixing and doublets tan β. We then define a strategy to efficiently scan the mass splitting [27]. On the other hand, heavier higgsino- this four-dimenensional parameter space for given sets of light like electroweakinos decay dominantly into lightest neutrali- neutralino and chargino masses, that also allows to maximise nos and weak gauge bosons, thanks to their mixing with the the gaugino or higgsino content, couplings to certain sparticles gauginos, but only if the channels are kinematically accessible. etc. This procedure therefore allows to find approximate so- In compressed mass scenarios, the corresponding experimen- lutions for simplified MSSM models that have a realistic and tal searches rely on the detection of the soft decay products properly defined gaugino-higgsino sector in contrast to many of the gauge bosons, e.g. low transverse-momentum opposite- of the overly simplified models studied so far. charge leptons of the same flavour (electrons or muons) [28,29]. The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. We first The second set of models under consideration is inspired by review in Sec.2 the MSSM chargino-neutralino sector, discuss gauge-mediated supersymmetry breaking scenarios [30–36], in its analytic symmetries, and study the spectra and decompo- which the lightest superpartner is the gravitino. This simpli- sitions of the physical states after numerical diagonalisation fied model additionally contains two neutral and one charged of the neutralino and chargino mass matrices. In Sec.3, we higgsino state, which are quasi mass-degenerate. They hence describe our strategy to scan the four-dimensional MSSM pa- decay into a gravitino and a neutral gauge or Higgs boson, rameter space, define a quality measure for the goodness of our together with possibly accompanying undetected soft objects. fit to the desired simplified model, and indicate how our scan In all of the above approaches to MSSM-inspired simplified strategy can be generalised. In Sec.4, we present a case study models for the gaugino-higgsino sector, one naively ignores all for higgsino-like light neutralinos and charginos, analyse their interrelationships between the masses of the neutralinos and representation in the MSSM parameter space, and investigate the charginos and the features of the associated mixing matri- the implications for the Higgs-stop sector as well as the phe- ces through their respective dependence on the free parameters nomenology of supersymmetric dark matter. Our conclusions in the MSSM Lagrangian. Starting from the MSSM, the neu- are given in Sec.5. tralinos and charginos that are not of interest are decoupled by imposing the corresponding mixing matrix elements to be van- ishing and their masses to be very large. On the other hand, the 2 Theoretical definitions masses of the relevant neutralinos and charginos are fixed by hand to the desired values, independently of the corresponding√ The simplified model that we investigate in this work takes the elements in the mixing matrices that are set to 0, 1, or ±1/ 2 gaugino-higgsino sector from the MSSM in all its complexity, as (in the higgsino case). This approach is justified by the assump- it is defined by supersymmetry and gauge invariance. In other tion that the MSSM has sufficiently many free parameters to words, we compute all elements of the neutralino and chargino reproduce such a pattern closely enough, which is particularly mixing matrices and the physical mass spectrum through a true when one considers the extra freedoms originating from proper diagonalisation of the relevant mass matrices at tree the loop corrections. level. In our procedure, the mass spectrum of the neutrali- In certain configurations, e.g. when the lightest states are nos and charginos is thus not treated independently from their nearly degenerate pure higgsinos and the gauginos are decou- couplings, as it has been done previously in (overly) simpli- pled, this simple method works quite well. However, when one fied models. By decoupling other supersymmetric particles, the targets next-to-minimal simplified models where a mass split- model does, however, still not become overly complex, and this ting between the second-lightest state and its neighbours is partly justifies that we neglect higher-order effects. The latter introduced, some amount of mixing between the different gaug- are nevertheless not so relevant for our purpose, the idea being ino and higgsino fields must be included in order to maintain to design models closely enough reproducible in the MSSM. viability with respect to the initial MSSM motivation. This concerns in particular identities guaranteed by gauge invari- ance and/or supersymmetry that could be violated when one 2.1 MSSM chargino-neutralino sector tweaks by hand masses and mixing matrix elements, like in the above-mentioned wino set of simplified models. Such non- In the MSSM and at tree-level, the gaugino-higgsino (or equiva- minimal setups are already probed by both LHC collaborations lently neutralino-chargino) sector is defined by four parameters in their searches for supersymmetry [28,29]. It is therefore im- portant to interpret the results in meaningful benchmark sce- narios where supersymmetry and gauge symmetries are pre- {µ, tan β, M ,M } , (1) served, allowing in this way only for theoretically-relevant in- 1 2 terpretations. that are the off-diagonal Higgs(ino) mass parameter, the ra- In this work, we present simplified MSSM models for light tio of the vacuum expectation values of the neutral compo- neutralinos and charginos with realistic mass spectra and real- nents of the two doublets of Higgs fields and the two soft istic gaugino-higgsino mixing, that can be used, e.g., in experi- supersymmetry-breaking electroweak gaugino mass parame- mental searches at the LHC. Starting from the MSSM without ters, respectively. additional CP -violation, we design our simplified model by de- The µ parameter originates from the MSSM superpotential coupling all coloured superpartners as well as the sleptons and (WMSSM). It reads, when we assume that the superpotential B. Fuks et al.: Realistic simplified gaugino-higgsino models in the MSSM 3

