Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Analysis Procedure
Case I: CDM is Mainly the Lightest Neutralino
Summary
References
All Topics
Physics
Particle Physics

Likelihood analysis of the minimal AMSB model

Profile image of Kazuki SakuraiKazuki Sakurai

2017, European Physical Journal C

https://doi.org/10.1140/EPJC/S10052-017-4810-0
visibility

…

description

28 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

We perform a likelihood analysis of the minimal anomaly-mediated supersymmetry-breaking (mAMSB) model using constraints from cosmology and accelerator experiments. We find that either a wino-like or a Higgsinolike neutralino LSP, χ 0 1 , may provide the cold dark matter (DM), both with similar likelihoods. The upper limit on the DM density from Planck and other experiments enforces m χ 0 1 3 TeV after the inclusion of Sommerfeld enhancement in its annihilations. If most of the cold DM density is provided by the χ 0 1 , the measured value of the Higgs mass favours a limited range of tan β ∼ 5 (and also for tan β ∼ 45 if μ > 0) but the scalar mass m 0 is poorly constrained. In the wino-LSP case, m 3/2 is constrained to about 900 TeV and m χ 0 1 to 2.9 ± 0.1 TeV, whereas in the Higgsino-LSP case m 3/2 has just a lower limit 650 TeV ( 480 TeV) and m χ 0 1 is constrained to 1.12 (1.13) ± 0.02 TeV in the μ > 0 (μ < 0) scenario. In neither case can the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon, (g -2) μ , be improved significantly relative to its Standard Model

Related papers

Dark Matter and Higgs Mass in the CMSSM with Yukawa Quasi-Unification
Nikos Karagiannakis

We present an updated analysis of the constrained minimal supersymmetric standard model with mu>0 supplemented by an `asymptotic' Yukawa coupling quasi-unification condition, which allows an acceptable b-quark mass. Imposing constraints from the cold dark matter abundance in the universe, B physics, the muon anomalous magnetic moment, and the mass m_h of the lightest neutral CP-even Higgs boson, we find that the lightest neutralino cannot act as a cold dark matter candidate. This is mainly because the upper bound on the lightest neutralino relic abundance from cold dark matter considerations, despite the fact that this abundance is drastically reduced by neutralino-stau coannihilations, is incompatible with the recent data on the branching ratio of B_s --> mu^+ mu^-. Allowing for a different particle, such as the axino or the gravitino, to be the lightest supersymmetric particle and, thus, constitute the cold dark matter in the universe, we find that the predicted m_h's in our model favor the range (119-126) GeV.

View PDFchevron_right
New constraints on neutralino dark matter in the supersymmetric standard model
Heath Pois

Physical Review D, 1993

We investigate the prospects for neutralino dark matter within the Supersymmetric Standard Model (SSM) including the constraints from universal soft supersymmetry breaking and radiative breaking of the electroweak symmetry. The latter is enforced by using the one-loop Higgs effective potential which automatically gives the one-loop corrected Higgs boson masses. We perform an exhaustive search of the allowed five-dimensional parameter space and find that the neutralino relic abundance $\Omega_\chi h^2_0$ depends most strongly on the ratio $\xi_0\equiv m_0/m_{1/2}$. For $\xi_0\gg1$ the relic abundance is almost always much too large, whereas for $\xi_0\ll1$ the opposite occurs. For $\xi_0\sim1$ there are wide ranges of the remaining parameters for which $\Omega_\chi\sim1$. We also determine that $m_{\tilde q}\gsim250\GeV$ and $m_{\tilde l}\gsim100\GeV$ are necessary in order to possibly achieve $\Omega_\chi\sim1$. These lower bounds are much weaker than the corresponding ones derived previously when radiative breaking was {\it not} enforced.

View PDFchevron_right
Cold Dark Matter and Higgs Mass in the Constrained Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model with Generalized Yukawa Quasi-Unification
Konstantinos Pallis

International Journal of Modern Physics A, 2013

The construction of specific supersymmetric grand unified models based on the Pati–Salam gauge group and leading to a set of Yukawa quasi-unification conditions which can allow an acceptable b-quark mass within the constrained minimal supersymmetric standard model with μ &gt; 0 is briefly reviewed. Imposing constraints from the cold dark matter abundance in the universe, B physics, and the mass mh of the lighter neutral CP-even Higgs boson, we find that there is an allowed parameter space with, approximately, 44 ≤ tan β ≤ 52, -3 ≤ A0/M1/2 ≤ 0.1, 122 ≤ mh/ GeV ≤ 127, and mass of the lightest sparticle in the range (0.75–1.43) TeV. Such heavy lightest sparticle masses can become consistent with the cold dark matter requirements on the lightest sparticle relic density thanks to neutralino–stau coannihilations which are enhanced due to stau–antistau coannihilation to down type fermions via a direct-channel exchange of the heavier neutral CP-even Higgs boson. Restrictions on the model pa...

View PDFchevron_right
Higgs sector of the MSSM: Lepton flavor violation at colliders and neutralino dark matter
O. Panella

2010

We examine the prospects for the detection of Higgs mediated lepton flavor violation at LHC and at a photon collider in the minimal supersymmetric standard model with large lepton flavor violating mass insertions in the µ − τ sector constraining the parameter space with several experimental bounds. We find rates probably too small to be observed at future experiments if models have to accommodate for a neutralino relic density as measured by WMAP and explain the (g − 2)µ anomaly: better prospects are found if these two constraints are applied only as upper bounds. The spin-independent neutralino-nucleon cross section in the studied constrained parameter space is just below the present CDMS limit while gamma rates from neutralino annihilation in the halo are strongly suppressed.

