LHC hints and Higgs bosons beyond the (MS)SM Jack Gunion U.C. Davis - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

LHC hints and Higgs bosons beyond the (MS)SM Jack Gunion U.C. Davis LHC2TSP, March 27, 2012 Contributing collaborators: B. Grzadkowski, S. Kraml, M. Toharia, Y. Jiang

Higgs-like LHC Excesses Are we seeing THE Higgs, or only A Higgs or Higgs-like Scalar? J. Gunion, LHC2TSP, March 27, 2012 1

Experimental Higgs-like excesses: define σ ( pp → h ) BR ( h → X ) σ ( pp → i → h ) BR ( h → X ) R ( X ) = σ ( pp → h SM ) BR ( h SM → X ) , R i ( X ) = σ ( pp → i → h SM ) BR ( h SM → X ) (1) where i = gg or W W . Table 1: Three scenarios for LHC excesses in the γγ and 4 ℓ final states. 125 GeV 120 GeV 137 GeV R ( γγ ) ∼ 2 . 0+0 . 8 − 0 . 8 , R (4 ℓ ) ∼ 1 . 5+1 . 5 ATLAS no excesses no excesses − 1 . 0 R ( γγ ) ∼ 1 . 7+0 . 8 − 0 . 7 , R (4 ℓ ) ∼ 0 . 6+0 . 9 R (4 l ) = 2 . 0+1 . 5 CMSA − 1 . 0 , R ( γγ ) < 0 . 5 no excesses − 0 . 6 R ( γγ ) ∼ 1 . 7+0 . 8 − 0 . 7 , R (4 ℓ ) ∼ 0 . 6+0 . 9 R ( γγ ) = 1 . 5+0 . 8 CMSB no excesses − 0 . 8 , R (4 ℓ ) < 0 . 2 − 0 . 6 At 125 GeV , CMS separates out gg vs. W W fusion processes, yielding W W ( γγ ) = 3 . 7 +2 . 1 R CMS R CMS ( γγ ) = 1 . 6 ± 0 . 7 , (2) − 1 . 8 gg and also there are CMS, ATLAS and D0+CDF=Tevatron measurements of V h production with h → bb giving at 125 GeV V h ( bb ) = 1 . 2 +1 . 5 R CMS R ATLAS R Tev − 1 . 8 , ( bb ) ∼ − 0 . 8 ± 1 . 5 , V h ( bb ) ∼ 2 ± 0 . 7 ( moriond V h (3) J. Gunion, LHC2TSP, March 27, 2012 2

One can also force all the observations into a SM-like framework, but allowing for rescaling of individual channels, as per (Giardino et.al. [62]) to obtain m h � 125 GeV 4 CDF � D0 CDF � D0 CDF � D0 Atlas CMS CMS Atlas CMS Atlas CMS Atlas CMS Atlas CMS Atlas CMS 3 Rate � SM rate 2 WWjj ΓΓ p T ΓΓ jj bbV bbV bbV WW WW WW ZZ ZZ ΓΓ ΓΓ ΓΓ ΤΤ ΤΤ 1 0 � 1 So, it could be a very SM-like Higgs boson once statistics increase, or some of the enhancement/suppressions relative to the SM could survive. Note: R ( W W ) < 1 could imply gg → h < SM, but R ( ZZ ) > ∼ 1 suggests not. J. Gunion, LHC2TSP, March 27, 2012 3

SM + singlets and/or doublets: non-SUSY Add only singlets ( Espinosa, Gunion [63])(vanderBij [64]) • All signals reduced relative to SM by common mixing factor, sin θ i , which parameterizes the amount of doublet contained in the i th mass eigenstate., h i = sin θ i h SM + singlet stuff. Some SM final state branchiing ratios can be reduced even further if h i → h j h k , a j a k decays are present. Add a second doublet • Simplest two models: Type I and Type II. Focus on Type II as an example. • Higgs bosons are h , H , A , H ± . CP even mixing angle = α . W W coupling of h, H = sin( β − α ) , cos( β − α ) . hbb, Hbb coupling = − sin α cos β , cos α cos β . htt, Htt coupling= cos α sin β , sin α sin β . J. Gunion, LHC2TSP, March 27, 2012 4

