lhc and direct dm searches - ucla physics & astronomy · wdb, weber, arxiv:1011.6323 can local dm...

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 (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


CMSSM predicts EWSB with 114 < Mhiggs < 130 GeVLHC: 116

Approximate triple Yukawa coupling unification for large tan


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


DM may be supersymmetricpartner of CMB

LHC Higgs window for SM Higgs (light SUSY Higgs)

LHC: 116

Combined exclusion plot


Combination: in CMSSM WIMP > 160 GeV, gluino > 1 TeV

Fitting procedure

Variables calculated withMicrOMEGAs 2.4.1


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


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


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


qq ~~ qg~~gg~~

2=tot2/σeff2 , ∆2 = 2 –2min = 5.99 for 95% C.L.

LHC direct searches


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!


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


Beskidt, wdb, Kazakov, arXiv:1008.2150, PLB2011

Coannihilation

mA cross sections tan2

tanβ ≈ 50


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:


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


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?


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


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


Higgs exchange becomeslarge, if Higgsino componentof WIMP becomes large

glarge m0

Large x-section Easy to exclude

Combined exclusion plot


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)


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


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


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 ”


“flat top Gaussian”

Adding errors linearly more conservative approach for theory errors.

2exp

22 theo exp~ theo

BEST-FIT POINT

Point 1: electroweak +


Point 1: electroweak + cosmological constraints

Point 2: electroweak + cosmological + LHC (directsearches and mA+Ωh2) + DDMS

COMPARISON TO OTHER GROUPSacceptable points nearregion where stau=LSP


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.

lhc and direct dm searches - ucla physics & astronomy · wdb, weber, arxiv:1011.6323 can local dm...

Documents