View PDFchevron_right
Light neutralino dark matter in the next-to-minimal supersymmetric standard model
John Gunion

Physical Review D, 2006

Neutralino dark matter is generally assumed to be relatively heavy, with a mass near the electroweak scale. This does not necessarily need to be the case, however. In the Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (NMSSM) and other supersymmetric models with an extended Higgs sector, a very light CP-odd Higgs boson can naturally arise making it possible for a very light neutralino to annihilate efficiently enough to avoid being overproduced in the early Universe. In this article, we explore the characteristics of a supersymmetric model needed to include a very light neutralino, 100 MeV < m χ 0 1 < 20 GeV, using the NMSSM as a prototype. We discuss the most important constraints from Upsilon decays, b → sγ, B s → µ + µ − and the magnetic moment of the muon, and find that a light bino or singlino neutralino is allowed, and can be generated with the appropriate relic density. It has previously been shown that the positive detection of dark matter claimed by the DAMA collaboration can be reconciled with other direct dark matter experiments such as CDMS II if the dark matter particle is rather light, between about 6 and 9 GeV. A singlino or bino-like neutralino could easily fall within this range of masses within the NMSSM. Additionally, models with sub-GeV neutralinos may be capable of generating the 511 keV gamma-ray emission observed from the galactic bulge by the INTEGRAL/SPI experiment. We also point out measurements which can be performed immediately at CLEO, BaBar and Belle using existing data to discover or significantly constrain this scenario.

View PDFchevron_right
Neutralino dark matter and Higgs mediated lepton flavor violation in the minimal supersymmetric standard model
O. Panella

Physical Review D, 2010

We re-examine the prospects for the detection of Higgs mediated lepton flavor violation at LHC, at a photon collider and in τ decays such as τ → µη, τ → µγ. We allow for the presence of a large, model independent, source of lepton flavor violation in the slepton mass matrix in the τ − µ sector by the mass insertion approximation and constrain the parameter space using the τ LFV decays together with the B-mesons physics observables, the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon and the dark matter relic density. We further impose the exclusion limit on spin-independent neutralinonucleon scattering from CDMS and the CDF limits from direct search of the heavy neutral Higgs at the TEVATRON. We find rates probably too small to be observed at future experiments if models have to accommodate for the relic density measured by WMAP and explain the (g − 2)µ anomaly: better prospects are found if these two constraints are applied only as upper bounds. The spin-independent neutralino-nucleon cross section in the studied constrained parameter space is just below the present CDMS limit and the running XENON100 experiment will cover the region of the parameter space where the lightest neutralino has large gaugino-higgsino mixing.

View PDFchevron_right
Muon g-2, 125 GeV Higgs and Neutralino Dark Matter in sMSSM
Cem Salih Un

arXiv (Cornell University), 2014

We discuss the sparticle (and Higgs) spectrum in a class of flavor symmetry-based minimal supersymmetric standard models, referred to here as sMSSM. In this framework the SUSY breaking Lagrangian takes the most general form consistent with a grand unified symmetry such as SO(10) and a non-Abelian flavor symmetry acting on the three families with either a 2+1 or a 3 family assignment. Models based on gauged SU (2) and SO(3) flavor symmetry, as well as non-Abelian discrete symmetries such as S 3 and A 4 , have been suggested which fall into this category. These models describe supersymmetry breaking in terms of seven phenomenological parameters. The soft supersymmetry breaking masses at M GUT of all sfermions of the first two families are equal in sMSSM, which differ in general from the corresponding third family mass. In such a framework we show that the muon g − 2 anomaly, the observed Higgs boson mass of ∼ 125 GeV, and the observed relic neutralino dark matter abundance can be simultaneously accommodated. The resolution of the muon g − 2 anomaly in particular yields the result that the first two generation squark masses, as well the gluino mass, should be 2 TeV, which will be tested at LHC14.

View PDFchevron_right
Environmentally selected WIMP dark matter with high-scale supersymmetry breaking
Gilly Elor

Physical Review D, 2010

We explore the possibility that both the weak scale and the thermal relic dark matter abundance are environmentally selected in a multiverse. An underlying supersymmetric theory containing the states of the MSSM and singlets, with supersymmetry and R symmetry broken at unified scales, has just two realistic low energy effective theories. One theory, (SM +w), is the Standard Model augmented only by the wino, having a mass near 3 TeV, and has a Higgs boson mass in the range of (127 -142) GeV. The other theory, (SM +h/s), has Higgsinos and a singlino added to the Standard Model. The Higgs boson mass depends on the single new Yukawa coupling of the theory, y, and is near 141 GeV for small y but grows to be as large as 210 GeV as this new coupling approaches strong coupling at high energies. Much of the parameter space of this theory will be probed by direct detection searches for dark matter that push two orders of magnitude below the present bounds; furthermore, the dark matter mass and cross section on nucleons are correlated with the Higgs boson mass. The indirect detection signal of monochromatic photons from the galactic center is computed, and the range of parameters that may be accessible to LHC searches for trilepton events is explored. Taking a broader view, allowing the possibility of R symmetry protection to the TeV scale or axion dark matter, we find four more theories: (SM + axion), two versions of Split Supersymmetry, and the E-MSSM, where a little supersymmetric hierarchy is predicted. The special Higgs mass value of (141 ± 2) GeV appears in symmetry limits of three of the six theories, (SM + axion), (SM +w) and (SM +h/s), motivating a comparison of other signals of these three theories.

View PDFchevron_right
CoGeNT, DAMA, and Neutralino Dark Matter in the Next-To-Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model
John Gunion

Arxiv preprint arXiv:1009.2555, 2010

We assess the extent to which the NMSSM can allow for light dark matter in the 2 GeV < ∼ m χ 0 1 < ∼ 12 GeV mass range with correct relic density and large spin-independent direct-detection cross section, σSI , in the range suggested by CoGeNT and DAMA. For standard assumptions regarding nucleon s-quark content and cosmological relic density, ρ, we find that the NMSSM falls short by a factor of about 10 to 15 (3 to 5) without (with) significant violation of the current (g -2)µ constraints.

View PDFchevron_right
Phenomenological viability of neutralino dark matter in the next-to-minimal supersymmetric standard model
Emidio Gabrielli

Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2007

The viability of the lightest neutralino as a dark matter candidate in the next-to-minimal supersymmetric standard model is analysed. We carry out a thorough analysis of the parameter space, taking into account accelerator constraints as well as bounds on low-energy observables, such as the muon anomalous magnetic moment and rare K and B meson decays. The neutralino relic density is also evaluated and consistency with present bounds imposed. Finally, the neutralino direct detection cross section is calculated in the allowed regions of the parameter space and compared to the sensitivities of present and projected dark matter experiments. Regions of the parameter space are found where experimental constraints are fulfilled, the lightest neutralino has the correct relic abundance and its detection cross section is within the reach of dark matter detectors. This is possible in the presence of very light singlet-like Higgses and when the neutralino is either light enough so that some annihilation channels are kinematically forbidden, or has a large singlino component.