• Can you fit the enhanced γγ rate? The trick is to suppress the bb rate for either h or H while keeping tt coupling of h or H large —- easily done. e.g. for h take sin α small and cos β at least moderate in size. 20 20 Type II b � Type II 15 15 SM � 2 tan Β tan Β 10 10 2 SM 2 SM SM 5 SM 5 SM � 2 � 1.0 � 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 � 1.0 � 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 sin Α sin Α Contours of R h Figure 1: Left: gg ( γγ ) for fixed m h = 125 GeV ; Right: Contours of R h V h ( bb ) — from (Ferreira et.al [61]). The bb reduction is awkward for CMS, Tevatron data. J. Gunion, LHC2TSP, March 27, 2012 5

NMSSM • Extra singlet superfield solves µ problem and gives more Higgs states than MSSM: h 1 , h 2 , h 3 , a 1 and a 2 (and H ± ). New parameters: λ, κ in � W ∋ λ � S � H u � 3 � H d + κ S 3 , A κ and A λ in V soft ∋ λA λ SH u H d + κ 3 A κ S 3 . However, sometimes this is expanded to include dimensionful parameters as in (Hall et.al. [1] )where � W ∋ λ � S � H u � µ � H u � 2 M S � H d + 1 S 2 . H d + � • In the NMSSM it is definitely easier to get largish Higgs mass. Z cos 2 2 β + λ 2 v 2 sin 2 β + δ 2 m 2 m 2 = t , � � �� h m 2 m 4 + X 2 X 2 3 � δ 2 t t t t = ln 1 − (4) t m 4 m 2 12 m 2 (4 π ) 2 v 2 t � � t t � where λ = λ SUSY , m 2 m 2 t 1 m 2 t = t 2 and X t = A t − µ cot β . Even � � � J. Gunion, LHC2TSP, March 27, 2012 6

at X t = 0 , the NMSSM gives m h = 125 GeV for tan β ∼ 1 and λ ∼ 0 . 6 − 0 . 7 , the latter needing only m � t ∼ 500 GeV . MSSM Higgs Mass NMSSM Higgs Mass 140 Λ � 0.6, 0.7 140 � � 1200, 500 GeV m t X t � 6 m t � 130 X t � 0 130 m h � 124 � 126 GeV m h � 124 � 126 GeV m h � GeV � m h � GeV � 120 120 110 110 X t � 0 100 Suspect 100 FeynHiggs 90 90 200 300 500 700 1000 1500 2000 3000 2 4 6 8 10 � � GeV � m t 1 Tan Β Figure 2: MSSM Higgs vs. NMSSM Higgs from (Hall et.al [1] ) In the (simplified) NMSSM, m h = 125 GeV can be achieved with rather modest fine-tuning and m � t . J. Gunion, LHC2TSP, March 27, 2012 7

Stop Mass Fine Tuning 250 1600 Tan Β � 2 X t � 0 1400 200 1200 X t � 0 X t � 6 m t � � GeV � X t � 6 m t � � 150 1000 � m h 800 100 m t 1 600 50 Suspect Suspect 400 FeynHiggs Tan Β � 2 FeynHiggs 200 0 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 Λ Λ Figure 3: Mean stop mass and associated fine-tuning needed to achieve m h = 125 GeV . NMSSM with GUT-scale unification/constraints • Various constrained versions of the NMSSM have been considered. Here, we discuss only the strict NMSSM (no dimensionful parameters in � W ). For all models, m 1 / 2 = M 1 = M 2 = M 3 is assumed. If not stated otherwise, for stated results we impose LEP constraints, B -physics constraints, Ω h 2 < 0 . 136 (or perhaps WMAP window), but not necessarily δa µ . 1. strict-CNMSSM J. Gunion, LHC2TSP, March 27, 2012 8

