The SUSY Accord Project - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – The SUSY Accord Project PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 131f93-MmI1N



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

The SUSY Accord Project

Description:

RPV, CPV, FLV, NMSSM, THEORY UNCERTAINTIES, CROSS SECTIONS, GENERAL BSM RESONANCES, ... Accord Lots of models, lots of tools, ONE convention, less head-ache ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:52
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 33
Provided by: peters53
Learn more at: http://home.fnal.gov
Category:
Tags: susy | accord | ache | project

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: The SUSY Accord Project


1
The SUSY Accord Project
Tools 2006, Annecy, June 26-28 2006
  • P. Skands

RPV, CPV, FLV, NMSSM, THEORY UNCERTAINTIES, CROSS
SECTIONS, GENERAL BSM RESONANCES,
2
Summary of Discussion Session
  • Penalty round. 1-0 for Italy.
  • Other topics
  • NMSSM
  • Mixing and Goldstone bosons
  • Effective vertices

3
Outline
  • SLHA1 brief overview
  • SLHA2
  • SUSY CONVENTIONS HOW TO GENERALISE?
  • Model definition
  • MSSM w/ Flavour Violation
  • MSSM w/ R-parity Violation
  • MSSM w/ CP Violation
  • NMSSM
  • CROSS SECTIONS AND THEORY ERRORS
  • OTHER EXTENSIONS
  • Well-defined mixing Matrices
  • General BSM Resonances - QNUMBERS

4
SUSY Les Houches Accord
  • SUSY ? Lots of models, lots of tools, lots of
    conventions
  • Les Houches ? Lots of people, lots of discussions
  • Accord ? Lots of models, lots of tools, ONE
    convention, less head-ache
  • Disclaimer SPA ? SLHA (though SPA uses SLHA)

Writeup in JHEP 0407036,2004
5
SLHA Considerations
  • Consistency
  • Define parameters consistently and unambiguously
    ? specific conventions adopted (described in
    detail in writeup)
  • Flexible/Extendable
  • Structure should be general enough to eventually
    handle any model ? files built of modular data
    blocks
  • Usable
  • Easy to implement and use ? Keep basic structure
    simple. If it aint broke, dont fix it.

6
The SLHA1 Conventions
Input
  • Experimental boundary conditions
  • Measured SM gauge couplings and Yukawas (SLHA1
    3rd gen. only)
  • ? MSSM couplings and Yukawas (not the same,
    since different field content ? different quantum
    corrections)
  • Superpotential (at scale Q (normally MGUT) in
    DRbar)
  • SUSY Breaking Terms (at scale Q in DRbar)

7
Example SLHA Spectrum
8
SUSY Les Houches Accord v1
? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ?
?
?
F77 I/O Library by T. Hahn (now also SLHA2)
FITTERS
?
?
FITTINO, SFITTER
9
How to Generalise? MSSM
  • Superpotential (at scale Q (normally MGUT) in
    DRbar)

RPV CPV FLV
10
How to Generalise?
  • The following is a selection of topics from the
    work and discussions on SLHA2.
  • The order is more or less random
  • Since this is a tools workshop, I will go a bit
    into the nitty-gritty

11
How to Generalise? Model Definition
  • Additions to global switches in block MODSEL
  • Choice of particle content
  • 0 MSSM (default)
  • 1 NMSSM
  • R-parity violation
  • 0 R-parity conserved (default)
  • 1 R-parity violated
  • CP violation
  • 0 CP conserved (default)
  • 1 CP violated but only by CKM phase
  • 2 CP violated, general phases allowed
  • Flavour violation
  • 0 No (SUSY) flavour violation (default)
  • 1 Flavour violated