contains only R-parity conserving terms, where tW ≡ tan θW stands for the tangent of the electroweak e d mixing angle. This symmetric matrix can be diagonalised by WMSSM = µH1 · H2 − yij H1 · LiEj − yij H1 · QiDj means of a single unitary matrix N , u (2) − yij Qi · H2Uj , ∗ −1 N YN = diag (M 0 ,M 0 ,M 0 ,M 0 ) , (10) χ˜1 χ˜2 χ˜3 χ˜4 where H1 and H2 denote the two weak doublets of Higgs su- where M 0 < M 0 < M 0 < M 0 stand for the masses of perfields. Q, L, and U, D and E are the two weak doublets χ˜1 χ˜2 χ˜3 χ˜4 0 and three weak singlets of quark and lepton superfields, re- the four neutralino states χi with i = 1, 2, 3 and 4. The mix- spectively. Expanding the superpotential WMSSM in terms of ing matrix N allows one to relate the four physical neutralino the component fields of the various superfields, it includes in mass eigenstates to the neutral higgsino and gaugino interac- particular an off-diagonal mass term proportional to µ for the tion eigenstates, two higgsino fields He1 and He2. The second parameter in Eq. (1)    0 iB is defined as the ratio of the vacuum expectation values of the χ1 e χ0 iW 3 scalar components h1 and h2 of the two Higgs superfields  2  f   0 = N 0 . (11) χ3  H  v2    ed  0 0 tan β = (3) χ4 H v1 eu with Non-trivial analytic inversions of the gaugino mass matrices 1 v  1  0  have been proposed in the past. Besides the knowledge of three hh i = √ 1 and hh i = √ , (4) 1 0 2 v gaugino masses, typically those of one or two charginos and of 2 2 2 two or one heavier neutralinos, they require the choice of a the non-vanishing values of v1 and v2 giving rise to the sponta- value for tan β as well as additional information and/or nu- neous breaking of the electroweak symmetry, SU(2)L×U(1)Y → merical consistency checks to resolve sign ambiguities [37]. U(1)EM. Since supersymmetry has not yet been observed, it must be a broken symmetry. As usual, we remain agnostic of which mechanism is invoked to break supersymmetry, and thus 2.2 Symmetry transformations explicitly include in the MSSM Lagrangian soft supersymmetry- breaking interaction terms that leave the gauge symmetries in- For a better understanding of the structure of the parameter tact and that do not introduce any new quadratic divergences space of our simplified model, we discuss in this subsection two at the loop-level. Among the allowed supersymmetry breaking linear transformations of the mixing matrices that affect the electroweakino couplings, but leave their mass spectrum un- terms, the bino (Be) and wino (Wf) mass terms are the only ones relevant for our work, changed. These symmetries hence allow us to deduce multiple benchmark scenarios fitting equally well a preselected mass MSSM 1  i  configuration and chargino and neutralino decomposition in Lsoft = − M1BeBe + M2WfiWf + h.c. + .... (5) 2 terms of gaugino and higgsino eigenstates. The chargino mass eigenvalues are obtained by diagonal- We restrict our study to the case where the µ, M1 and ising the chargino mass matrix X that can be extracted from M2 parameters are real in order not to introduce additional − − sources of CP -violation in the theory. However, we keep the Eq. (2) and Eq. (5). This matrix is given, in the (iWf , He1 ) + + sign of these three mass parameters free, so that they can and (iWf , He ) basis, by 2 therefore be either positive or negative. The mass eigenval-  √  M2 2MW sβ ues of the chargino mass matrix X only depend on the relative X = √ , (6) 2MW cβ µ sign between the µ and M2 parameters. This means that the simultaneous flip of the signs of the M2 and µ parameters, where MW stands for the mass of the W -boson and where we 0 0 have introduced the cβ and sβ notations for the cosine and sine M2 → M2 = −M2 and µ → µ = −µ , (12) of the β angle, respectively. This matrix can be diagonalised leaves both chargino masses invariant. The chargino mixing by means of two unitary rotation matrices U and V, matrices are, however, impacted and transform as ∗ −1 diag(Mχ˜± ,Mχ˜± ) = U XV , (7) 0 0 1 2 U → U = −Uσ3 and V → V = Vσ3 , (13) where M ± < M ± are the masses of the two chargino states. χ˜1 χ˜2 where σ3 is the third Pauli matrix. In general, these two sign The U and V mixing matrices respectively relate the negatively- flips also lead to effects on the neutralino mass spectrum, unless charged and positively-charged gaugino-higgsino basis to the one extends the transformation of Eq. (12) as ± ± physical chargino mass basis (χ1 , χ2 ), 0 M1 → M1 = −M1 ,  − −!  + +! χ iWf χ iWf 0 1 = U and 1 = V . (8) M2 → M2 = −M2 , (14) χ− H− χ+ H+ 2 ed 2 eu µ → µ0 = −µ . Similarly, in the neutral sector the neutralino mass matrix The neutralino masses are thus left invariant by the transfor- can be computed from Eq. (2) and Eq. (5). This matrix can mation of Eq. (14), that modifies the neutralino mixing matrix 3 0 0 be written, in the (iB,e iWf , He1 , He2 ) basis, as N as     M1 0 −MW tW cβ MW tW sβ 1 0 0 0  0 M2 MW cβ −MW sβ  0  0 1 0 0 Y =   , (9) N → N = iN   . (15) −MW tW cβ MW cβ 0 −µ   0 0 −1 0 MW tW sβ −MW sβ −µ 0 0 0 0 −1 4 B. Fuks et al.: Realistic simplified gaugino-higgsino models in the MSSM

On different grounds, the inversion of tan β, the bino (only for neutralinos), wino and higgsino content of each electroweakino state on the considered model parameter. 1 tan β → [tan β]0 = , (16) Trivially, we retrieve the fact that the chargino sector does not tan β depend on the bino mass parameter M1, and thus also not on also leaves the chargino and neutralino mass spectrum invari- δM1/M2. ant. The mixing matrices U and V are, however, interchanged, The mixing pattern of the gaugino and higgsino states is + − as are the decompositions of the Weyl fields χi and χi in driven by the off-diagonal elements in the mass matrices of terms of their gaugino and higgsino content, Eq. (6) and Eq. (9), which are all roughly proportional to the     W -boson mass. Therefore, maximally mixed states arise only 0 0 1 0 0 1 U → U = V and V → V = U . (17) when either |µ|, M1, M2, | ± µ − M1|, | ± µ − M2| or |M1 − M2| 1 0 1 0 is of O(MW ) or smaller. Conversely, nearly pure gaugino and The total gaugino-higgsino content of the Dirac chargino spinors higgsino states in the chargino sector occur for |µ| & MW and is, however, unaffected. As mentioned above, the transforma- |µ − M2| & MW , while pure states in the neutralino sector tion of Eq. (16) also leaves the neutralino mass eigenvalues additionally require also | − µ − M2| & MW and | ± µ − M1| & invariant. The neutralino mixing matrix N is in contrast mod- MW . ified. The inversion of tan β physically interchanges the roles The diagonalisation of the chargino and neutralino mass 0 0 matrices can possibly yield negative mass eigenvalues. In this of He1 and He2 , so that the decomposition of the neutralinos in terms of the two higgsino states is swapped with an extra sign case, they are made positive by absorbing the sign into the flip, mixing matrices that get imaginary, which thus affects the couplings. The original sign of the mass can be deduced by   1 0 0 0 examining the variation of the curves in Fig.1 and Fig.2. 0  0 1 0 0 A change of sign can be traced back to a curve hitting zero N → N = N   . (18)  0 0 0 −1 and exhibiting a discontinuous local derivative. This configu- 0 0 −1 0 ration occurs when any of the µ, M1 and M2 mass parameters is of O (MW ). Outside this range, two of the neutralinos al- ways feature a dominant higgsino content, and their masses have opposite signs. The sign of the masses of the other two 2.3 Mass spectra and gaugino-higgsino content neutralinos is driven by the sign of the M1 or M2 parame- ters, depending on the dominant bino or wino nature of the As stated at the beginning of this section, the parameter space neutralinos under consideration, provided the mixing is small. describing the MSSM gaugino-higgsino sector is four-dimensional Moreover, one observes that the neutralino mass lines can only and specified by the parameters µ, tan β, M1 and M2. For con- cross if the masses have opposite signs. Otherwise, one gets an venience, we trade the gaugino mass parameters M1 and M2 avoided crossing where the neutralino content is exchanged. for the relative mass differences δM /|µ| and δM /M defined 2 1 2 The results presented in the upper left panels of Fig.1 by and Fig.2 confirm that when |µ|, and subsequently also M1     δM2 δM1 and M2, exceeds the W -boson mass scale, the overall mag- M2 = |µ| 1 + and M1 = M2 1 + . (19) nitude of the electroweakino masses is solely set by |µ| and |µ| M2 increases uniformly with it. In the special case corresponding The resulting mass spectrum and neutralino and chargino de- to δM2/|µ| = δM1/M2 = 0, the mass differences as well as compositions are related to these parameters in a complex and the elecroweakino decompositions moreover become indepen- non-trivial manner, which makes it difficult to get a global un- dent of |µ|. In contrast, variations of δM2/|µ| and δM1/M2 derstanding of the response of the spectrum to a variation in influence the electroweakino mass differences, as shown in the these parameters. Therefore, we explore the parameter space lower panels of Fig.1 and Fig.2. These parameters are thus in a systematic way by first defining a default scenario those that will allow us to determine MSSM benchmark points defined by an overall mass scale and a given mass splitting 1 δM2 δM1 |µ| = 2MW , tan β = 2∨ , = 0 and = 0 , (20) between the superpartners. In particular, one can obtain a 2 |µ| M2 spectrum where the lighter (heavier) states are nearly pure and then varying one of these parameters at a time. higgsinos when δM2/|µ|  0 (δM2/|µ|  0). Different values The results are shown in Figs.1 and2 for scenarios featur- of tan β or δM1/M2 then raise or lower the value at which the ing a positive and a negative µ parameter, respectively. In these turnover occurs. Similarly, varying both δM2/|µ| and δM1/M2 figures, we provide a global overview on how a variation of one allows one to obtain scenarios featuring nearly pure bino or of the model input parameters affects the mass spectra and the wino states as the heaviest or lightest states. Finally, as illus- neutralino and chargino decompositions in terms of the gaug- trated on the upper right panels of the figures, we observe that ino and higgsino states. Starting from the reference scenario of the tan β-dependence of the spectrum exhibits a peak or a dip Eq. (20), we vary either the µ parameter (upper left panels of at tan β = 1 with an amplitude that is typically smaller than the figures), tan β (upper right panels of the figures), the ratio about MW /2. Except this feature, the effect of tan β on the δM2/|µ| (lower left panels of the figures) or the ratio δM1/M2 spectrum is small, which therefore allows us to use this pa- (lower right panels of the figures). Although opposite choices rameter for small adjustments once all other parameters have for the sign of µ correspond to different regions in the param- been chosen. When tan β  1 or tan β  1, the dependence eter space, they can potentially lead to similar mass spectra on tan β moreover vanishes. (cf. the discussion in Sec. 2.2). In the upper, middle and lower The sign of the µ parameter has little influence on the mass parts of each subfigure, we show the respective dependence of spectrum upon variations of |µ|, δM2/|µ| or δM1/M2. Negative B. Fuks et al.: Realistic simplified gaugino-higgsino models in the MSSM 5

