1 / 22

Extraction of Parameters from Collider Data?

Extraction of Parameters from Collider Data?. NPF 2009 Heidelberg 02/26/2009 Klaus Desch and Dirk Zerwas Uni Bonn and LAL Orsay. Introduction Finding the right parameter set getting the errors right other applications Open questions.

caraf
Download Presentation

Extraction of Parameters from Collider Data?

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. Extraction of Parameters from Collider Data? NPF 2009 Heidelberg 02/26/2009 Klaus Desch and Dirk Zerwas Uni Bonn and LAL Orsay • Introduction • Finding the right parameter set • getting the errors right • other applications • Open questions • Definition 1: mSUGRA=toy (Klaus left to hide from Tilman) • Definition 2: MSSM=oset 4711

  2. Determination of Supersymmetric Parameters from edges, masses (etc) to fundamental parameters: e.g.: mSUGRA (from Klaus to Tilman with love) m(Smuon) = f(m0, m1/2, tanβ) m(Chargino) = f(m1/2, tanβ,…) correlations exp and theoretical treatment of theory errors!  global ansatz necessary Beenakker et al See Allanach arXiv:0805.2088[hep-ph] for complete list • mass spectra and decays: SOFTSUSY, SUSPECT, FeynHiggs, ISASUSY,SPHENO, SDecay, SUSY-HIT, HDECAY, NMSSMtools,… • NLO cross sections from Prospino2.0,… • dark matter: micrOMEGAS, DarkSUSY, IsaRED,… Search for parameter point, determine errors including treatment of error correlations: Pioneers: G. Blair, W. Porod and P.M. Zerwas(Eur.Phys.J.C27:263-281,2003) / Allanach et al. hep-ph/0403133 FITTINO: P. Bechtle, K. Desch, P. Wienemann with W. Porod(Eur.Phys.J.C46:533-544,2006) SFITTER: R. Lafaye, T. Plehn, M. Rauch, D. Z.(Eur.Phys.J.C54:617-644,2008) GFITTER: M. Goebel, J. Haller, A. Hoecker, K. Moenig, J. Stelzer (EW fit) Master Code: Buchmueller et al, Phys.Lett.B657:87-94,2007(my name is Vader, Dirk Vader) Super-Bayes: R.R. de Austri, R. Trotta, (MCMC, collider observables and dark matter…) CMSSM fits and weather forcasts: B. Allanach, K. Cranmer, C. Lester, A. Weber …

  3. A typical (optimistic) point “Physics Interplay of the LHC and ILC” G. Weiglein et al gluinos and squarks (not too heavy) heavy and light gauginos ~ • τ1 lighter than the lightest χ± : • χ± BR 100% τν • χ2 BR 90% ττ • cascade: • qLχ2 q  ℓR ℓq  ℓℓqχ1 ~ ~ ~ ~ Higgs boson mass at the LEP limit light sleptons Forced to talk about SPS1a(‘) by genetic pre-disposition (quote from Mihoko)

  4. SUSY already discovered? Global mSugra fit to measured things… (to compare with Buchmüller ea – consistent) dominated by g-2 and h2DM - but encouraging…

  5. From LE fit: predicted mass spectra no (g-2) no h2DM Prediction driven by g-2 and Ωh2

  6. LHC measurements NPF: Shoji, Dan LHC: lepton energy scale 0.1% LHC: jet energy scale 1% luminosity 100fb-1 SPS1a • LHC: • from edges/thresholds to masses: toy/fit

  7. Lagrangian@GUT scale: mSUGRA Hypothesis: SUSY particles discovered and non-discrete quantum numbers to be measured • First question: • do we find the right point? brute force method GRID: disadvantage: NP advantage: computer industry brute force method MINUIT: disadvantage: starting point Sign(μ) fixed ~300 toy experiments: convergence OK with MINUIT alone for LHC (largest errors)!

  8. Model discrimination What are fits to mSugra are good for after all? - rule out the most simple assumptions (degenerate masses…) - discriminate between different „digital“ assumptions, e.g. misinterpreation of edge replace sgn  = -1 sgn  = +1 with 1 fb-1: correct model (sgn =+) preferred with 96% probability with 1 fb-1: correct model preferred with 77% probability

  9. Lagrangian@GUT scale: mSUGRA Simulated annealing • Markov Chains (efficient sampling in high dimensions, linear in number of parameters) • Full dimensional exclusive likelihood map with the possibility of different types of projections: • marginalisation (Bayes) introduces a measure • profile likelihood (Frequentist approach) Ranked list of minima: • secondary minima exist (LHC) • discarded by χ2 alone • interplay with top mass (parameter!)