NB For SLHA2 we are keeping RPV, CPV, and FLV
separate
12
How to Generalise? FLV
  • SUPER-CKM BASIS
  • defined as basis in which quark Yukawas, in
    DRbar, are diagonal
  • NB lepton mixing not treated yet (though see
    RPV).
  • INPUT
  • VCKMIN VCKM in PDG parametrisation (SM MSbar at
    MZ).
  • SMINPUTS Include mu,d,s(2GeV)MSbar and
    mc(mc)MSbar
  • MSQ2IN, MSU2IN, MSD2IN Input squark mass
    matrices (hermitic, and EXTPAR already contains
    diagonal terms ? upper off-diagonal only)
  • OUTPUT LAGRANGIAN PARAMETERS (all DRbar at scale
    Q)
  • Yukawas Super-CKM basis ? always diagonal (but
    same blocks as SLHA1)
  • VCKM and bilinear SUSY-breaking MSQ2, MSU2, MSD2
    matrices

Still not addressed
13
Mixing Matrices
  • In SLHA1, agreed not to agree.
  • Exact definition of mixing matrices was left up
    to RGE program
  • Read the individual manual
  • DRbar at some scale m? (e.g. m2SUSY mt1mt2)
  • On-shell ? (e.g. external momentum (mh mH)/2)
  • Etc
  • Not a huge problem
  • DRbar Lagrangian parameters also given
  • ? can always construct desired mixing structure
  • Still, it is possible to include option for
    giving DRbar mixing matrices at scale Q (e.g. SPA
    uses DRbar at 1 TeV)
  • Would this be useful?
  • Potential pitfalls?

14
How to Generalise? FLV
  • EW SCALE MIXING
  • USQMIX 6x6 up-squark mixing in super-CKM basis
  • DSQMIX 6x6 down-squark mixing in super-CKM basis
  • Problem SLHA uses the PDG particle enumeration
    scheme, but need generalisation for MSSM. Which
    quark is which? Enumeration of mass eigenstates.

FCHDECAY fchdecay.googlepages.com
Main Issue PDG (no-mixing limit)
Down squarks PDG code 1000001 d_1 1000003
d_2 1000005 d_3 2000001 d_4 2000003 d_5 2000005
d_6
Up squarks PDG Code 1000002 u_1 1000004
u_2 1000006 u_3 2000002 u_4 2000004 u_5 2000006
u_6
1000002 u_L 1000004 c_L 1000006 t_1 2000002 u_R 20
00004 c_R 2000006 t_2
1000001 d_L 1000003 s_L 1000005 b_1 2000001 d_R 20
00003 s_R 2000005 b_2
  • NB PDG are open to suggestions

15
How to Generalise? Goldstone Bosons
  • Dimensionality of mixing matrices
  • Q include current-eigenstate composition of
    Goldstones bosons explicitly or not e.g. in
    neutral and charged Higgs sectors
  • CPV 2x2 charged and 4x4 neutral? Or 1x1 and 3x3?
  • RPV 8x8 charged and 2 5x5 neutral? Or 7x7 and
    4x4?
  • Superfluous? Can always be calculated if needed.
    Unnecessary possibility for confusion
    inconsistency.
  • Doesnt hurt? Calculations cumbersome, why not
    include it?
  • Q (from Sven) Does anyone see an advantage to
    including the Goldstones? Q (from me) Does
    anyone see potential pitfalls to including them?
  • Yesterday Still no consencus (?)

16
How to Generalise? RPV
  • INPUT
  • New input blocks for all RPV superpotential
    parameters, soft-breaking parameters, and
    sneutrino vevs (prefix RV and suffix IN)
  • LAGRANGIAN PARAMETERS (DRbar at scale Q)
  • New output blocks for all RPV parameters (prefix
    RV)
  • POLE MASSES
  • new sneutrinos
  • 1000017, 1000018,1000019
  • EW SCALE MIXING
  • RVNMIX 7x7 neutralino/neutrino
  • RVHMIX 5x5 CP-even H/sneutrino
  • RVAMIX 5x5 CP-odd H/sneutrino
  • RVLMIX 8x8 Charged H/slepton
  • RVUMIX, RVVMIX 5x5 chargino/lepton

17
How to Generalise? RPV
  • EWSB constraints ? Several model parametrizations
  • RPC MSSM (mH1,mH2) or (mA,µ)
  • Fine, still manageable
  • SLHA1 allows both (in mutually exclusive way)
  • RPV MSSM RPC 3 sneutrino vevs ? 5 pars
  • Still only 2 independent.
  • Solution A? Always define pars in basis where
    sneutrino vevs are zero (can rotate there from
    general case) ? SLHA1 sufficient. But not very
    convenient / too constraining?
  • Solution B?