0 250 χ4 1.0 300 1.0 0.9 0.9 200 0.8 250 χ0 0.8 ) ) 4

V 0 0.7 V 0.7 e 150 0 χ3 0.6 e 200 0 0.6 G χ G 0 χ ( 2 ( 3 | 0.5 | χ2 0.5 χ 100 0.4 χ 150 0.4 M M

| 0.3 | 0 0.3 50 0 0.2 bino content 100 χ1 0.2 bino content χ1 0.1 0.1 0 0.0 50 0.0 -2 -1 0 1 2 0 50 100 0150 200 250 10 10 10 10 10 250 µ χ4 1.0 300 tanβ 1.0 (GeV) 0.9 0.9 0 200 χ2± 0.8 250 χ χ 0.8 ) ) 2± 4

V 0 0.7 V 0.7 e 150 0 χ3 0.6 e 200 0 0.6 G χ G 0 χ ( 2 ( 3 | 0.5 | χ2 0.5 χ 100 0.4 χ 150 0.4 M M | 0.3 | χ 0 0.3 wino content ± χ wino content 50 χ0 0.2 100 1 1 0.2 χ1± 1 0.1 0.1 0 0.0 50 0.0 -2 -1 0 1 2 0 50 100 0150 200 250 10 10 10 10 10 250 µ χ4 1.0 300 tanβ 1.0 (GeV) 0.9 0.9 0 200 χ2± 0.8 250 χ χ 0.8 ) ) 2± 4

V 0 0.7 V 0.7 e 150 0 χ3 0.6 e 200 0 0.6 G χ G 0 χ ( 2 ( 3 | 0.5 | χ2 0.5 χ 100 0.4 χ 150 0.4 M M

| 0.3 | 0 0.3 50 0 0.2 100 χ1± χ1 0.2

χ higgsino content higgsino content χ1± 1 0.1 0.1 0 0.0 50 0.0 0 50 100 150 200 250 10-2 10-1 100 101 102 µ(GeV) tanβ

300 1.0 350 1.0 0 0.9 300 χ0 0.9 250 χ3 0.8 4 0.8 ) ) 250 0 V 200 0 0.7 V χ 0.7

e e 3 χ2 0.6 0 0.6

G G 200 ( ( χ2 | 150 0.5 | 0.5 χ 0 0.4 χ 150 0.4 χ1 0

M 100 M | 0.3 | 100 χ1 0.3 50 0.2 bino content 0.2 bino content 0.1 50 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 300 1.0 350 1.0 δM2/ µ χ δM1/M2 | | 2± 0 0.9 300 χ0 0.9 250 χ3 0.8 4 0.8 ) ) 250 χ2± 0 V 200 0 0.7 V χ 0.7

e e 3 χ2 0.6 0 0.6

G G 200 ( ( χ2 | 150 0.5 | 0.5 χ 0 0.4 χ 150 0.4 χ1± χ1 0 M 100 M χ± | 0.3 | 100 1 χ1 0.3 50 0.2 wino content 0.2 wino content 0.1 50 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 300 1.0 350 1.0 δM2/ µ χ δM1/M2 | | 2± 0 0.9 300 χ0 0.9 250 χ3 0.8 4 0.8 ) ) 250 χ2± 0 V 200 0 0.7 V χ 0.7

e e 3 χ2 0.6 0 0.6

G G 200 ( ( χ2 | 150 0.5 | 0.5 χ 0 0.4 χ 150 0.4 χ1± χ1 0 M 100 M χ± | 0.3 | 100 1 χ1 0.3 50 0.2 0.2 0.1 higgsino content 50 0.1 higgsino content 0 0.0 0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 δM / µ δM /M 2 | | 1 2

Fig. 1. Variation of the neutralino and chargino mass spectra for scenarios featuring µ > 0, as a function of |µ| (upper left), tan β (upper right), δM2/|µ| (lower left) and δM1/M2 (lower right) when all other parameters are fixed to their reference value given in Eq. (20). The colour-coding (with increased line width for better visibility) indicates the bino (purple), wino (blue) and higgsino (red) content of the different particles.

µ values only induce a more compressed spectrum compared 3 Scan strategy to the case of a positive µ parameter. In the chargino sec- tor, the opposite signs of µ and M2 in this case lead to an In this section, we first select a strategy to explore the param- unavoided crossing of the mass eigenvalues at tan β ∼ 1, as eter space of the MSSM gaugino/higgsino sector in an efficient well as to an opposite behavior when increasing or decreasing way. We then define criteria for acceptable benchmark points tan β with respect to 1. For µ < 0, gaugino-higgsino mixings that fit best a pre-defined mass spectrum of light neutralinos and eletroweakino mass splittings indeed increase with tan β and charginos and discuss how additional requirements, such variations, whilst they decrease for µ > 0. In addition, mixed as a large higgsino content of these sparticles, can also be in- bino/wino-states are rare and can only be obtained by fine- cluded. Finally, we briefly reflect on possible generalisations of tuning the parameters due to the non-existence of any direct these strategies. bino/wino coupling in the Lagrangian. Moreover, wino states mix more easily with higgsino states than bino states as the hy- percharge and weak couplings satisfy gY < g2, or equivalently 3.1 Parameter space exploration as sin θW < cos θW . The observations made in the previous section allow for the identification of general characteristics of the gaugino-higgsino 6 B. Fuks et al.: Realistic simplified gaugino-higgsino models in the MSSM

250 1.0 300 1.0 0 0.9 0.9 200 χ4 0.8 250 0 0.8 ) χ0 ) χ4 V 3 0.7 V 0.7 e 150 0 0.6 e 200 0 0.6 G χ G 0 χ ( 2 ( 3 | 0 0.5 | χ2 0.5

χ χ χ 100 1 0.4 150 0 0.4

M M χ

| 0.3 | 1 0.3 50 0.2 bino content 100 0.2 bino content 0.1 0.1 0 0.0 50 0.0 0 50 100 150 200 250 10-2 10-1 100 101 102 250 µ(GeV) 1.0 300 tanβ 1.0 0 0.9 0.9 200 χ4 0.8 250 0 0.8

) 0 ) χ χ χ2± 4 V χ2± 3 0.7 V 0.7 e 150 0 0.6 e 200 0 0.6 G χ G 0 χ ( 2 ( 3 | 0 0.5 | χ2 0.5

χ χ1± χ χ 100 1 0.4 150 χ1± 0 0.4

M M χ

| 0.3 | 1 0.3

50 0.2 wino content 100 0.2 wino content 0.1 0.1 0 0.0 50 0.0 0 50 100 150 200 250 10-2 10-1 100 101 102 250 µ(GeV) 1.0 300 tanβ 1.0 0 0.9 0.9 200 χ4 0.8 250 0 0.8

) 0 ) χ χ χ2± 4 V χ2± 3 0.7 V 0.7 e 150 0 0.6 e 200 0 0.6 G χ G 0 χ ( 2 ( 3 | 0 0.5 | χ2 0.5