View PDFchevron_right

References (166)

  1. O. Buchmueller et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1878 (2012). arXiv:1110.3568 [hep-ph]
  2. O. Buchmueller et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 2243 (2012). arXiv:1207.7315
  3. O. Buchmueller et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2809 (2014). arXiv:1312.5233 [hep-ph]
  4. O. Buchmueller et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2922 (2014). arXiv:1312.5250 [hep-ph]
  5. O. Buchmueller et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 74(12), 3212 (2014). arXiv:1508.01173 [hep-ph]
  6. K.J. de Vries et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 75(9), 422 (2015). arXiv:1504.03260 [hep-ph]
  7. E.A. Bagnaschi et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 500 (2015). arXiv:1508.01173 [hep-ph]
  8. E. Bagnaschi et al., arXiv:1610.10084 [hep-ph]
  9. M. Drees, M.M. Nojiri, Phys. Rev. D 47, 376 (1993). arXiv:hep-ph/9207234
  10. G.L. Kane, C.F. Kolda, L. Roszkowski, J.D. Wells, Phys. Rev. D 49, 6173 (1994). arXiv:hep-ph/9312272
  11. H. Baer, M. Brhlik, Phys. Rev. D 53, 597 (1996). arXiv:hep-ph/9508321
  12. J.R. Ellis, T. Falk, K.A. Olive, M. Schmitt, Phys. Lett. B 388, 97 (1996). arXiv:hep-ph/9607292
  13. J.R. Ellis, T. Falk, K.A. Olive, M. Schmitt, Phys. Lett. B 413, 355 (1997). arXiv:hep-ph/9705444
  14. H. Baer, M. Brhlik, Phys. Rev. D 57, 567 (1998). arXiv:hep-ph/9706509
  15. J.R. Ellis, T. Falk, G. Ganis, K.A. Olive, M. Schmitt, Phys. Rev. D 58, 095002 (1998). arXiv:hep-ph/9801445
  16. V.D. Barger, C. Kao, Phys. Rev. D 57, 3131 (1998). arXiv:hep-ph/9704403
  17. J.R. Ellis, T. Falk, G. Ganis, K.A. Olive, Phys. Rev. D 62, 075010 (2000). arXiv:hep-ph/0004169
  18. H. Baer, M. Brhlik, M.A. Diaz, J. Ferrandis, P. Mercadante, P. Quintana, X. Tata, Phys. Rev. D 63, 015007 (2001). arXiv:hep-ph/0005027
  19. J.R. Ellis, T. Falk, G. Ganis, K.A. Olive, M. Srednicki, Phys. Lett. B 510, 236 (2001). arXiv:hep-ph/0102098
  20. L. Roszkowski, R. Ruiz de Austri, T. Nihei, JHEP 0108, 024 (2001). arXiv:hep-ph/0106334
  21. A. Djouadi, M. Drees, J.L. Kneur, JHEP 0108, 055 (2001). arXiv:hep-ph/0107316
  22. U. Chattopadhyay, A. Corsetti, P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D 66, 035003 (2002). arXiv:hep-ph/0201001
  23. J.R. Ellis, K.A. Olive, Y. Santoso, New J. Phys. 4, 32 (2002). arXiv:hep-ph/0202110
  24. H. Baer, C. Balazs, A. Belyaev, J.K. Mizukoshi, X. Tata, Y. Wang, JHEP 0207, 050 (2002). arXiv:hep-ph/0205325
  25. R. Arnowitt, B. Dutta, arXiv:hep-ph/0211417
  26. H. Baer, A. Mustafayev, S. Profumo, A. Belyaev, X. Tata, Phys. Rev. D 71, 095008 (2005). arXiv:hep-ph/0412059
  27. H. Baer, A. Mustafayev, S. Profumo, A. Belyaev, X. Tata, JHEP 0507, 065 (2005). arXiv:hep-ph/0504001
  28. J.R. Ellis, K.A. Olive, P. Sandick, Phys. Rev. D 78, 075012 (2008). arXiv:0805.2343 [hep-ph]
  29. J. Ellis, F. Luo, K.A. Olive, P. Sandick, Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2403 (2013). arXiv:1212.4476 [hep-ph]
  30. J. Ellis, J.L. Evans, F. Luo, N. Nagata, K.A. Olive, P. Sandick, Eur. Phys. J. C 76(1), 8 (2016). arXiv:1509.08838 [hep-ph]
  31. J. Ellis, K. Olive, Y. Santoso, Phys. Lett. B 539, 107 (2002). arXiv:hep-ph/0204192
  32. J.R. Ellis, T. Falk, K.A. Olive, Y. Santoso, Nucl. Phys. B 652, 259 (2003). arXiv:hep-ph/0210205
  33. C.F. Berger, J.S. Gainer, J.L. Hewett, T.G. Rizzo, JHEP 0902, 023 (2009). arXiv:0812.0980 [hep-ph]
  34. S.S. AbdusSalam, B.C. Allanach, F. Quevedo, F. Feroz, M. Hob- son, Phys. Rev. D 81, 095012 (2010). arXiv:0904.2548 [hep-ph]
  35. J.A. Conley, J.S. Gainer, J.L. Hewett, M.P. Le, T.G. Rizzo, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1697 (2011). arXiv:1009.2539 [hep-ph]
  36. J.A. Conley, J.S. Gainer, J.L. Hewett, M.P. Le, T.G. Rizzo, arXiv:1103.1697 [hep-ph]
  37. B.C. Allanach, A.J. Barr, A. Dafinca, C. Gwenlan, JHEP 1107, 104 (2011). arXiv:1105.1024 [hep-ph]
  38. S.S. AbdusSalam et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1835 (2011). arXiv:1109.3859 [hep-ph]
  39. S. Sekmen, S. Kraml, J. Lykken, F. Moortgat, S. Padhi, L. Pape, M. Pierini, H.B. Prosper et al., JHEP 1202, 075 (2012). arXiv:1109.5119 [hep-ph]
  40. A. Arbey, M. Battaglia, F. Mahmoudi, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1847 (2012). arXiv:1110.3726 [hep-ph]
  41. A. Arbey, M. Battaglia, A. Djouadi, F. Mahmoudi, Phys. Lett. B 720, 153 (2013). arXiv:1211.4004 [hep-ph]