18
How to Generalise? NMSSM
Cf. NMHDecay, Ellwanger, Gunion, Hugonie
Present Status
  • Superpotential (at scale Q (normally MGUT) in
    DRbar)
  • (usually with µMSSM0)

NMSSM
19
How to Generalise? NMSSM
  • Q One or Many?
  • Specify field content ? one NMSSM (e.g.
    dimensionality of mixing matrices always same)
  • Qualitatively different models w/ different
    superpotentials etc (?) ? many NMSSM? (nMSSM,
    NMSSM, MNMSSM, )
  • What is necessary / sufficient from calculational
    point of view? From convenience point of view?
  • Can different models be unified into one with
    generalised Superpotential etc? (some pars zero
    in some versions, others zero in others?)
  • Or necessary to distinguish between truly
    (completely) different next-to-minimal models?
  • Tentative strategy general NMSSM with all terms
    allowed by supersymmetry and gauge invariance
  • Each variant corresponds to some terms
    (non-)zero.
  • In general any term not given explicitly assumed
    zero.
  • For time being, assume conservation of R, CP,
    flavour.

20
Theory Uncertainties
  • What has been done FeynHiggs
  • Uncorrelated /- uncertainties
  • Separate blocks DMASS, DALPHA
  • What has been thought about
  • Similar in spirit to error PDFs
  • Correlated uncertainties ? a series of spectra
  • Eigenvector directions in uncertainty space
    part of input
  • Does anyone actually implement 2?
  • If not, no need for Accord now

21
Cross Sections
  • Templated in SPheno, for use with SFitter,
    Fittino.
  • At the moment, only for ILC studies?
  • Only inclusive cross sections (?)
  • As far as I know, template works well (?)
  • May be prudent (?) to hesitate with Accord for
    this until more than one or two tools exist?
    (unofficial solution not forbidden!) Or at
    least until more experiences collected?

22
MC4BSM Workshop
Monte Carlo Tools for Beyond-the-Standard-Model
Physics. March 20-21 2006. Fermilab
  • Many new models of New Physics emerged over last
    few years
  • e.g. Extra Dimensions, new technicolor-like
    models, Higgsless, Little Higgs, gauge and/or
    matter extensions to MSSM, ...
  • Many of these imply qualitatively new
    phenomenological signatures
  • The rest imply a possible experimental confusion
    with existing models
  • MSSM has been useful benchmark scenario to test
    experimental and phenomenological strategies for
    a long time
  • Now increasing focus on non-MSSM signatures
    how we could get confused
  • Many advanced tools exist to study all aspects of
    MSSM phenomenology in detail (dark matter,
    electroweak precision, cross sections, decay
    widths, NLO, spin correllations, event
    generators, ) most use SUSY Les Houches Accord
    (now being extended to CPV, RPV, FLV, NMSSM)
  • For non-MSSM BSM much fewer / less sophisticated
    tools

23
General BSM Resonances
  • Many new models in recent years
  • Little Higgs, Extra Dimensions (ADD, RS, UED, ),
    Z-primes,
  • Specialised tools beginning to emerge
  • Important to have full-fledged event generators
  • Qualitatively different collider phenomenologies
  • Model confusion
  • Extensive discussions at MC4BSM (FNAL, March
    20-21 2006)
  • Summary of discussions available on spires (f t
    mc4bsm)
  • ? Proposal for definition of new state in
    SLHA-like block

BLOCK QNUMBERS 1234567 new_guy PDG1234567
1 0 3 times electric charge 2 2
number of spin states (2S1) 3 1
colour rep (1 singlet, 3 triplet, 8 octet)
4 0 Particle/Antiparticle distinction
(0own anti) BLOCK MASS Mass Spectrum
1234567 3.1415926535E02 new_guy DECAY
1234567 1.000000E00 new_guy width
1.0000E-00 2 22 22 Br(new_guy -gt
gamma gamma)
  • Or something a la definition of a particle in a
    CalcHEP/CompHEP model file?