χ χ1± χ χ 100 1 0.4 150 χ1± 0 0.4

M M χ

| 0.3 | 1 0.3 50 0.2 100 0.2 0.1 higgsino content 0.1 higgsino content 0 0.0 50 0.0 0 50 100 150 200 250 10-2 10-1 100 101 102 µ(GeV) tanβ

300 χ0 1.0 350 1.0 4 0.9 0.9 250 χ0 300 0 3 0.8 χ4 0.8 ) 0 ) 250 V 200 χ 0.7 V 0 0.7

e 2 e 0 0 0.6 χ χ3 0.6 G χ1 G 200 2 ( ( 0

| 150 0.5 | 0.5 χ1 χ 0.4 χ 150 0.4

M 100 M

| 0.3 | 100 0.3 50 0.2 bino content 0.2 bino content 0.1 50 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 300 χ0 1.0 350 1.0 δM2/ µ 4 0.9 δM1/M2 0.9 250 | | χ0 300 0 χ2± 3 0.8 χ4 0.8 ) 0 ) 250 V 200 χ 0.7 V 0 0.7 e 2 e χ± 0 χ± 0 0.6 2 χ χ3 0.6 G 1 χ1 G 200 2 ( ( 0

| 150 0.5 | χ 0.5 1± χ1 χ 0.4 χ 150 0.4

M 100 M

| 0.3 | 100 0.3 50 0.2 wino content 0.2 wino content 0.1 50 0.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 300 χ0 1.0 350 1.0 δM2/ µ 4 0.9 δM1/M2 0.9 250 | | χ0 300 0 χ2± 3 0.8 χ4 0.8 ) 0 ) 250 V 200 χ 0.7 V 0 0.7 e 2 e χ± 0 χ± 0 0.6 2 χ χ3 0.6 G 1 χ1 G 200 2 ( ( 0

| 150 0.5 | χ 0.5 1± χ1 χ 0.4 χ 150 0.4

M 100 M

| 0.3 | 100 0.3 50 0.2 0.2 0.1 higgsino content 50 0.1 higgsino content 0 0.0 0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 δM / µ δM /M 2 | | 1 2

Fig. 2. Same as Fig.1 for µ < 0. parameter space that are useful for building realistic bench- In contrast, the sign of the higgsino mass parameter µ can mark scenarios. Following most of the experimental studies at strongly affect the structure of the theory and the experimen- the LHC, we focus on configurations with only two light neu- tal signatures, so that we consider both µ < 0 and µ > 0. As 0 0 ± tralinos (χ1, χ2) and a light chargino (χ1 ). For illustrative upper bounds on the absolute values of the mass parameters, purposes, we take the desired chargino mass M ± as an in- we impose 5 TeV, which we only raise when we see that our χ1 put and ask for an equidistant mass splitting ∆M21 of the two results cluster near them. Values of M2 < 0 and tan β < 1 are neutralinos, obtained with sign flips and a tan β inversion, as explained in Sec. 2.2. The three dimensionful parameters µ, M1 and M2 are ∆M21 ∆M21 finally further constrained by the requirements on the desired Mχ0 = Mχ± − and Mχ0 = Mχ± + . (21) 1 1 2 2 1 2 gaugino/higgsino decomposition. The scan procedure described in the following can, however, easily be generalised to other setups. In principle, we scan over all four parameters µ, tan β, M1 and M2, but we immediately reduce this parameter space on the basis of the transformations that leave the neutralino- As an illustration of the above strategy, we search for bench- chargino mass spectrum invariant. Regions of the parameter mark scenarios featuring a spectrum where the lightest states space that are not explored are then derived by transforming are all higgsino-like. The range of µ can then be restricted the mixing matrices as described in Sec. 2.2. As a consequence, by observing (cf. Sec. 2.3) that the masses of neutralinos and we only scan over the regions tan β ∈ [1; 100] and M2 > 0. charginos with a dominant higgsino contribution lie in the B. Fuks et al.: Realistic simplified gaugino-higgsino models in the MSSM 7

range |µ| ± O (MW ). The scan ranges are thus given by A perfect fit then has d1 = d2 = d3 = 0, while the penalty h i score of a configuration with respect to its nearest neighbour |µ| ∈ min(M ± )−O(MW ), max(M ± )+O(MW ) , χ1 χ1 grid point is given by

h i r 2 2 2 |M1| ∈ min(Mχ± )−O(MW ), 5 TeV , d1 + d2 + d3 1 (22) score = (27) h i 3 M ∈ min(M ± )−O(M ), 5 TeV , 2 χ W p 1 with 1/3 ∼ 0.58 for a nearest neighbour grid point with a tan β ∈ [1, 100] , single outlier. We consider a configuration acceptable if with score < 0.1, (28)

sign (µ) ∈ {−, +} and sign (M1) ∈ {−, +} , (23) which represents a reasonable compromise between scan time and accuracy: and where min(Mχ± ) and max(Mχ± ) represent the minimal 1 1 √ and maximal desired values for the light chargino mass. δMχ± < 0.1 3∆Mχ± = 0.17∆Mχ± , It is easy to see that an equidistant scan in these parame- 1 1 1 (0) √ (29) ters is not very efficient. For instance, variations at large val- δ (∆M21) < 0.1 3∆(∆M21) = 0.17∆(∆M21) . ues of tan β only weakly affect the spectrum and the gaug- 2 ino/higgsino decompositions, since these depend on sin β and While this procedure allows us to find an approximately correct cos β rather than tan β. Also, a scan over multiple orders of chargino and neutralino mass spectrum, it still does not max- magnitude for the gaugino mass parameters does not efficiently imise their average higgsino (or gaugino) content. This type of cover masses in the lower ranges where |M1|, |M2| ∼ |µ|, where additional condition can be included by reweighting the score the masses of the higgsino-like neutralinos and charginos are with affected the most. We therefore reparameterise the prior dis- f˜old tributions in M1, M2 and tan β as scorenew < scoreold , (30)    fenew M = ± M 1 − , 1 2 which balances accuracy of mass spectrum and decomposition    for scores that are neither too small nor too large. In the case M = M 1 + , 2 2 (24) study of Sec.4, f˜ represents the average higgsino content of   0 0 ± tan βmax the light neutralinos χ1, χ2 and the light χ1 particles. tan β = tan βmin exp xβ ln tan βmin with 3.3 Generalisation   Mmax M = Mmin exp xM ln , The specific setup described above can be generalised by modi- Mmin fying the desired mass spectrum of Eq. (21) to non-equidistant xM ∈ [0, 1] , (25) mass differences with the according adjustments in the condi-  ∈ [−2, 2] , tions of Eq.(26). A qualitatively very distinct modification is

xβ ∈ [0, 1] . the requirement of one-sided mass limits. Second, the maximi- sation of the higgsino content through the function f˜ and/or In the expressions of Eq. (24) and Eq. (25), the minimum and the reweighting condition in Eq. (30) can be replaced. A spe- maximum values of tan β and M are dictated by the scan range, cific example would be the maximisation of couplings to spe- with Mmin and Mmax referring both to M1 and M2. The scan cific particles. In practice, a trial scan often helps in defining time can be further reduced with an iterative procedure, where more precisely acceptable configurations and conditions that at each iteration the parameter range in |µ|, xM , , and xβ is do not overly constrain the interesting regions of parameter halved keeping the currently best parameters central. The total space. Scan ranges can often be guessed by using the obser- parameter space volume then shrinks each time by a factor of 4 vations made in Sec. 2.3. Reparameterisations as the one in (1/2) = 1/16 with an additional factor of 1/2 from the sign Eq. (24) are moreover useful when scanning over multiple or- determination of M1 in the first iteration. ders of magnitude in one or several parameters and can be optimised by studying the posterior distributions in the input parameters. 3.2 Benchmark selection