  42. M.W. Cahill-Rowley, J.L. Hewett, A. Ismail, T.G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 3, 035002. arXiv:1211.1981 [hep-ph]
  43. C. Strege, G. Bertone, G.J. Besjes, S. Caron, R. Ruiz de Austri, A. Strubig, R. Trotta, JHEP 1409, 081 (2014). arXiv:1405.0622 [hep-ph]
  44. M. Cahill-Rowley, J.L. Hewett, A. Ismail, T.G. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D 91(5), 055002 (2015). arXiv:1407.4130 [hep-ph]
  45. L. Roszkowski, E.M. Sessolo, A.J. Williams, JHEP 1502, 014 (2015). arXiv:1411.5214 [hep-ph]
  46. M.E. Cabrera-Catalan, S. Ando, C. Weniger, F. Zandanel, Phys. Rev. D 92,(3), 035018 (2015). arXiv:1503.00599 [hep-ph]
  47. J. Chakrabortty, A. Choudhury, S. Mondal, JHEP 1507, 038 (2015). arXiv:1503.08703 [hep-ph]
  48. M. Cannoni, J. Ellis, M.E. Gmez, S. Lola, R. Ruiz de Austri, JCAP 1603(03), 041 (2016). arXiv:1511.06205 [hep-ph]
  49. H. Goldberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1419 (1983)
  50. J. Ellis, J. Hagelin, D. Nanopoulos, K. Olive, M. Srednicki, Nucl. Phys. B 238, 453 (1984)
  51. M. Dine, D. MacIntire, Phys. Rev. D 46, 2594 (1992). arXiv:hep-ph/9205227
  52. L. Randall, R. Sundrum, Nucl. Phys. B 557, 79 (1999). arXiv:hep-th/9810155
  53. G.F. Giudice, M.A. Luty, H. Murayama, R. Rattazzi, JHEP 9812, 027 (1998). arXiv:hep-ph/9810442
  54. A. Pomarol, R. Rattazzi, JHEP 9905, 013 (1999). arXiv:hep-ph/9903448
  55. J.A. Bagger, T. Moroi, E. Poppitz, JHEP 0004, 009 (2000). arXiv:hep-th/9911029
  56. P. Binetruy, M.K. Gaillard, B.D. Nelson, Nucl. Phys. B 604, 32 (2001). arXiv:hep-ph/0011081
  57. T. Gherghetta, G. Giudice, J. Wells, Nucl. Phys. B 559, 27 (1999). arXiv:hep-ph/9904378
  58. E. Katz, Y. Shadmi, Y. Shirman, JHEP 9908, 015 (1999). arXiv:hep-ph/9906296
  59. Z. Chacko, M.A. Luty, I. Maksymyk, E. Ponton, JHEP 0004, 001 (2000). arXiv:hep-ph/9905390
  60. J.L. Feng, T. Moroi, Phys. Rev. D 61, 095004 (2000). arXiv:hep-ph/9907319
  61. G.D. Kribs, Phys. Rev. D 62, 015008 (2000). arXiv:hep-ph/9909376
  62. U. Chattopadhyay, D.K. Ghosh, S. Roy, Phys. Rev. D 62, 115001 (2000). arXiv:hep-ph/0006049
  63. I. Jack, D.R.T. Jones, Phys. Lett. B 491, 151 (2000). arXiv:hep-ph/0006116
  64. H. Baer, J.K. Mizukoshi, X. Tata, Phys. Lett. B 488, 367 (2000). arXiv:hep-ph/0007073
  65. A. Datta, A. Kundu, A. Samanta, Phys. Rev. D 64, 095016 (2001). arXiv:hep-ph/0101034
  66. H. Baer, R. Dermisek, S. Rajagopalan, H. Summy, JCAP 1007, 014 (2010). arXiv:1004.3297 [hep-ph]
  67. A. Arbey, A. Deandrea, A. Tarhini, JHEP 1105, 078 (2011). arXiv:1103.3244 [hep-ph]
  68. B.C. Allanach, T.J. Khoo, K. Sakurai, JHEP 1111, 132 (2011). arXiv:1110.1119 [hep-ph]
  69. A. Arbey, A. Deandrea, F. Mahmoudi, A. Tarhini, Phys. Rev. D 87(11), 115020 (2013). arXiv:1304.0381 [hep-ph]
  70. M. Ibe, T. Moroi, T.T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B 644, 355 (2007). arXiv:hep-ph/0610277
  71. J.L. Evans, M. Ibe, K.A. Olive, T.T. Yanagida, Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2468 (2013). arXiv:1302.5346 [hep-ph]
  72. J.L. Evans, N. Nagata, K.A. Olive, Phys. Rev. D 91, 055027 (2015). arXiv:1502.00034 [hep-ph]
  73. P.A.R. Ade et al., Planck Collaboration. Astron. Astrophys. 594, A13 (2016). arXiv:1502.01589 [astro-ph.CO]
  74. J. Hisano, S. Matsumoto, M. Nagai, O. Saito, M. Senami, Phys. Lett. B 646, 34 (2007). arXiv:hep-ph/0610249
  75. M. Cirelli, A. Strumia, M. Tamburini, Nucl. Phys. B 787, 152 (2007). arXiv:0706.4071 [hep-ph]
  76. A. Hryczuk, R. Iengo, P. Ullio, JHEP 1103, 069 (2011). arXiv:1010.2172 [hep-ph]
  77. M. Beneke, A. Bharucha, F. Dighera, C. Hellmann, A. Hryczuk, S. Recksiegel, P. Ruiz-Femenia, JHEP 1603, 119 (2016). arXiv:1601.04718 [hep-ph]
  78. A. Sommerfeld, Ann. Phys. 403, 257 (1931)
  79. G. Aad et al. [ATLAS and CMS Collaborations], Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 191803 (2015). arXiv:1503.07589 [hep-ex]
  80. G. Degrassi, S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, P. Slavich, G. Weiglein, Eur. Phys. J. C 28, 133 (2003). arXiv:hep-ph/0212020
  81. P. Bechtle, S. Heinemeyer, O. Stål, T. Stefaniak, G. Weiglein, Eur. Phys. J. C 74(2), 2711 (2014). arXiv:1305.1933 [hep-ph]
  82. P. Bechtle, S. Heinemeyer, O. Stål, T. Stefaniak, G. Weiglein, JHEP 1411, 039 (2014). arXiv:1403.1582 [hep-ph]
  83. B.C. Allanach, G. Hiller, D.R.T. Jones, P. Slavich, JHEP 0904, 088 (2009). doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/04/088. arXiv:0902.4880 [hep-ph]