But, strict universality using m 2 0 = m 2 H u = m 2 H d = m 2 S = ... and A 0 = A t = A κ = A λ = . . . plus varying λ and κ is not consistent with observed m Z while simultaneously obeying minimization equations for � H u � , � H d � and � S � . ⇒ 2. semi-CNMSSM (Belanger et.al [2]): Input m 2 0 = m 2 H u = m 2 H d = . . . � = m 2 S and A 0 = A t = A λ = . . . � = A κ with m 2 S and κ determined from minimization equations (i.e. ok to break universality for singlet-related parameters). ⇒ m h 1 < ∼ 115 GeV . m 2 0 = m 2 H u = m 2 3. cNMSSM (Djouadi et.al. [3][4]): H d = . . . = 0 , | m 2 S − m 2 0 | =small (which determines tan β ) and A 0 ≡ A t = A b = A τ = A λ = A κ (i.e. approximately a very special case of strict-CNMSSM), ⇒ – m h 1 < ∼ 121 GeV at large m 1 / 2 . – The h 2 can have a mass in the 123 − 128 GeV range for not too large m 1 / 2 , but R h 2 ( γγ ) is of order 0 . 5 − 0 . 6 . Doesn’t look like LHC data. [5]): universal m 2 0 , except m 2 4. Model I (Gunion, Kraml, Yun S , universal A 0 except A λ = A κ = 0 (natural in U (1) R symmetry limit). m 2 S and κ are determined by scalar potential V minimization equations; yields too J. Gunion, LHC2TSP, March 27, 2012 9

low m h 1 . Models achieving m h 1 ∼ 125 GeV with λ GUT < 1 5. Model II [5];: universal m 2 0 , except for NUHM ( m 2 H u , m 2 H d independent of m 2 0 ), m 2 S and κ from V minimization, universal A 0 except A λ = A κ = 0 . One finds m h 1 can be ok, but γγ rate is not enhanced. Figure 4: Black triangle = perfect , satisfies all constraints including δa µ ; white diamond = almost perfect , δa µ relaxed by 1 2 σ . J. Gunion, LHC2TSP, March 27, 2012 10

6. Model III: universal m 2 0 , except for NUHM, universal A 0 except A λ and A κ allowed to vary freely [5]: gives further expansion of interesting scenarios, but harder to find perfect points with m h 1 ∼ 125 GeV . Figure 5: Black triangle = perfect , satisfies all constraints including δa µ ; white diamond = almost perfect , δa µ relaxed by 1 2 σ . J. Gunion, LHC2TSP, March 27, 2012 11

SUSY implications of Models II and III? • Nothing really forces small m � t 1 until m h 1 ∼ 125 GeV is required. Figure 6: Model III: Black triangle = perfect , satisfies all constraints including δa µ ; white diamond = almost perfect , δa µ relaxed by 1 2 σ . Green squares=LEP ok + B-physics ok; blue pluses = Ω h 2 < 0 . 136 ; cyan circles = Ω h 2 in WMAP window; magenta X’s = δa µ good. J. Gunion, LHC2TSP, March 27, 2012 12

• Upper bounds on gluino and squark masses arise just from Ω h 2 , but these are large. The upper bounds are lower (but somewhat beyond current LHC reach) if m h 1 ∼ 125 GeV is required and all other constraints are satisfied. Figure 7: m h 1 > 123 GeV required. Black triangle = perfect , satisfies all constraints including δa µ ; white diamond = almost perfect , δa µ relaxed by 1 2 σ . Green squares=LEP ok + B-physics ok; blue pluses = Ω h 2 < 0 . 136 ; cyan circles = Ω h 2 in WMAP window; magenta X’s = δa µ good. J. Gunion, LHC2TSP, March 27, 2012 13

• An upper bound on the LSP mass also arises just from Ω h 2 . m LSP < ∼ 700 GeV (most points < ∼ 500 GeV ) if m h 1 ∼ 125 GeV and all other constraints are satisfied. Figure 8: m h 1 > 123 GeV required. Black triangle = perfect , satisfies all constraints including δa µ ; white diamond = almost perfect , δa µ relaxed by 1 2 σ . Green squares=LEP ok + B-physics ok; blue pluses = Ω h 2 < 0 . 136 ; cyan circles = Ω h 2 in WMAP window; magenta X’s = δa µ good. J. Gunion, LHC2TSP, March 27, 2012 14