lhc and direct dm searches - ucla physics & astronomy · wdb, weber, arxiv:1011.6323 can local dm...
TRANSCRIPT
-
Institut für Experimentelle Kernphysik
C. Beskidt, W. de Boer, D. Kazakov, F. Ratnikov
LHC and direct DM searches
Outline
Where is SUSY (in CMSSM)? (arxiv.org/1202.3366)Answer: in parameter region with LSP > 160 GeV
KIT – Universität des Landes Baden-Württemberg undnationales Forschungszentrum in der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft
Institut für Experimentelle Kernphysik
www.kit.edu
-
Why supergravity inspired ConstrainedMinimal Supersymmetric Model (CMSSM)?
CMSSM provides UNIFICATION of gauge couplings
CMSSM provides UNIFICATION of Yukawa couplings
CMSSM assumes UNIFICATION of gaugino masses m1/2Mgluino=2.7 m1/2, MWIMP=0.4 m1/2
Fürs
tena
u, P
LB, 1
991,
B
200
4, h
ep-p
h/03
0704
9
WIMP largely Bino DM may be
LHC: 116
-
Why supergravity inspired ConstrainedMinimal Supersymmetric Model (CMSSM)?
CMSSM provides UNIFICATION of gauge couplings
CMSSM provides UNIFICATION of Yukawa couplings
CMSSM assumes UNIFICATION of gaugino masses m1/2Mgluino=2.7 m1/2, MWIMP=0.4 m1/2
Fürs
tena
u, P
LB, 1
991,
B
200
4, h
ep-p
h/03
0704
9
WIMP largely Bino DM may be
LHC: 116
-
Why supergravity inspired ConstrainedMinimal Supersymmetric Model (CMSSM)?
CMSSM provides UNIFICATION of gauge couplings (plot)
CMSSM provides UNIFICATION of Yukawa couplings (plot)
CMSSM assumes UNIFICATION of gaugino masses m1/2Mgluino=2.7 m1/2, MWIMP=0.4 m1/2 (plot)
4Wim de Boer, DM2012, Marina del Rey, Feb. 23, 2012
CMSSM predicts EWSB with 114 < Mhiggs < 130 GeVLHC: 116
-
Gauge coupling unification for TeV SUSY masses
CMSSM provides UNIFICATION of gauge couplings
CMSSM provides UNIFICATION of Yukawa couplings
CMSSM assumes UNIFICATION of gaugino masses m1/2Mgluino=2.7 m1/2, MWIMP=0.4 m1/2
Fürs
tena
u, P
LB, 1
991,
B
200
4, h
ep-p
h/03
0704
9
5Wim de Boer, DM2012, Marina del Rey, Feb. 23, 2012
CMSSM predicts EWSB with 114 < Mhiggs < 130 GeVLHC: 116
-
Approximate triple Yukawa coupling unification for large tan
6Wim de Boer, DM2012, Marina del Rey, Feb. 23, 2012
Yukawa couplingUnificationwdb et al, PLB 2001,arXiv:hep-ph/0106311
-
Common GUT masses in supergravityLow energy masses different by running
WIMP largely Bino DM may be
7Wim de Boer, DM2012, Marina del Rey, Feb. 23, 2012
DM may be supersymmetricpartner of CMB
-
LHC Higgs window for SM Higgs (light SUSY Higgs)
LHC: 116
-
Combined exclusion plot
9Wim de Boer, DM2012, Marina del Rey, Feb. 23, 2012
Combination: in CMSSM WIMP > 160 GeV, gluino > 1 TeV
-
Fitting procedure
Variables calculated withMicrOMEGAs 2.4.1
10Wim de Boer, DM2012, Marina del Rey, Feb. 23, 2012
Minuit for minimization
LHC limits on pseudoscalar Higgs and squarks and gluinos.