  84. S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 101804 (2013). arXiv:1307.5025 [hep-ex]
  85. R. Aaij et al. [LHCb Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 101805 (2013). arXiv:1307.5024 [hep-ex]
  86. V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS and LHCb Collaborations], Nature 522, 68 (2015). arXiv:1411.4413 [hep-ex]
  87. M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C 76(9), 513 (2016). arXiv:1604.04263 [hep-ex]
  88. S. Heinemeyer et al., JHEP 0608, 052 (2006). arXiv:hep-ph/0604147
  89. S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, A.M. Weber, G. Weiglein, JHEP 0804, 039 (2008). arXiv:0710.2972 [hep-ph]
  90. S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, G. Weiglein, Comput. Phys. Commun. 124, 76 (2000). arXiv:hep-ph/9812320
  91. S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, G. Weiglein, Eur. Phys. J. C 9, 343 (1999). arXiv:hep-ph/9812472
  92. M. Frank et al., JHEP 0702, 047 (2007). arXiv:hep-ph/0611326
  93. T. Hahn, S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, H. Rzehak, G. Weiglein, Com- put. Phys. Commun. 180, 1426 (2009)
  94. T. Hahn, S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, H. Rzehak, G. Weiglein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112(14), 141801 (2014). arXiv:1312.4937 [hep-ph]. http://www.feynhiggs.de
  95. P. Bechtle, O. Brein, S. Heinemeyer, G. Weiglein, K.E. Williams, Comput. Phys. Commun. 181, 138 (2010). arXiv:0811.4169 [hep- ph]
  96. P. Bechtle, O. Brein, S. Heinemeyer, G. Weiglein, K.E. Williams, Comput. Phys. Commun. 182, 2605 (2011). arXiv:1102.1898 [hep-ph]
  97. P. Bechtle et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 74(3), 2693 (2014). arXiv:1311.0055 [hep-ph]
  98. P. Bechtle, S. Heinemeyer, O. Stål, T. Stefaniak, G. Weiglein, Eur. Phys. J. C 75(9), 421 (2015). arXiv:1507.06706 [hep-ph]
  99. V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS Collaboration], JHEP 1410, 160 (2014). arXiv:1408.3316 [hep-ex]
  100. ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2016-085
  101. V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS Collaboration], JHEP 1610, 006 (2016). arXiv:1603.04053 [hep-ex]
  102. V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C 74(9), 3036 (2014). arXiv:1405.7570 [hep-ex]
  103. G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], JHEP 1405, 071 (2014). arXiv:1403.5294 [hep-ex]
  104. H. Iminniyaz, M. Kakizaki, Nucl. Phys. B 851, 57 (2011). arXiv:1008.2905 [astro-ph.CO]
  105. J.L. Feng, K.T. Matchev, T. Moroi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2322 (2000). arXiv:hep-ph/9908309
  106. J.L. Feng, K.T. Matchev, T. Moroi, Phys. Rev. D 61, 075005 (2000). arXiv:hep-ph/9909334
  107. J.L. Feng, K.T. Matchev, F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. B 482, 388 (2000). arXiv:hep-ph/0004043
  108. H. Baer, T. Krupovnickas, S. Profumo, P. Ullio, JHEP 0510, 020 (2005). arXiv:hep-ph/0507282
  109. J.L. Feng, K.T. Matchev, D. Sanford, Phys. Rev. D 85, 075007 (2012). arXiv:1112.3021 [hep-ph]
  110. P. Draper, J. Feng, P. Kant, S. Profumo, D. Sanford, Phys. Rev. D 88, 015025 (2013). arXiv:1304.1159 [hep-ph]
  111. G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov, A. Semenov, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 960 (2014). arXiv:1305.0237 [hep-ph] (ref- erences therein)
  112. T. Cohen, M. Lisanti, A. Pierce, T.R. Slatyer, JCAP 1310, 061 (2013). arXiv:1307.4082
  113. J. Fan, M. Reece, JHEP 1310, 124 (2013). arXiv:1307.4400 [hep- ph]
  114. A. Hryczuk, I. Cholis, R. Iengo, M. Tavakoli, P. Ullio, JCAP 1407, 031 (2014). arXiv:1401.6212 [astro-ph.HE]
  115. B. Bhattacherjee, M. Ibe, K. Ichikawa, S. Matsumoto, K. Nishiyama, JHEP 1407, 080 (2014). arXiv:1405.4914 [hep-ph]
  116. M. Baumgart, I.Z. Rothstein, V. Vaidya, JHEP 1504, 106 (2015). arXiv:1412.8698 [hep-ph]
  117. M. Beneke, A. Bharucha, A. Hryczuk, S. Recksiegel, P. Ruiz- Femenia, arXiv:1611.00804 [hep-ph]
  118. M. Benito, N. Bernal, N. Bozorgnia, F. Calore, F. Iocco, arXiv:1612.02010 [hep-ph]
  119. B.C. Allanach, Comput. Phys. Commun. 143, 305 (2002). arXiv:hep-ph/0104145
  120. G. Isidori, P. Paradisi, Phys. Lett. B 639, 499 (2006). arXiv:hep-ph/0605012
  121. G. Isidori, F. Mescia, P. Paradisi, D. Temes, Phys. Rev. D 75, 115019 (2007). arXiv:hep-ph/0703035 (references therein)
  122. M. Muhlleitner, A. Djouadi, Y. Mambrini, Comput. Phys. Com- mun. 168, 46 (2005). arXiv:hep-ph/0311167