24
Outlook
  • Conceptual Design Report for SLHA2 in Les
    Houches BSM Proceedings, hep-ph/0602198 concerns
    core SLHA2 conventions.
  • More extensive writeup to follow in 2006. To
    discuss
  • Tools 2006, Annecy, Jun 26-28, 2006
  • MC4LHC, CERN, Jul 17-26, 2006
  • MC4BSM, Gainesville, FL, Winter 06/07
  • See also Les Houches BSM tools repository
    http//www.ippp.dur.ac.uk/montecarlo/BSM

25
Work 1
26
Work 2
27
Work 3
28
Conclusions
Tough conditions call for good tools! We will be
ready for NMSSM, CPV, RPV, FLV,
Then all we need is a signal
29
MC4BSM Workshop
Monte Carlo Tools for Beyond-the-Standard-Model
Physics. March 20-21 2006. Fermilab
  • Many new models of New Physics emerged over last
    few years
  • e.g. Extra Dimensions, new technicolor-like
    models, Higgsless, Little Higgs, gauge and/or
    matter extensions to MSSM, ...
  • Many of these imply qualitatively new
    phenomenological signatures
  • The rest imply a possible experimental confusion
    with existing models
  • MSSM has been useful benchmark scenario to test
    experimental and phenomenological strategies for
    a long time
  • Now increasing focus on non-MSSM signatures
    how we could get confused
  • Many advanced tools exist to study all aspects of
    MSSM phenomenology in detail (dark matter,
    electroweak precision, cross sections, decay
    widths, NLO, spin correllations, event
    generators, ) most use SUSY Les Houches Accord
    (now being extended to CPV, RPV, FLV, NMSSM)
  • For non-MSSM BSM much fewer / less sophisticated
    tools

30
Including (possibility for) well-defined mixing
matrices
  • In SLHA1, exact definition of mixing matrices was
    left up to RGE program (since the only thing we
    could agree on was not to agree )
  • Read the individual manual
  • DRbar at some scale m? (m2SUSY mt1mt2, m (mh
    mH)/2, )
  • On-shell ?
  • Etc
  • Not a huge problem
  • DRbar Lagrangian parameters also given
  • ? can always construct desired mixing structure
  • Still, would be nice to have possibility for
    exact definition
  • Include option for giving DRbar mixing matrices
    at scale Q

NB Not clear what this will be useful for. Sven
argues that no use for DRbar definition of alpha.
People should speak up, or possibility will be
thrown away.
e.g. BLOCK NMIX Q or BLOCK DRNMIX
Q BLOCK NMIXDR Q
31
How to Generalise? CPV
  • SIMPLEST WAY
  • Add prefix IM to already existing SLHA1 blocks
  • E.g. in input IMEXTPAR in output IMNMIX etc
  • Not completely general, but useful starting point
  • MORE GENERAL
  • Add prefix IM to new SLHA2 blocks (supersede
    SLHA1 if present)
  • EW SCALE MIXING
  • CVHMIX 4x4 neutral Higgs (CP-even CP-odd)
    mixing
  • Charged Higgs mixing (2x2) not yet agreed upon

32
How to Generalise? RPV
  • Mixing Example Charged colour-singlet fermions

Flavour basis e e flavour eigenstate mu
mu -- tau tau -- -i w charged wino
h2 charged higgsino (up-type)
Mass basis (PDG numbers), strictly
mass-ordered -11 (e) lightest state
(regardless of composition!) -13 (mu) 2nd
lightest -15 (tau) 3rd
lightest 1000027 (chi1) 1000037 (chi2)
heaviest charged colour-singlet fermion
About PowerShow.com