The quality of our fit of the desired mass spectrum is param- eterised by the relative differences between the input masses 4 Case study: Higgsino-like neutralinos and and their fit values compared to the corresponding grid spac- charginos ings ∆Mχ± and ∆(∆M21), 1 In this section, we present a case study of a specific simplified   δM ± 1 fit χ1 MSSM model with a realistic neutralino-chargino sector, whose d1 = M ± − M ± =: , χ1 χ1 general properties were discussed in Sec.2. We then apply and ∆Mχ± ∆Mχ± 1 1 test the parameter scan method presented in Sec.3 and ex-   2 ∆M21  fit fit  δ(∆M21) (26) amine the properties of the underlying benchmark points. Our d2 = − Mχ0 −Mχ± =: , ∆(∆M21) 2 2 1 ∆(∆M21) case study has higgsino-like light neutralinos and charginos   0 2 ∆M21  fit fit  δ (∆M21) with equidistant mass splitting and includes both signs of the d3 = − Mχ± −Mχ0 =: . ∆(∆M21) 2 1 1 ∆(∆M21) higgsino mass parameter µ. 8 B. Fuks et al.: Realistic simplified gaugino-higgsino models in the MSSM

0.10 0.10 80 MW 0.09 80 0.09

70 0.08 70 0.08

0.07 MZ cWsW 0.07 60 60 ·

) ) p

V 0.06 V 0.06

e 50 e 50 G G ( (

1 0.05 1 0.05 2 40 2 40 score score M 0.04 M 0.04 ∆ 30 ∆ 30 0.03 0.03 20 20 0.02 0.02 10 10 0.01 0.01 0 0 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0.00 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0.00

Mχ1± (GeV) Mχ1± (GeV) (a) score (µ > 0) (b) score (µ < 0) 1.00 1.00 M 80 W 0.96 80 0.96 70 70 0.92 0.92 M c s 60 60 Z · W W

) 0.88 ) p 0.88 V V

e 50 e 50 G G ( (

1 0.84 1 0.84 2 40 2 40 M M

∆ 30 0.80 ∆ 30 0.80 higgsino content higgsino content 20 20 0.76 0.76 10 10 0.72 0.72 0 0 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Mχ1± (GeV) Mχ1± (GeV) (c) higgsino content (µ > 0) (d) higgsino content (µ < 0)

0 0 ± Fig. 3. Scores and average higgsino contents of χ1, χ2 and χ1 for the models found in our MSSM fits of light chargino mass M ± and neutralino mass splitting ∆M21. The dashed lines indicate that the latter are always smaller than O (MW ) (remember χ1 that MW = MZ cW ).

1.00 Table 1. Targeted mass ranges, splittings and spacings for y = 1 a x2 − light higgsino-like neutralinos and charginos.

0.95 Mass / splitting Minimum Maximum Grid spacing

M ± 90 GeV 400 GeV 3.1 GeV χ1 ∆M21 1 GeV 100 GeV 1 GeV M c s M 0.90 Z · W W W y = a x + b p

0.85

higgsino content 4.1 Definition of the simplified model

0.80 µ > 0 As it is usually done in simplified models, we decouple the spar- ticles that are not of direct relevance to our study, i.e. squarks, µ < 0 gluinos, and non-SM Higgs particles, by setting their masses 0.75 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 to a sufficiently high value, here 1.5 TeV. Their phenomeno- ∆M21 (GeV) logical impact at the LHC is then negligible due to limited kinematical phase space, suppressed virtual propagators, and parton distribution functions that vanish at large parton mo- Fig. 4. Higgsino content as a function of ∆M21 for our fit scenarios with µ > 0 (blue crosses) and µ < 0 (red diamonds). mentum fractions. Decoupling sparticles with unrealistically high mass values can result in numerical instabilities in the In both cases it falls quadratically for ∆M21 < 25 GeV. For µ > 0, the fall-off is linear beyond this value. employed Monte Carlo generators, e.g. from missing cancella- tions in higher-order corrections, and should be avoided. B. Fuks et al.: Realistic simplified gaugino-higgsino models in the MSSM 9

The targeted light neutralino and chargino mass spectra ∆M21 20 GeV and M ± 170 GeV. The two leading terms & χ1 . are defined by a set of central light chargino masses M ± and χ1 in Eq. (31) are thus accurate about 10 − 20 GeV. correlated light neutralino masses that are split in an equidis- The tan β-parameter distributions found for µ < 0 and µ > tant way by ∆M21 (cf. Eq. (21)). Their ranges are constrained 0 are shown in Fig.5 (c,d), respectively. A general, though weak empirically through negative experimental searches for neu- trend is that one obtains smaller tan β for larger ∆M21 for µ > tralinos or charginos, whose masses must exceed the mass of 0, but larger tan β for larger ∆M for µ < 0. This corresponds 0 21 the Z -boson, and theoretically (cf. Sec. 2.3) to mass splittings to the opposite dependencies on tan β observed in the upper of the two higgsino-like neutralinos that do not exceed O(MW ). right parts of Figs.1 and2 in Sec.2. The weak dependence 4 We therefore aim to fit the O(10 ) mass spectra in the ranges of the spectrum for large values of tan β has been discussed shown in Tab.1 by scanning the parameter space as described before. As we can observe now, it appears in particular for in Sec.3. The lower limit on the chargino mass is inspired by µ < 0 or µ > 0 and small ∆M21, while the allowed range of the combined LEP limit of 92.4 GeV in the higgsino region for tan β becomes more limited for µ > 0 and large neutralino any lightest neutralino mass. This limit rises to 103.5 GeV for mass splittings. mass splittings larger than 5 GeV [38, 39]. In Fig.5 (e-h), the distributions of the gaugino mass pa- rameters M1 and M2 are shown for both µ > 0 and µ < 0. The distributions of both parameters vary by almost two or- 4.2 Quality of the scan ders of magnitude and roughly inversely to the neutralino mass splitting ∆M . We parameterise the fitted gaugino mass pa- The quality of our MSSM fits of these predefined desired sce- 12 rameters M and M by narios can be evaluated in Fig.3, where we show the distribu- 1 2 tion of scores defined in Eq. (27) for µ > 0 (upper left) and 2 µ < 0 (upper right) as well as the average higgsino contents of ∆M21 MW 0 0 ± M1,2 = Mχ± − + M1,2 . (32) χ1, χ2 and χ1 (lower left and right, respectively). The size of 1 2 ∆M21 the deviations between the targeted and fitted physical masses can be deduced from the scores using Eq. (29). This expression does not reproduce the correlation of ∆M21 The score distributions in Fig.3 indicate that in our spe- and tan β discussed above and is thus less accurate than our pa- cific case study, the mass splittings between light higgsinos √ rameterisation of |µ| in Eq. (31). In particular, the parameters should not exceed MW for µ > 0 and MZ · sW cW for µ < 0. M1,2 , that parameterise deviations from the two leading terms, Large neutralino mass splittings ∆M21 mostly entail higgsino lie in the large ranges M ∈ [0.18, 0.82], [1.26, 2.42] for µ > 0 contents of less than 70% and as low as ∼ 50% for the largest 1,2 and M1,2 ∈ [0.10, 3.05], [0.82, 1.43] for µ < 0 and for 95% of values of ∆M21. This result is nearly independent of the phys- the models. This is due to the known fact that pure higgsinos, ical chargino mass M ± . χ1 often associated with M1,2  µ, have small mass splittings, In Fig.4, we therefore show the higgsino content as a func- so that the requested spectrum is not very sensitive to the ex- tion of ∆M21 only for both µ > 0 (blue crosses) and µ < 0 act values of the gaugino masses. The region of |µ| ' M1, but (red diamonds). We find that it falls off quadratically for mass M2  |µ|, known as the “well-tempered bino/higgsino” region splittings below roughly 25 GeV. For positive values of µ, the to identify the resulting light gaugino states as mixed binos and fall-off then becomes linear beyond this value. higgsinos, allows for the approximate analytic diagonalization of the reduced three-dimensional neutralino mass matrix [40]. We already observed this increased mixing in Fig.4, where the 4.3 MSSM scenarios higgsino content fell linearly for sizeable mass splittings ∆M21. Models that reproduce similar physical masses or mixings, In Fig.5, we display the fitted MSSM parameters |µ| (a,b), but originate from very different, sometimes isolated funda- tan β (c,d), M1 (e,f) and M2 (g,h) for µ > 0 and µ < 0, respec- mental parameters, signal the presence of fine-tuning. We quan- tively. Due to the limited sensitivity of the fit, the last three tify this fine-tuning by multiplying for each benchmark the are shown logarithmically. In the following discussion of these variations of the fundamental parameters |µ|, M1, M2 and figures, we focus on general trends, exceptional behaviour, and tan β leading to acceptable scores (below 0.1) and then divid- the amount of fine-tuning that is necessary to reproduce the ing by the corresponding total ranges as defined in Eq. (22). desired mass spectrum and higgsino content. Statistically, fine- The result is shown in Fig.6 (a,b) for positive and negative tuned models are unlikely to be realised in nature and are often values of µ, respectively. Due to the logarithmic representation, taken as a hint for new, so far poorly understood symmetries large negative numbers correspond to large fine-tuning. It oc- in physics. curs more often for large mass splittings and/or positive values The µ-parameter distributions found for µ < 0 and µ > of µ confirming that conversely pure higgsino scenarios usually 0 are shown in Fig.5 (a,b), respectively. They confirm our have small mass splittings and are then less sensitive to specific hypothesis that |µ| is mostly fixed by the chargino mass M ± . χ1 choices e.g. of M1, M2 or tan β. Furthermore, in some cases ac- The additional dependence on ∆M21 is characterised by ceptable models also lie outside the parameter ranges given in Eq. (22). The number of such initial boundary violations is ∆M21 |µ| = Mχ± + + µMW , (31) displayed in Fig.6 (c,d), again for µ > 0 and µ < 0, respec- 1 2 tively. As one can see, acceptable models in larger regions of where µ parameterises the deviations from these linear de- the parameter space exist often for (nearly) mass degenerate pendencies that are at most of O(MW ). For 95% of the mod- light neutralinos, where large M1,2 allow for compressed hig- els, µ lies within [−0.09, 0.08] for µ > 0 and [−0.17, 0.0] for gsino mass spectra, and in the case µ < 0, where tan β can be µ < 0 with the largest deviations found in the region µ < 0, very large. 10 B. Fuks et al.: Realistic simplified gaugino-higgsino models in the MSSM