  123. P. Skands et al., JHEP 0407, 036 (2004). arXiv:hep-ph/0311123
  124. B. Allanach et al., Comput. Phys. Commun. 180, 8 (2009). arXiv:0801.0045 [hep-ph]
  125. F. Mahmoudi, Comput. Phys. Commun. 178, 745 (2008). arXiv:0710.2067 [hep-ph]
  126. F. Mahmoudi, Comput. Phys. Commun. 180, 1579 (2009). arXiv:0808.3144 [hep-ph]
  127. D. Eriksson, F. Mahmoudi, O. Stal, JHEP 0811, 035 (2008). arXiv:0808.3551 [hep-ph]
  128. A. Crivellin, J. Rosiek, P.H. Chankowski, A. Dedes, S. Jaeger, P. Tanedo, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 1004 (2013). arXiv:1203.5023 [hep-ph]
  129. J.D. Hunter, Comput. Sci. Eng. 9(3), 90-95 (2007)
  130. A. Buckley, Eur. Phys. J. C 75(10), 467 (2015). arXiv:1305.4194 [hep-ph]
  131. F. Feroz, M.P. Hobson, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 384, 449 (2008). arXiv:0704.3704 [astro-ph]
  132. F. Feroz, M.P. Hobson, M. Bridges, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 398, 1601-1614 (2009). arXiv:0809.3437 [astro-ph]
  133. F. Feroz, M.P. Hobson, E. Cameron, A.N. Pettitt, arXiv:1306.2144 [astro-ph]
  134. G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 88(11), 112006 (2013). arXiv:1310.3675 [hep-ex]
  135. G. Salam, A. Weiler, http://collider-reach.web.cern.ch/ collider-reach
  136. M. Low, L.T. Wang, JHEP 1408, 161 (2014). arXiv:1404.0682 [hep-ph]
  137. S.A.R. Ellis, B. Zheng, Phys. Rev. D 92(7), 075034 (2015). arXiv:1506.02644 [hep-ph]
  138. G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], JHEP 1409, 176 (2014). arXiv:1405.7875 [hep-ex]
  139. The ATLAS collaboration [ATLAS Collaboration], ATLAS- CONF-2016-078
  140. The ATLAS collaboration [ATLAS Collaboration], ATL-PHYS- PUB-2012-001
  141. The ATLAS collaboration [ATLAS Collaboration], ATL-PHYS- PUB-2014-010
  142. T. Cohen, T. Golling, M. Hance, A. Henrichs, K. Howe, J. Loyal, S. Padhi, J.G. Wacker, JHEP 1404, 117 (2014). arXiv:1311.6480 [hep-ph]
  143. CMS Collaboration [CMS Collaboration], CMS-PAS-SUS-16- 024
  144. B.S. Acharya, K. C. Pongkitivanichkul, K. Sakurai, JHEP 1502, 181 (2015). arXiv:1410.1532 [hep-ph]
  145. S. Jung, JHEP 1406, 111 (2014). arXiv:1404.2691 [hep-ph]
  146. S. Gori, S. Jung, L.T. Wang, J.D. Wells, JHEP 1412, 108 (2014). arXiv:1410.6287 [hep-ph]
  147. C. Cheung, L.J. Hall, D. Pinner, J.T. Ruderman, JHEP 1305, 100 (2013). arXiv:1211.4873 [hep-ph]
  148. H. Baer, V. Barger, D. Mickelson, Phys. Lett. B 726, 330 (2013). arXiv:1303.3816 [hep-ph]
  149. D. Barducci, A. Belyaev, A.K.M. Bharucha, W. Porod, V. Sanz, JHEP 1507, 066 (2015). arXiv:1504.02472 [hep-ph]
  150. M. Badziak, A. Delgado, M. Olechowski, S. Pokorski, K. Sakurai, JHEP 1511, 053 (2015). arXiv:1506.07177 [hep-ph]
  151. A. Tan et al. [PandaX-II Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 117(12), 121303 (2016). arXiv:1607.07400 [hep-ex]
  152. D.S. Akerib et al., arXiv:1608.07648 [astro-ph.CO]
  153. D.C. Malling, D.S. Akerib, H.M. Araujo, X. Bai, S. Bedikian, E. Bernard, A. Bernstein, A. Bradley et al., arXiv:1110.0103 [astro-ph.IM]
  154. E. Aprile et al. [XENON Collaboration], JCAP 1604(04), 027 (2016). arXiv:1512.07501 [physics.ins-det]
  155. E. Aprile et al., https://idm2016.shef.ac.uk/indico/event/0/ session/5/contribution/76/material/slides/0.pdf
  156. P. Cushman, C. Galbiati, D.N. McKinsey, H. Robertson, T.M.P. Tait, D. Bauer, A. Borgland, B. Cabrera et al., arXiv:1310.8327 [hep-ex]
  157. J. Gasser, H. Leutwyler, M.E. Sainio, Phys. Lett. B 253, 252 (1991)
  158. M. Knecht, arxiv:hep-ph/9912443
  159. M.E. Sainio, PiN Newslett. 16, 138 (2002). arXiv:hep-ph/0110413
  160. L. Baudis, DARWIN Consortium Collaboration. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 375, 012028 (2012). arXiv:1201.2402 [astro-ph.IM]
  161. J.R. Ellis, A. Ferstl, K.A. Olive, Phys. Lett. B 481, 304 (2000). arXiv:hep-ph/0001005 (For some discussions of these cancella- tions)
  162. V. Mandic, A. Pierce, P. Gondolo, H. Murayama, arXiv:hep-ph/0008022
  163. Ellis, J.L. Feng, A. Ferstl, K.T. Matchev, K.A. Olive, Eur. Phys. J. C 24, 311 (2002). arXiv:astro-ph/0110225
  164. P. Huang, C.E.M. Wagner, Phys. Rev. D 90(1), 015018 (2014). arXiv:1404.0392 [hep-ph]
  165. T. Han, F. Kling, S. Su, Y. Wu, arXiv:1612.02387 [hep-ph]
  166. E. Bagnaschi et al., Likelihood Analysis of the pMSSM11 in Light of LHC 13-TeV Data. preprint [CERN-TH-2017-087], [DESY 17-059], [IFT-UAM/CSIC-17-035], [KCL-PH-TH/2017-22]