-
CMSSM – PRE-LHC CONSTRAINTSHiggs Mass mh mh > 114,4 GeVMuon g-2b→sγ BRexp(b→sγ) = (3,55 ± 0,24)·10-4Bs→μμ BRexp(Bs→μμ) < 1,1·10-8B→τν BRexp(B→τν) = (1,68 ± 0,31)·10-4Relic Density Ωh2 Ωh2 = 0,1131 ± 0,0034CMSSM: 4 Parameter m0, m1/2, A0, tanβ and sign of μ
10exp 104,122,30 theoaaa
11Wim de Boer, DM2012, Marina del Rey, Feb. 23, 2012
Fitting problem: STRONG correlations between 3 of 4 free parameters
Solution: multistep fitting technique, i.e. fit parameters withstrongest correlation (A0, tanβ) first for every pair of m0, m1/2Result: find larger allowed regions than ALL other fitters, seearXiv:1106.2529, arXiv:1110.3568, arXiv:1107.1715, arXiv:1102.3149, arXiv:1103.0969, arXiv:1104.3572, arXiv:1107.1259, arXiv:1103.5061, arXiv:1109.5119, arXiv:1008.2150, arXiv:1109.6775.
-
EXAMPLES OF HIGH CORRELATION
χ2 for Bs →μμ and Ωh2
mA exchange
For given m0 only very specific values of tan
For given tan only very specific values of A0
12Wim de Boer, DM2012, Marina del Rey, Feb. 23, 2012
co-annihilation regions
Origin of correlation:Both strongly dependent ontanβ
Bs →μμΩh2
-
95% CL exclusion byCMS + ATLAS followstot0.1-0.2 pb
msq2=m02+6.6 m1/22 mgl =2.7 m1/2
LHC direct searches
13Wim de Boer, DM2012, Marina del Rey, Feb. 23, 2012
qq ~~ qg~~gg~~
2=tot2/σeff2 , ∆2 = 2 –2min = 5.99 for 95% C.L.
-
LHC direct searches
14Wim de Boer, DM2012, Marina del Rey, Feb. 23, 2012
Excluded:(95% C.L.)
GeV620~ gmGeV1000~ qm
Expected sensitivityat 14 TeV: 2 better
-
f
f
A
χ
χ
~
~
f
f
A
χ
χ
~
~
Relic density Ωh2 inversely proportional to annihilation x-section σMain annihilation diagram via pseudo-scalar Higgs A
NO constraint from relic density alone!
15Wim de Boer, DM2012, Marina del Rey, Feb. 23, 2012
Dial tanβ for correct mA → tanβ ≈ 50 in most of parameter range
2/12 mmmA
Large enough annih. cross sectionnear resonance, i.e . 2mmA
4
2tan
Am F(tan )
-
CP-even lightest Higgs
-
mAm1/2
With LHC: relic density becomes constraint
tan 50
C ihil ti
17Wim de Boer, DM2012, Marina del Rey, Feb. 23, 2012
Beskidt, wdb, Kazakov, arXiv:1008.2150, PLB2011
Coannihilation
-
mA cross sections tan2
tanβ ≈ 50
18Wim de Boer, DM2012, Marina del Rey, Feb. 23, 2012
Beskidt, dB et al.1008.2150, PLB 2011 mA > 400 GeVfor tan50
-
Cross section limits WIMP-Nucleon scattering
from rotation curve 0 3 1 3 G V/ 3
Scattering rate R:
19Wim de Boer, DM2012, Marina del Rey, Feb. 23, 2012
0.3-1.3 GeV/cm3 (2 plots)
X-section dominated by Higgs exchange
Quark mass and Higgsino comp. of Neutralino
-
CMSun no ring
Kalberla, et al-. arXiv:0704.3925
gas
laye
r[kp
c]
Evidence for local DM substructure
20Wim de Boer, DM2012, Marina del Rey, Feb. 23, 2012
Sgt
From David Law, CaltechTidal force ∆FG 1/r3
with outer ring
Gas flaring needs outer ringwith mass of 2.1010M☉!