440 440 80 MW 80 400 400 70 70 360 360 60 60 MZ cWsW · 320

) 320 ) p V V ) )

e 50 e 50 V V G G

e 280 e ( (

280 G G 1 1 ( (

2 2

40 | 40 |

µ 240 µ M M 240 | | ∆ 30 ∆ 30 200 200 20 20 160 160 10 10 120 120 0 0 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 80 80 Mχ1± (GeV) Mχ1± (GeV) (a) |µ| (µ > 0) (b) |µ| (µ < 0) 320 320

M 80 W 180 80 180

70 100 70 100

56 M c s 56 60 60 Z · W W p 32 32 ) 50 ) 50 V V e e G G β β ( (

n n

1 18 1 18 a a 2 2

40 t 40 t M M ∆ 10 ∆ 10 30 30 6 6 20 20 3 3 10 10 2 2 0 0 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 1 1 Mχ1± (GeV) Mχ1± (GeV) (c) tan β (µ > 0) (d) tan β (µ < 0)

16000 16000 M 80 W 80 7900 7900 70 70

4000 M c s 4000 60 60 Z · W W p

) 50 2000 ) 50 2000 V V ) ) e e V V e e G G ( (

G G ( ( 1 1

2 2 40 1000 1 40 1000 1 M M M M ∆ ∆ 30 30 500 500

20 20 250 250 10 10

130 130 0 0 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Mχ1± (GeV) Mχ1± (GeV)

(e) M1 (µ > 0) (f) M1 (µ < 0)

16000 16000 M 80 W 80 7900 7900 70 70

4000 M c s 4000 60 60 Z · W W p

) 50 2000 ) 50 2000 V V ) ) e e V V e e G G ( (

G G ( ( 1 1

2 2 40 1000 2 40 1000 2 M M M M ∆ ∆ 30 30 500 500

20 20 250 250 10 10

130 130 0 0 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Mχ1± (GeV) Mχ1± (GeV)

(g) M2 (µ > 0) (h) M2 (µ < 0)

Fig. 5. Fitted MSSM parameters |µ| (a,b), tan β (c,d), M1 (e,f) and M2 (g,h) for µ > 0 and µ < 0, respectively. Due to the limited sensitivity of the fit, the last three are shown logarithmically. Chargino masses below 92.4 GeV are excluded by LEP in the higgsino region for any lightest neutralino mass. This limit rises to 103.5 GeV for mass splittings larger than 5 GeV [38,39]. B. Fuks et al.: Realistic simplified gaugino-higgsino models in the MSSM 11

4.4 The Higgs-stop sector to explain (at least partially) the measured dark matter relic abundance. In Fig.7 (c,d) we show the ratios of predicted di- The large MSSM parameter space allows one (at least at tree- rect detection cross sections over the Xenon1T exclusion lim- level) to decouple squarks, gluinos and sleptons without any its [44]. In the higgsino mass range of MZ to 400 GeV stud- impact on the gaugino-higgsino sector. Care is, however, re- ied here, the cross sections predicted by micrOMEGAs de- quired for the decoupling of the higgs-stop sector due to the crease with the mass splitting from 10−6 pb to 10−11 pb. Since large impact of stop radiative corrections on the mass of the the Xenon1T experiment has recently reached a sensitivity of Xe1T −10 observed SM-like Higgs boson, that has to match the measured σχ ∼ 10 pb for WIMP masses of about 100 GeV, only value of 125 GeV. In the absence of stop mixing, the squared cross sections below the black line and very small mass split- CP -even and CP -odd neutral Higgs boson masses are related tings are still allowed. However, since searches at the LHC and to the top quark mass mt and the stop mass mt˜ through [41] in direct detection experiments depend on different sets of as- sumptions, both are complementary, and they should both be 4 2 2 2 2 2 3GF mt mt˜ taken into account. In the dark matter context, the potential m 0 + m 0 = m 0 + MZ + √ ln , (33) h H A 2 2 m2 LHC constraints on the considered models include both results 2π sβ t from direct searches for supersymmetry and for dark matter in where GF is the Fermi constant. This entails general, like when using monojet probes that are expected to √ be golden handles on compressed electroweakino spectra [45]. 2 2 ! 2 2 2π sβ 2 2
Models with light gravitinos imply, of course, a very different mt˜ ' mt exp 4 mh0 − MZ (34) 3GF mt dark matter phenomenology. for mH0 ' mA0 or mt˜ ∈ [885 GeV, 1330 GeV], as long as tan β > 2. The full additional parameter space for the Higgs- 5 Conclusion stop sector includes the squared off-diagonal Higgs mass pa- 2 2 Simplified SUSY models have become a popular tool for model- rameter m12, the soft SUSY-breaking mass parameters m Q˜3 2 independent searches at the LHC. Recently, the LHC exper- and m˜ , and the trilinear coupling At, all taken to be real to tR iments ATLAS and CMS have also applied this approach to avoid new sources of CP -violation. A scan over this additional light neutralinos and charginos with predefined physical mass parameter space for a given MSSM higgsino model with fixed µ spectra and pure gaugino or higgsino content. We have em- and tan β and full stop mixing leads to a successful decoupling phasised in this paper that these models can violate physi- of the heavy Higgs bosons. The corresponding regions in the cal principles such as supersymmetry, gauge invariance, or the CP -odd neutral Higgs mass and the physical stop masses are consistent combination of production cross sections and decay branching ratios and that they must therefore be embedded in mA0 ∈ [992, 4386] GeV (µ > 0) , full MSSM models, whose relevant four-dimensional parameter mt˜ ∈ [752, 1481] GeV (µ > 0) , (35) 1 space is spanned by µ, tan β, M1 and M2.