Related papers

Low mass neutralino dark matter in the minimal supersymmetric standard model with constraints from B_{s}→μ^{+}μ^{-} and Higgs boson search limits
Daniel Feldman

Physical Review D, 2010

An analysis of spin independent neutralino-proton cross sections SI ðpÞ that includes this low mass region is given. The analysis is done in minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) with radiative electroweak symmetry breaking (REWSB). It is found that cross sections as large as 10 À40 cm 2 can be accommodated in MSSM within the REWSB framework. However, inclusion of sparticle mass limits from current experiments, as well as lower limits on the Higgs searches from the Tevatron, and the current experimental upper limit on B s ! þ À significantly limit the allowed parameter space reducing SI ðpÞ to lie below $10 À41 cm 2 or even lower for neutralino masses around 10 GeV. These cross sections are an order of magnitude lower than the cross sections needed to explain the reported data in the recent dark matter experiments in the low neutralino mass region.

View PDFchevron_right
Indirect detection of light neutralino dark matter in the next-to-minimal supersymmetric standard model
Lawrence Krauss

Physical Review D, 2006

We explore the prospects for indirect detection of neutralino dark matter in supersymmetric models with an extended Higgs sector (NMSSM). We compute, for the first time, one-loop amplitudes for NMSSM neutralino pair annihilation into two photons and two gluons, and point out that extra diagrams (with respect to the MSSM), featuring a potentially light CP-odd Higgs boson exchange, can strongly enhance these radiative modes. Expected signals in neutrino telescopes due to the annihilation of relic neutralinos in the Sun and in the Earth are evaluated, as well as the prospects of detection of a neutralino annihilation signal in space-based gamma-ray, antiproton and positron search experiments, and at low-energy antideuteron searches. We find that in the low mass regime the signals from capture in the Earth are enhanced compared to the MSSM, and that NMSSM neutralinos have a remote possibility of affecting solar dynamics. Also, antimatter experiments are an excellent probe of galactic NMSSM dark matter. We also find enhanced two photon decay modes that make the possibility of the detection of a monochromatic gamma-ray line within the NMSSM more promising than in the MSSM. I. INTRODUCTION Numerous theoretical and phenomenological motivations exist for a Minimal Supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model (MSSM). At the same time one of the attractive by-products of low energy supersymmetry is the natural occurrence in the particle content of the theory of a stable weakly interacting massive particle, the lightest neutralino, which could be the microscopic constituent of the as yet unobserved galactic halo dark matter. Another strong motivation comes from the SM hierarchy problem, originating from the large fine-tuning required by the stability of the electroweak scale to radiative corrections, originating from the large number of orders of magnitude occurring between the GUT, or the Planck, scale, and the electroweak scale itself. Although very appealing, the MSSM has been challenged by various pieces of experimental information, and by some arguments of more theoretical nature. Among these, the LEP-II limit on the mass of the lightest CP-even Higgs [1], the constraints on the masses of supersymmetric (Susy) charged or colored particles from direct searches at LEP and at the Tevatron [2], and the so-called µ problem, i.e. the fundamental reason why the Susy Higgsino mass term µ appearing in the MSSM superpotential lies at some scale near the electroweak scale rather than at some much higher scale. The addition of a new gauge singlet chiral multiplet,Ŝ, to the particle content of the MSSM can provide an elegant solution to the mentioned µ problem of the MSSM [3]. The so-called Next to Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (NMSSM) [4] is an example of one such minimal extension that also alleviates the little fine tuning problem of the MSSM, arising from the non-detection of a neutral CP-even Higgs at LEP-II [1]. A further motivation to go beyond the MSSM comes from Electro-Weak Baryogenesis (EWB), i.e. the possibility that the baryon asymmetry of the Universe originated through electro-weak physics at the electro-weak phasetransition in the Early Universe. Although still a viable scenario within the MSSM [5], EWB generically requires the Higgs mass to be in the narrow mass range above the current LEP-II limits and below ≃ 120 GeV, a rather unnatural mass splitting between the right-handed and the left-handed stops (the first one required to lie below the top quark mass, and the other in the multi-TeV range), CP violation at levels sometimes at odds with electric dipole moment experimental results, and, generically, a very heavy sfermion sector [6]. In contrast, the NMSSM provides extra triscalar Higgs couplings which hugely facilitate the occurrence of a more strongly first-order EW phase transition, and extra CP violating sources, relaxing most of the above mentioned requirements in the context of the MSSM [7, 8]. One of the chief remaining cosmological issues associated with the NMSSM, the cosmological domain wall problem [9], caused by the discrete Z 3 symmetry of the NMSSM, can be circumvented by introducing non-renormalizable Planck-suppressed operators [10]. The Higgs sector of the NMSSM contains three CP-even and two CP-odd scalars, which are mixtures of MSSM-like Higgses and singlets. Also, the neutralino sector contains five mass-eigenstates, instead of the four in the MSSM, each of which has, in addition to the four MSSM components, a singlino component, the latter being the fermionic partner of the extra singlet scalars. The extended Higgs and neutralino sectors weaken the mass bounds for both the Higgs bosons and the neutralinos. Very light neutralinos and Higgs bosons, even in the few GeV range, are in fact not

View PDFchevron_right
Dark matter in Susy models
Yudi Santoso

Physics of Atomic Nuclei, 2002

Direct detection experiments for neutralino dark matter in the Milky Way are examined within the framework of SUGRA models with R-parity invariance and grand unification at the GUT scale, M G. Models of this type apply to a large number of phenomena, and all existing bounds on the SUSY parameter space due to current experimental constraints are included. For models with universal soft breaking at M G (mSUGRA), the Higgs mass and b → sγ constraints imply that the gaugino mass, m 1/2 , obeys m 1/2 >(300-400)GeV putting most of the parameter space in the co-annihilation domain where there is a relatively narrow band in the m 0 − m 1/2 plane. For µ > 0 we find that the neutralino-proton cross section > ∼ 10 −10 pb for m 1/2 < 1 TeV, making almost all of this parameter space accessible to future planned detectors. For µ < 0, however, there will be large regions of parameter space with cross sections < 10 −12 pb, and hence unaccessible experimentally. If, however, the muon magnetic moment anomaly is confirmed, then µ > 0 and m 1/2 < ∼ 800 GeV. Models with non-universal soft breaking in the third generation and Higgs sector can allow for new effects arising from additional early universe annihilation through the Z-channel pole. Here cross sections that will be accessible in the near future to the next generation of detectors can arise, and can even rise to the large values implied by the DAMA data. Thus dark matter detectors have the possibility of studying the the post-GUT physics that control the patterns of soft breaking.