  10. Fittino: error determination from Toy Fits Parameter fits: 2 distribution as reliable „quality control“ for derived uncertainties - simulated annealing  find global minimum - Toy MC  map out spread of parameters when observables vary within their expt. errors MC Toy fits:

  11. mSUGRA: Theory Errors and Standard Model RFit Scheme: Höcker, Lacker, Laplace, Lediberder • No information within theory errors: flat distribution • use edges not masses (improvement: 10x)! • e-scale correlations at LHC 25-50% impact on error • remember the standard model (top quark mass 1GeV at LHC) 10%.

  12. MSSM 19 parametersat the EW scale no unification of the 1st and 2nd generation • mix techniques: • markov flat full Parameter space • MINUIT in 5 best points • Markov flat gaugino-higgsino space • MINUIT on 15 best points • BW pdf on remaining parameters • MINUIT on 5 best solutions (all parameters) • 3 neutralino masses at LHC • M1, M2, μ • 8 fold ambiguity in Gaugino-Higgsino subspace at the LHC!

  13. MSSM18 Tilman doesn‘t like mSugra – so could we fit (much) more general models? LHC: 300 fb-1 But remember: this maybe possible in the „best of all worlds“ (=SPS1a-like point) Much less will be possible if e.g. no dilepton edge is visible

  14. MSSM Running up to the GUT scale: G. Blair, W. Porod and P.M. Zerwas (Eur.Phys.J.C27:263-281,2003) P. Bechtle, K. Desch, P. Wienemann with W. Porod (Eur.Phys.J.C46:533-544,2006) SPS1a (SPA1): dashed bands: today’s theory errors included unification measured from low energy (TeV) data from LHC+ILC remember: all results valid within a well defined model/hypothesis

  15. SFitter+Michael Duehrssen The Higgs sector Measurements Experimental Errors Thanks Gavin  Theory Errors Applying same techniques: Likelihood map with reduction of dimensions either Bayesian of Profile Likelihood (more appropriate here in absence of true secondary minima)

  16. ZH/WH full sensitivity ZH/WH half sensitivity ZH/WH absent Profile likelihood 30fb-1 theory errors

  17. Questions for discussion • Several methods to scan n-dimensional parameter space. Enough? • Agree on error treatment (esp theory errors)? • extension from SUSY model A to SUSY model B easy • Higgs sector study ok • other non-susy models? • How to communicate (spectrum/observables) without re-inventing the wheel? • Do these models Z’, UED etc need n-dimensional scan tools? • Is it a particularity of SUSY that a measurement depends on N parameters? • Is the theoretical precision sufficient everywhere? • Inclusion of exclusion? • observed rates: clearly, how to predict N (SUSY pars) for fits? how to implement in fits? • interfacing to theory codes: SLHA quite good – problems if > 1 code is used in a fit (e.g. separate RGE running in SPheno + mastercode) • fast (parametrized) rate calculator – any ideas? • stability of Markov chain MCs (dependence on start values, alg. parameters, statistics,…)

  18. A difficult example: SUSY with heavy scalars Arkani-Hamed & Dimopoulos 2004 Giudice, Romanino 2004 N. Bernal, A. Djouadi, P. Slavich JHEP 0707:016,2007 E. Turlay et al. (Proceedings BSM-SUSY les Houches 2007) • Phenomenology: • scalar Mass scale 104 to 16 GeV • scalars are at MS • fermions O(TeV) • SM Higgs h • effective theory below MS • at MS matching with complete theory • and standard RGE • DSS parameters: • MS: decoupling scale, scalar masses • m1/2: gaugino mass parameter • μ: Higgs mass parameter • At: trilinear coupling at MS • tanβ: mixing angle between Higgs at MS ATLAS/CMS talks: Paul de Jong, Tapas Sarangi, Daniel Teyssier Parameter determination at LHC possible

  19. backup: LE input

  20. backup: MSSM18 fitted model parameters

  21. backup: LHC inputs note: - all inputs based on +- recent ATLAS/CMS simulation - of course „correct“ interpretation of the edges is assumed / wrong assignment has to be tested separately

More Related