mt˜2 ∈ [1607, 2487] GeV (µ > 0) , Exploiting the symmetries of the neutralino and chargino mass matrices, we diagonalised them and discussed the lead- and ing and sub-leading dependencies of the resulting physical mass spectra and decompositions on these parameters. We then de- mA0 ∈ [1063, 3925] GeV (µ < 0) , vised an efficient scan strategy for the full parameter space m˜ ∈ [809, 1212] GeV (µ < 0) , (36) t1 given a desired physical mass spectrum and introduced a mea-

mt˜2 ∈ [1840, 2413] GeV (µ < 0) . sure for the quality of our full MSSM reproduction of this spec- trum, that could also include criteria such as a maximal gaug- for positive and negative values of µ, respectively. As is well ino or higgsino component or couplings to specific sparticles. known, a light SM-like Higgs boson of mass 125 GeV requires As a case study, we investigated the MSSM realisations of light in general a light stop with a mass below or around 1 TeV and higgsinos, finding an upper bound on the possible mass split- a large stop mass splitting of at least 1 TeV. ting among the lightest neutralinos of O(MW ) and a lower bound on the higgsino content of about 70%. We saw that large mass splittings required a more substantial level of fine- 4.5 Implications on dark matter tuning, whereas for small mass splittings even larger regions of parameter space than those scanned by us led to viable sce- An important motivation for supersymmetry is its prediction narios. As expected, squarks, gluinos, and sleptons could be of a classic WIMP (weakly interacting massive particle) dark decoupled to 1.5 TeV, as could the heavier Higgs bosons with- matter candidate, the lightest neutralino. The relic abundance out spoiling the reproduction of a SM-like light Higgs boson of dark matter in the universe has been determined very pre- of mass 125 GeV. The latter required, however, a light stop of Pl 2 cisely by the Planck collaboration to be Ωχ h = 0.1199 ± mass below or around 1 TeV with its heavier partner split by MO 0.0027 [42]. We therefore compare the relic density Ωχ pre- at least 1 TeV. The observed dark matter relic density could dicted for light higgsino MSSM models by the public code mi- be reproduced close to the threshold of neutralino annihilation crOMEGAs [43] to the observed one in Fig.7 (a,b) for µ > 0 into pairs of W -bosons, whereas for higher masses the higgsi- and µ < 0. The main observation here is the appearance of nos can only represent a fraction of the observed dark matter. 0 0 + − the χ1χ1 → W W threshold. When this process is kinemati- The corresponding direct detection cross sections are within 0 cally allowed, the annihilation cross section of χ1 increases, and reach of current experiments such as Xenon1T. therefore the dark matter relic abundance decreases. Close to While we have indicated how our strategy can be gener- (above) this threshold, the cross section is sufficiently small alised to other scenarios such as those with non-equidistant 12 B. Fuks et al.: Realistic simplified gaugino-higgsino models in the MSSM

4.5 80 MW 4.5 80

70 6.0 70 6.0 M c s 60 7.5 60 Z · W W 7.5

) p ) V V

e 50 e 50 9.0

9.0 G G ( (

1 1 2 2 40 40 10.5 10.5 M M fine-tuning fine-tuning ∆ ∆ 30 30 12.0 12.0 20 20 13.5 13.5 10 10 15.0 15.0 0 0 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 M Mχ1± (GeV) χ1± (GeV) (a) fine-tuning (µ > 0) (b) fine-tuning (µ < 0)

3 3 80 MW 80

70 70 60 MZ cWsW 60 2 · 2

) p ) V V

e 50 e 50 G G ( (

1 1 2 2 40 40 M M ∆ ∆ 30 30 1 1 boundary violations boundary violations 20 20

10 10

0 0 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 M Mχ1± (GeV) χ1± (GeV) (c) number of boundary violations (µ > 0) (d) number of boundary violations (µ < 0)

Fig. 6. Upper figures: Logarithmic representation of the fine-tuning level of simplified light higgsino models in terms of the relative acceptable ranges of the underlying MSSM parameters for µ > 0 (a) and µ < 0 (b). Large negative numbers therefore indicate large fine-tuning. Lower figures: Number of boundary violations of the initial parameter ranges for µ > 0 (c) and µ < 0 (d). Chargino masses below 92.4 GeV are excluded by LEP in the higgsino region for any lightest neutralino mass. This limit rises to 103.5 GeV for mass splittings larger than 5 GeV [38, 39]. mass splitting of the light neutralinos and chargino or those References with specific couplings of gauginos, higgsinos and other spar- ticles, specific studies of these other scenarios are beyond the 1. H. P. Nilles, Supersymmetry, Supergravity and Particle scope of the present work and should be performed with a de- Physics, Phys.Rept. 110 (1984) 1–162. tailed application in mind. 2. H. E. Haber and G. L. Kane, The Search for Supersymmetry: Probing Physics Beyond the Standard Model, Phys.Rept. 117 (1985) 75–263. 3. J. Alwall, M.-P. Le, M. Lisanti, and J. G. Wacker, Acknowledgements Model-Independent Jets plus Missing Energy Searches, Phys. Rev. D79 (2009) 015005, [0809.3264]. 4. J. Alwall, P. Schuster, and N. Toro, Simplified Models for a First Characterization of New Physics at the LHC, We thank W. Adam, C. Heidegger, B. Schneider and L. Shchut- Phys. Rev. D79 (2009) 075020, [0810.3921]. ska for useful discussions. This work has been supported by 5. LHC New Physics Working Group Collaboration, the ANR under contracts ANR-11-IDEX-0004-02 and ANR- D. Alves, Simplified Models for LHC New Physics 10-LABX-63, the BMBF under contract 05H15PMCCA, the Searches, J. Phys. G39 (2012) 105005, [1105.2838]. CNRS under contract PICS 150423, and the DFG through the 6. L. Calibbi, J. M. Lindert, T. Ota, and Y. Takanishi, LHC Research Training Network 2149 “Strong and weak interac- Tests of Light Neutralino Dark Matter without Light tions - from hadrons to dark matter”. Sfermions, JHEP 11 (2014) 106, [1410.5730]. B. Fuks et al.: Realistic simplified gaugino-higgsino models in the MSSM 13

1.5 1.5 M 80 W 1.0 80 1.0

70 0.5 70 0.5 60 60 MZ cWsW ) · )

0.0 l 0.0 l Mχ0 = MW P χ P χ

) 1 ) p V V Ω Ω e e 50 0.5 / 50 0.5 / G G O O ( (

M χ M χ 1 1 2 2

40 Ω 40 Ω

1.0 ( M 0 = M 1.0 ( M M

0 χ W 0 0 1 Mχ1 = MZ 1 1 ∆ ∆ 30 g 30 g o o 1.5 l 1.5 l 20 20 2.0 2.0 Mχ0 = MZ 10 10 1 2.5 2.5 0 0 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 3.0 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 3.0

Mχ1± (GeV) Mχ1± (GeV) MO Pl MO Pl (a) log10(Ωχ /Ωχ )(µ > 0) (b) log10(Ωχ /Ωχ )(µ < 0)

10 10 MW 80 9 80 9 70 8 70 8 M c s 60 7 60 Z · W W 7

) ) p T T V V 1 1 e e e 50 6 e 50 6 X X χ χ G G ( (

σ σ 1 1 / / 2 40 5 2 40 5 O O M M M M χ χ σ σ ∆ 30 4 ∆ 30 4

20 3 20 3

10 2 10 2

0 1 0 1 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 0 Mχ1± (GeV) Mχ1± (GeV) MO MO (c) log10(σχ )(µ > 0) (d) log10(σχ )(µ < 0)

Fig. 7. Upper figures: Logarithmic ratio of predicted and observed relic abundance of light higgsino dark matter for µ > 0 (a) and µ < 0 (b). Lower figures: Ratios of predicted cross sections and Xenon1T exclusion limits for the direct detection of higgsino dark matter for µ > 0 (c) and µ < 0 (d).

7. ATLAS Collaboration, M. Aaboud et. al., Search for a √or Z boson, and missing transverse momentum in scalar partner of the top quark in the√ jets plus missing s = 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector, transverse momentum final state at s=13 TeV with the JHEP 08 (2017) 006, [1706.03986]. ATLAS detector, 1709.04183. 13. ATLAS Collaboration, M. Aaboud et. al., Search for 8. ATLAS Collaboration, M. Aaboud et. al., Search for new phenomena with large jet multiplicities and missing supersymmetry in events with b-tagged jets√ and missing transverse momentum using large-radius jets and transverse momentum in pp collisions at s = 13 TeV flavour-tagging at ATLAS in 13 TeV pp collisions, with the ATLAS detector, 1708.09266. 1708.02794. 9. ATLAS Collaboration, M. Aaboud et. al., Search for 14. CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et. al., Search for squarks and gluinos in events with an√ isolated lepton, jets supersymmetry in multijet events with missing transverse and missing transverse momentum at s = 13 TeV with momentum in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV, Phys. the ATLAS detector, 1708.08232. Rev. D96 (2017), no. 3 032003, [1704.07781]. 10. ATLAS Collaboration, M. Aaboud et. al., Search for 15. CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et. al., Search for direct top squark√ pair production in final states with two supersymmetry in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 13 TeV in leptons in s = 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS the single-lepton final state using the sum of masses of detector, 1708.03247. large-radius jets, 1705.04673. 11. ATLAS Collaboration, M. Aaboud et. al., Search for 16. CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et. al., Search for supersymmetry in final states with√ two same-sign or three new phenomena with the MT2 variable in the leptons and jets using 36 fb−1 of s = 13 TeV pp all-hadronic final state produced in proton-proton collision data with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 09 (2017) collisions at sqrt(s) = 13 TeV, 1705.04650. 084, [1706.03731]. 17. CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et. al., Search for 12. ATLAS Collaboration, M. Aaboud et. al., Search for supersymmetry in events with one lepton and multiple direct top squark pair production in events with a Higgs jets exploiting the angular correlation between the lepton 14 B. Fuks et al.: Realistic simplified gaugino-higgsino models in the MSSM

and the missing√ transverse momentum in proton-proton 34. M. Dine, A. E. Nelson, and Y. Shirman, Low-energy collisions at s = 13 TeV, 1709.09814. dynamical supersymmetry breaking simplified, Phys. Rev. 18. CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et. al., Search for D51 (1995) 1362–1370, [hep-ph/9408384]. physics beyond the standard model in events with two 35. M. Dine, A. E. Nelson, Y. Nir, and Y. Shirman, New leptons of same sign, missing transverse√ momentum, and tools for low-energy dynamical supersymmetry breaking, jets in proton–proton collisions at s = 13 TeV, Eur. Phys. Rev. D53 (1996) 2658–2669, [hep-ph/9507378]. Phys. J. C77 (2017), no. 9 578, [1704.07323]. 36. G. F. Giudice and R. Rattazzi, Theories with gauge 19. CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et. al., Search for mediated supersymmetry breaking, Phys. Rept. 322 supersymmetry in events with at least one photon, (1999) 419–499, [hep-ph/9801271]. missing transverse momentum, and large transverse event 37. J. L. Kneur and G. Moultaka, Inverting the activity in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 13 TeV, supersymmetric standard model spectrum: From physical 1707.06193. to Lagrangian gaugino parameters, Phys. Rev. D59 20. CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et. al., Search for (1999) 015005, [hep-ph/9807336]. direct production of supersymmetric partners of the top 38. LEP2 SUSY Working Group Collaboration, quark√ in the all-jets final state in proton-proton collisions Combined lep chargino results up to 208 gev for low dm, at s = 13 TeV, JHEP 10 (2017) 005, [1707.03316]. http://lepsusy.web.cern.ch/lepsusy/www/inoslowdmsummer02/charginolowdm pub.html 21. CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et. al., Search for (2002). the pair production of third-generation squarks with 39. Particle Data Group Collaboration, Olive, K. A. two-body decays to a bottom or charm quark and a et. al., Review of Particle Physics, Chin. Phys. C38 neutralino in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 13 (2014) 090001. TeV, 1707.07274. 40. N. Arkani-Hamed, A. Delgado, and G. F. Giudice, The 22. CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et. al., Search√ for Well-tempered neutralino, Nucl. Phys. B741 (2006) top squark pair production in pp collisions at s = 13 108–130, [hep-ph/0601041]. TeV using single lepton events, JHEP 10 (2017) 019, 41. Drees, M., Godbole, R., and Roy, P., Theory and [1706.04402]. phenomenology of Sparticles: an account of 23. CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et. al., Search for four-dimensional N=1 supersymmetry in high-energy new phenomena in final states with two opposite-charge, physics. World Scientific, Singapore, 2004. same-flavor leptons, jets, and missing√ transverse 42. Planck Collaboration, Ade, P.A.R., Aghanim, N., momentum in pp collisions at s = 13 TeV, 1709.08908. Armitage-Caplan, C., Arnaud, M., Ashdown, M., 24. ATLAS Collaboration, M. Aaboud et. al., Search√ for the Atrio-Barandela, F., Aumont, J., Baccigalupi, C., and direct production of charginos and neutralinos in s = 13 B. et al., Planck 2013 results. XVI. Cosmological TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector, 1708.07875. parameters, A&A 571 (Nov., 2014) A16, [1303.5076]. 25. CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et. al., Search for 43. Barducci, D., Belanger, G., Bernon, J., Boudjema, F., Da electroweak production of charginos and neutralinos in Silva, J., Kraml, S., Laa, U., and Pukhov, A., Collider √multilepton final states in proton-proton collisions at limits on new physics within micrOMEGAs4.3, s = 13 TeV, 1709.05406. 1606.03834. 26. CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et. al.√, Search for 44. XENON Collaboration, E. Aprile et. al., First Dark higgsino pair production in pp collisions at s = 13 TeV Matter Search Results from the XENON1T Experiment, in final states with large missing transverse momentum 1705.06655. and two Higgs bosons decaying via H → bb, 1709.04896. 45. P. Schwaller and J. Zurita, Compressed electroweakino 27. A. Bharucha, S. Heinemeyer, and F. von der Pahlen, spectra at the LHC, JHEP 03 (2014) 060, [1312.7350]. Direct Chargino-Neutralino Production at the LHC: Interpreting the Exclusion Limits in the Complex MSSM, Eur. Phys. J. C73 (2013), no. 11 2629, [1307.4237]. 28. ATLAS Collaboration, M. Aaboud et. al., Search for electroweak production of supersymmetric states√ in scenarios with compressed mass spectra at s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, 1712.08119. 29. CMS Collaboration, A. M. Sirunyan et. al., Search for new physics in events with two soft oppositely charged leptons and missing transverse√ momentum in proton-proton collisions at s = 13 TeV, 1801.01846. 30. M. Dine and W. Fischler, A Phenomenological Model of Particle Physics Based on Supersymmetry, Phys. Lett. 110B (1982) 227–231. 31. C. R. Nappi and B. A. Ovrut, Supersymmetric Extension of the SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) Model, Phys. Lett. 113B (1982) 175–179. 32. L. Alvarez-Gaume, M. Claudson, and M. B. Wise, Low-Energy Supersymmetry, Nucl. Phys. B207 (1982) 96. 33. M. Dine and A. E. Nelson, Dynamical supersymmetry breaking at low-energies, Phys. Rev. D48 (1993) 1277–1287, [hep-ph/9303230].