View PDFchevron_right
Implications of the pseudo-scalar Higgs boson in determining the neutralino dark matter
A. Lahanas

The European Physical Journal C, 2002

In the framework of the Constrained Minimal Supersmmetric Standard Model (CMSSM) we discuss the impact of the pseudo-scalar Higgs boson in delineating regions of the parameters which are consistent with cosmological data and E821 data on the anomalous magnetic moment of muon. For large values of the parameter tan β > 50, cosmologically allowed corridors of large m 0 , M 1/2 are opened, due to the s-channel pseudo-scalar exchange in the pair annihilation of the lightest of the neutralinos to bb or ττ , which dominates in this region. However, no such corridors are found for values tan β < 50. Combining cosmological and E821 data puts severe upper limits on sparticle masses. We find that at LHC, but even at a e + e − linear collider with center of mass energy √ s = 800 GeV, such as TESLA, supersymmetry can be discovered, if it is based on the CMSSM.

View PDFchevron_right
Direct detection of dark matter in the minimal supersymmetric standard model with non-universal Higgs boson masses
yudi santoso

Physical Review D, 2003

We calculate dark matter scattering rates in the minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model (MSSM), allowing the soft supersymmetry-breaking masses of the Higgs multiplets, m 1,2 , to be non-universal (NUHM). Compared with the constrained MSSM (CMSSM) in which m 1,2 are required to be equal to the soft supersymmetry-breaking masses m 0 of the squark and slepton masses, we find that the elastic scattering cross sections may be up to two orders of magnitude larger than values in the CMSSM for similar LSP masses. We find the following preferred ranges for the spin-independent cross section: 10 −6 pb > ∼ σ SI > ∼ 10 −10 pb, and for the spin-dependent cross section: 10 −3 pb > ∼ σ SD , with the lower bound on σ SI dependent on using the putative constraint from the muon anomalous magnetic moment. We stress the importance of incorporating accelerator and dark matter constraints in restricting the NUHM parameter space, and also of requiring that no undesirable vacuum appear below the GUT scale. In particular, values of the spin-independent cross section another order of magnitude larger would appear to be allowed, for small tan β, if the GUT vacuum stability requirement were relaxed, and much lower cross-section values would be permitted if the muon anomalous magnetic moment constraint were dropped.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Physics
  • Quantum Physics
  • Particle Physics
  • Medicine
  • Cold Dark Matter
  • anomalous magnetic dipole moment

    • Cited by

    Anomaly-mediated SUSY breaking model retrofitted for naturalness
    Howard Baer

    Physical Review D

    View PDFchevron_right
    Unveiling hidden physics at the LHC
    Rohini M Godbole

    The European Physical Journal C

    The field of particle physics is at the crossroads. The discovery of a Higgs-like boson completed the Standard Model (SM), but the lacking observation of convincing resonances Beyond the SM (BSM) offers no guidance for the future of particle physics. On the other hand, the motivation for New Physics has not diminished and is, in fact, reinforced by several striking anomalous results in many experiments. Here we summarise the status of the most significant anomalies, including the most recent results for the flavour anomalies, the multi-lepton anomalies at the LHC, the Higgs-like excess at around 96 GeV, and anomalies in neutrino physics, astrophysics, cosmology, and cosmic rays. While the LHC promises up to 4 $$\hbox {ab}^{-1}$$ ab - 1 of integrated luminosity and far-reaching physics programmes to unveil BSM physics, we consider the possibility that the latter could be tested with present data, but that systemic shortcomings of the experiments and their search strategies may preclu...

    View PDFchevron_right
    Likelihood analysis of the sub-GUT MSSM in light of LHC 13-TeV data
    Kazuki Sakurai

    The European Physical Journal C, 2018

    We describe a likelihood analysis using MasterCode of variants of the MSSM in which the soft supersymmetry-breaking parameters are assumed to have universal values at some scale M in below the supersymmetric grand unification scale M GUT , as can occur in mirage mediation and other models. In addition to M in , such 'sub-GUT' models have the 4 parameters of the CMSSM, namely a common gaugino mass m 1/2 , a common soft supersymmetrybreaking scalar mass m 0 , a common trilinear mixing parameter A and the ratio of MSSM Higgs vevs tan β, assuming that the Higgs mixing parameter μ > 0. We take into account constraints on strongly-and electroweakly-interacting sparticles from ∼ 36/fb of LHC data at 13 TeV and the LUX and 2017 PICO, XENON1T and PandaX-II searches for dark matter scattering, in addition to the previous LHC and dark matter constraints as well as full sets of flavour and electroweak constraints. We find a preference for M in ∼ 10 5 to 10 9 GeV, with M in ∼ M GUT disfavoured by χ 2 ∼ 3 due to the BR(B s,d → μ + μ -) constraint. The lower limits on strongly-interacting sparticles are largely determined by LHC searches, and similar to those in the CMSSM. We find a preference for the LSP to be a Bino or Higgsino with m χ 0

    View PDFchevron_right
    Likelihood analysis of the pMSSM11 in light of LHC 13-TeV data
    Kazuki Sakurai

    European Physical Journal C, 2018

    We use MasterCode to perform a frequentist analysis of the constraints on a phenomenological MSSM model with 11 parameters, the pMSSM11, including constraints from ∼ 36/fb of LHC data at 13 TeV and PICO, XENON1T and PandaX-II searches for dark matter scattering, as well as previous accelerator and astrophysical measurements, presenting fits both with and without the (g-2) μ constraint. The pMSSM11 is specified by the following parameters: 3 gaugino masses M 1,2,3 , a common mass for the first-and second-generation squarks m q and a distinct third-generation squark mass m q3 , a common mass for the first-and second-generation sleptons m ˜ and a distinct third-generation slepton mass m τ , a common trilinear mixing parameter A, the Higgs mixing parameter μ, the pseudoscalar Higgs mass M A and tan β. In the fit including (g -2) μ , a Bino-like χ 0 1 is preferred, whereas a Higgsino-like χ 0 1 is mildly favoured when the (g -2) μ constraint is dropped. We identify the mechanisms that operate in different regions of the pMSSM11 parameter space to bring the relic density of the lightest neutralino, χ 0 1 , into the range indicated by cosmological data. In the fit including (g -2) μ , coannihilations with χ 0 2 and the Wino-like χ ±

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved