1 / 17

SLHA 2 Discussion Mon 26/06 2006 – Tools 06 – Annecy

SLHA 2 Discussion Mon 26/06 2006 – Tools 06 – Annecy. NMSSM FLV CPV RPV Dark Matter Theory Uncertainties Cross Sections General BSM Resonances Effective Couplings. M. 1. 2. m. A. m. A. o. ¹. The SLHA1 Conventions. Experimental boundary conditions

annora
Download Presentation

SLHA 2 Discussion Mon 26/06 2006 – Tools 06 – Annecy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SLHA 2 DiscussionMon 26/06 2006 – Tools 06 – Annecy • NMSSM • FLV • CPV • RPV • Dark Matter • Theory Uncertainties • Cross Sections • General BSM Resonances • Effective Couplings

  2. M 1 2 m A m A o ¹ The SLHA1 Conventions • Experimental boundary conditions • “SM” gauge couplings and Yukawas (measured): MSbar + pole •  “MSSM” couplings and Yukawas (not the same, since different field content  different quantum corrections): DRbar + pole + eff. • Superpotential(at scale Q (normally MGUT) in DRbar) • SUSY Breaking Terms(at scale Q in DRbar)

  3. SUSY Breaking Terms(at scale Q in DRbar) How to Generalise? MSSM • Superpotential(at scale Q (normally MGUT) in DRbar) RPV CPV FLV

  4. Dark Matter • Are there special needs for Dark Matter codes which are not addressed / insufficient in SLHA1?

  5. FLV (Flavour Violation) • Model Definition • FLV simple on/off. • No special entry for MFV etc. • Reason: mixing structure (dimensionality etc) doesn’t care how much FLV, only whether it’s there or not. • Opinions? • E.g. separate on/off for lepton and quark sectors? • …

  6. FLV (Flavour Violation) • Squark mass matrices • Hermiticity + diagonal terms already in EXTPAR •  Give only upper off-diagonal terms • (Though diagonal terms not required, codes could still be able to deal with them if present, superseding EXTPAR)? • Naming: • MSQ2, MSD2, MSU2? • MSQ2OD, MSD2OD, MSU2OD? • MSQ2OFFD, MSD2OFFD, MSU2OFFD? • … ? • CPV: • IMMSQ2, IMMSD2, …

  7. FLV (Flavour Violation) • Squark Mixing Matrices • USQMIX: 6x6 up-squark mixing in super-CKM basis • DSQMIX: 6x6 down-squark mixing in super-CKM basis • Problem: which squark is which? Enumeration of mass eigenstates. • NB: PDG are open to suggestions Q: also keep in limit of no FLV? (Jaume) 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 1000001 d_L 1000003 s_L 1000005 b_1 2000001 d_R 2000003 s_R 2000005 b_2 1000002 u_L 1000004 c_L 1000006 t_1 2000002 u_R 2000004 c_R 2000006 t_2

  8. RPV & CPV(R-Parity and CP Violation) • Dimensionality of mixing matrices: • Q: include Goldstones 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. • Doesn’t hurt? Calculations cumbersome, why not include it? • Q (from Sven) : Does anyone see an advantage to including the Goldstones?

  9. FLV (Flavour Violation) • Lepton mixing

  10. RPV(R-Parity Violation) • 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? • Solution B?

  11. NMSSM(Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model) • Tentative solution implemented in NMHDecay and described in Les Houches writeup. (+ MicrOmegas, CalcHEP, Pythia) • 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?

  12. SUSY Breaking Terms(at scale Q in DRbar) • EXTPAR: • lambda • kappa • A_lambda • A_kappa • mu_eff=lambda<S> • Physical Spectrum • 3 H0 (PDG: 25,35,45), 2 A0 (PDG: 36, 46), 5χ0 (PDG: 1000045) • Mixing: NMHMIX NMAMIX NMNMIX See also MicrOMEGAs & CalcHEP + CalcHEP/NMHDecay Interface to PYTHIA NMSSM(Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model) Cf. NMHDecay, Ellwanger, Gunion, Hugonie Present Status: Superpotential(at scale Q (normally MGUT) in DRbar) (usually with μMSSM=0) NMSSM

  13. DRbar 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? (m2SUSY = mt1mt2) • On-shell ? external momentum = … ? m = (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. Theory Uncertainties • What has been done: FeynHiggs • Uncorrelated +/- uncertainties • Separate blocks DMASS, DALPHA • What has been thought about: • Similar in spirit to “error PDF’s” • 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 …

  15. 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?

  16. 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 PDG=1234567 1 0 # 3 times electric charge 2 2 # number of spin states (2S+1) 3 1 # colour rep (1: singlet, 3: triplet, 8: octet) 4 0 # Particle/Antiparticle distinction (0=own anti) BLOCK MASS # Mass Spectrum 1234567 3.1415926535E+02 # new_guy DECAY 1234567 1.000000E+00 # new_guy width 1.0000E-00 2 22 22 # Br(new_guy -> gamma gamma) • Or something a la definition of a particle in a CalcHEP/CompHEP model file?

  17. Notes and Conclusions

More Related