Cannot be gas!
R [kpc]FW
HM
Canis Major disruption suggested by magic ring of stars
(SDSS, et al., 2001-2007)
-
=WdB, Weber, arXiv:1011.6323
Can local DM density be as large as 1.3 GeV/cm3?
21Wim de Boer, DM2012, Marina del Rey, Feb. 23, 2012
Change of slope precisely measured by VLBI measurementsCan ONLY be explained by local ringlike substructure in DM,e.g. from disruption of Canis Major satellite.Supported by magic ring of stars and gas flaring
-
Effective couplings
Large uncertainty from virtual strange quark density
22Wim de Boer, DM2012, Marina del Rey, Feb. 23, 2012
Consider conservatively much lower s-quarkdensity from lattice calculations
(and distrust N scattering in non-perturbative regime)Also considered lowest possible local DM density of 0.3 GeV/cm3
-
Higgs exchange becomes
EWSB requiressmall andlarge N13 for
Higgsino component large for large m0
23Wim de Boer, DM2012, Marina del Rey, Feb. 23, 2012
Higgs exchange becomeslarge, if Higgsino componentof WIMP becomes large
glarge m0
Large x-section Easy to exclude
-
Combined exclusion plot
24Wim de Boer, DM2012, Marina del Rey, Feb. 23, 2012
Combination: in CMSSM WIMP > 160 GeV, gluino > 1 TeV
-
The main players
LHCdirectsearches:
f
A
χ~ f
A
χ~
LHC Higgssearches
LightSUSYmasses
IntermediateSUSY masses
Sensitive region
Summary (arxiv1202.3366)
25Wim de Boer, DM2012, Marina del Rey, Feb. 23, 2012
fχ~ fχ~+h2:
Direct DMsearches
HeavySUSY masses
Combination in CMSSM: WIMP > 160 GeV, gluino > 1 TeV
Expected sensitivity with future 14 TeV LHC and Xenon1T: 2 better
-
Backup
26Wim de Boer, DM2012, Marina del Rey, Feb. 23, 2012
-
Influence from g-2
Preferred region from g-2 excluded largely by LHC
Without g-2 no preferredregion above exclusion(red), i.e. flat, but ithelps excluding at large m0
27Wim de Boer, DM2012, Marina del Rey, Feb. 23, 2012
-
HOW TO TREAT THEORETICAL ERRORS?
Theoretical errors can be treated as nuisance parameters and integrated over in the probability distribution (=convolution for symm. distr.)
If errors Gaussian, this corresponds to adding the experimental and theoretical errors in quadrature
If non-Gaussian σtheo AND σtheo ~ σexp linear addition more appropriate This is especially important for g-2 (done in this analysis)
Convolution of 2 Gaussians Convolution of Gaussian +“fl t t G i ”
28Wim de Boer, DM2012, Marina del Rey, Feb. 23, 2012
“flat top Gaussian”
Adding errors linearly more conservative approach for theory errors.
2exp
22 theo exp~ theo
-
BEST-FIT POINT
Point 1: electroweak +
29Wim de Boer, DM2012, Marina del Rey, Feb. 23, 2012
Point 1: electroweak + cosmological constraints
Point 2: electroweak + cosmological + LHC (directsearches and mA+Ωh2) + DDMS
-
COMPARISON TO OTHER GROUPSacceptable points nearregion where stau=LSP
30Wim de Boer, DM2012, Marina del Rey, Feb. 23, 2012
Strong correlation between A0 und tanβ hard to catch if samplespregenerated with random scan. Possible reason why top right corner isnot found by Buchmüller et al., arXiv 1110.3568
Cannot be missed by multistep fitting technique
Intermediate regions in m0 usually missed by Markov Chains, which steplinearly in tan, and are hence biased to co-annihilation regions, see e.g. G. Bertone, et al.,arXiv:1107.1715 and references therein.