1 / 32

Les Houches Accord: SLHA2 and Generalization of SUSY Models

Summary of the tools workshop at Tools.2006 in Annecy discussing the SLHA2 convention and generalization of SUSY models. Topics include model definition, MSSM with flavor, R-parity and CP violation, NMSSM, cross sections and theory errors, and mixing matrices.

josephross
Download Presentation

Les Houches Accord: SLHA2 and Generalization of SUSY Models

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. Tools 2006, Annecy, June 26-28 2006 The SUSY …Accord Project 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. p l d i i i i 2 t t t § ¼ a n g e s e g e n s a e e c o m p o s o n s ; ; ; , , : : : 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 0407:036,2004

  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 ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

  6. £ b b b b ¤ ¹ ¹ ¹ ( ) ( ) ( ) W Y H L E Y H Q D Y H Q U H H a a a a + + ¡ ² ¹ = b M S S M E D U i j j i j j i j j i i i 1 1 2 1 2 a 1 ³ ´ ~ ~ A A X X b b h L M M M ~ ~ ~ ~ + + + w w g g c h = i G 1 2 3 X ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b b b : : : 2 2 2 2 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ¤ 2 ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ a a a a a a a d h V V H T H H L H H T Q H Q Q T L H Q L ~ ~ + + + + + + + ² m m e m m u c = = b E D U i j i j i j i j i j 3 2 ~ ~ H H i j i i j j i i j j 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 a : : ; Q L a a a a L R L L R L L L R L 1 2 i j ~ ~ b 2 2 2 2 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ¤ ¤ ¤ a d d h H H ~ ~ ~ ~ + + ¡ + u m u m e m e m ² c b i i j i i j i i j ~ ~ ~ j j j 3 1 2 a : : : R R R d u e R R R M 1 2 m A m A o ¹ 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. SPECTRUM CALCULATOR SUSY MODEL MC EVENT GEN / XS CALCULATOR input spectrum MSSM SUGRA GMSB AMSB NMSSM RPV CPV FLV … CPSUPERH FEYNHIGGS ISASUSY NMHDECAY SOFTSUSY SPHENO SUSPECT … CALC/COMPHEP ILCSLEPTON GRACE HERWIG (++) ISAJET PROSPINO PYTHIA SHERPA SMADGRAPH SUSYGEN WHIZARD … spectrum spc+dec spc FEYNHIGGS FCHDECAY HDECAY NMHDECAY SDECAY SPHENO DECAY PACKAGE CDM PACKAGE MICRΩS DARKSUSY NEUTDRIVER PLATON (?) SUSY Les Houches Accord v1                            + F77 I/O Library by T. Hahn (now also SLHA2) FITTERS   FITTINO, SFITTER

  9. SUSY Breaking Terms(at scale Q in DRbar) 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. Q: Is one model sufficient for NMSSM, nMSSM, MNMSSM, … In principle yes. 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-breakingMSQ2, MSU2, MSD2matrices 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 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 • 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. • Doesn’t 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. 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 + Interface to PYTHIA How to Generalise? NMSSM Cf. NMHDecay, Ellwanger, Gunion, Hugonie Present Status: • Superpotential(at scale Q (normally MGUT) in DRbar) • (usually with μMSSM=0) 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 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 …

  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 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?

  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. £ b b b b ¤ ¹ ¹ ¹ ( ) ( ) ( ) W Y H L E Y H Q D Y H Q U H H a a a a + + ¡ ² ¹ = b M S S M E D U i j j i j j i j j i i i 1 1 2 1 2 a 1 ³ ´ ~ ~ A A X X b b h L M M M ~ ~ ~ ~ + + + w w g g c h = i G 1 2 3 X ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b b b : : : 2 2 2 2 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ¤ 2 ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ a a a a a a a d h V V H T H H L H H T Q H Q Q T L H Q L ~ ~ + + + + + + + ² m m e m m u c = = b E D U i j i j i j i j i j 3 2 ~ ~ H H i j i i j j i i j j 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 a : : ; Q L a a a a L R L L R L L L R L 1 2 i j ~ ~ b 2 2 2 2 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ¤ ¤ ¤ a d d h H H ~ ~ ~ ~ + + ¡ + u m u m e m e m ² c b i i j i i j i i j ~ ~ ~ j j j 3 1 2 a : : : R R R d u e R R R Work 1

  26. 1 ³ ´ ~ ~ A A X X b b h L M M M ~ ~ ~ ~ + + + w w g g c h = G 1 2 3 X ~ ~ ~ ~ b b b b b b : : : £ ¹ ¹ ¹ ( ( ) ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 2 ¤ ¤ ¤ a a a a a a d V W Y T H L H E L Y T H Q H D Q Y H T Q U H Q ~ ~ + + + + ² ² e u = = b b E E D D U U i j i j j i j i j j i j i j j 3 i i j i i j i i j 1 1 1 1 2 2 a a L R L R L R i j ¸ 1 1 b b b b 0 0 0 a a a a ¸ ¸ ¸ L L E L Q D L H H H U D D + + ¡ ¡ + ² ¹ 1 1 k k k k i j i i j k k i j i j i j i i j i 2 1 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 2 b b ( ) ( ) ( ) ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ a a d d d h T L L T L Q T ~ ~ + + + + e u c ¸ k ¸ k ¸ k 0 0 0 i j i j i j k k k i j i j i j : : L L R R R R R 2 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 2 2 2 ( ) ( ) ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ a a a a V H H H H Q Q L L + + + + m m m m = i j i j 2 ~ ~ H H i j i j 1 1 2 2 Q L a a a a L L L L 1 2 ~ ~ b b 2 2 2 2 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ¤ ¤ ¤ a a d d H H L H ~ ~ ~ ~ + + ¡ + u m u m e m e ² m D b i i j i i j i i j ~ ~ ~ j j j i 3 1 2 2 a i R R R d u e R R R b + a L H ) h + m c i 1 LiH : : : Work 2

  27. · · b b 2 2 3 3 ( ) a a ¸ ¸ h V W V W V V A S S H H H H S S A S + + + + + + ² ² m c = = = b b ¸ M S M S M S S M M S S M 3 3 2 2 S 1 1 2 2 a a · : : ; 3 3 ; ; 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

More Related