[PPT] - Towards an LHC observable NMSSM grid Joscha Knolle in collaboration PowerPoint Presentation

SLIDE 1

Introduction NMSSM Phenomenology Constraints SUSY Searches Scan Simulation Conclusion

Towards an LHC observable NMSSM grid

Joscha Knolle

in collaboration with Sophie Henrot-Versillé, Anja Butter, Laurent Duflot & Dirk Zerwas and with thanks to Ulrich Ellwanger & Tilman Plehn

GDR TeraScale @ Nantes 2016, 23–25 May

1 / 9

SLIDE 2

Introduction NMSSM Phenomenology Constraints SUSY Searches Scan Simulation Conclusion

Introduction: SUSY grids at run 1

ATLAS run 1 SUSY summary (JHEP 1510 (2015) 134)

randomly choose 500 000 000 pMSSM parameter configurations compute spectrum and observables discard points incompatible with experimental constraints evaluate whether production processes are accessible at LHC generate events and evaluate whether the point is excluded by ATLAS searches (45 000 fully simulated points) = ⇒ ultimate goal: perform a full scan of the NMSSM parameter space including all of the run 2 SUSY searches = ⇒ first step: find a (small) grid in cNMSSM parameter space accessible at run 2

2 / 9

SLIDE 3

Introduction NMSSM Phenomenology Constraints SUSY Searches Scan Simulation Conclusion

semi-constrained Z3-invariant NMSSM

Higgs superpotential

WH = µ Hu · Hd + κ 3

S3

Higgs sector

ℜ H0

u, H0 d, S

ℑ H0

u, H0 d, S

− → h0

1, H0 2, H0 3

−

→ (A1, A2)

Neutralino sector ˜

B, ˜ W , ˜ Hu, ˜ Hd, ˜ S − → ˜ χ0

1, ˜

χ0

2, ˜

χ0

3, ˜

χ0

4, ˜

χ0

5

free parameters

λ, κ, Aλ, Aκ, tan β ≡ Hu Hd, µeff ≡ λS, M1/2, m0, A0 M1, M2, M3, m2

˜ qi , m2 ˜ ui , m2 ˜ di , m2 ˜ ℓi , m2 ˜ ei , At, Ab, Aτ

3 / 9

SLIDE 4

Introduction NMSSM Phenomenology Constraints SUSY Searches Scan Simulation Conclusion

semi-constrained Z3-invariant NMSSM

Higgs superpotential

WH = λ S Hu · Hd + κ 3

S3

Higgs sector

ℜ H0

u, H0 d, S

ℑ H0

u, H0 d, S

− → H0

1, H0 2, H0 3

−

→ (A1, A2)

Neutralino sector ˜

B, ˜ W , ˜ Hu, ˜ Hd, ˜ S − → ˜ χ0

1, ˜

χ0

2, ˜

χ0

3, ˜

χ0

4, ˜

χ0

5

free parameters

λ, κ, Aλ, Aκ, tan β ≡ Hu Hd, µeff ≡ λS, M1/2, m0, A0 M1, M2, M3, m2

˜ qi , m2 ˜ ui , m2 ˜ di , m2 ˜ ℓi , m2 ˜ ei , At, Ab, Aτ

3 / 9

SLIDE 5

Introduction NMSSM Phenomenology Constraints SUSY Searches Scan Simulation Conclusion

semi-constrained Z3-invariant NMSSM

Higgs superpotential

WH = λ S Hu · Hd + κ 3

S3

Higgs sector

ℜ H0

u, H0 d, S

ℑ H0

u, H0 d, S

− → H0

1, H0 2, H0 3

−

→ (A1, A2)

Neutralino sector ˜

B, ˜ W , ˜ Hu, ˜ Hd, ˜ S − → ˜ χ0

1, ˜

χ0

2, ˜

χ0

3, ˜

χ0

4, ˜

χ0

5

free parameters

λ, κ, Aλ, Aκ, tan β ≡ Hu Hd, µeff ≡ λS, M1/2, m0, A0 M1, M2, M3, m2

˜ qi , m2 ˜ ui , m2 ˜ di , m2 ˜ ℓi , m2 ˜ ei , At, Ab, Aτ

3 / 9

SLIDE 6

Introduction NMSSM Phenomenology Constraints SUSY Searches Scan Simulation Conclusion

A lot of research is done on NMSSM phenomenology

(a not exhaustive selection of recent results)

Benchmark points (LHCHXSWGNMSSM)

˜ χ0

2(˜

B) → ˜ χ0

1(˜

S)H0

2(125 GeV) (Ellwanger, Teixeira, JHEP 1504 (2015) 172)

ggF → A1(26 GeV) → b¯ b

(Allanach, Badziak, Hugonie, Ziegler,

Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) 015006)

H0

2 → 2H0 1(37 GeV) → 4A1(7 GeV) (Barducci, Belanger, Hugonie)

750 GeV diphoton excess

ggF → H0

2/H0 3 → A1A1 → 2(γγ)

M(H2) ≈ 730 GeV, M(H3) ≈ 760 GeV M(A1) = 211 MeV 2M(µ±)

(Ellwanger, Hugonie, 1602.03344)

M(A1) = 135 MeV ≈ M(π0)

(Domingo, Heinemeyer, Kim, Rolbiecki,

Eur. Phys. J. C76 (2016) 249)

Neutralino dark matter

˜ χ0

1 with large singlino content:

Galactic Center Excess from ˜ χ0

1 ˜

χ0

1(30 − 70 GeV) → b¯

b, τ +τ −

(Butter, Plehn, Rauch, Zerwas, Henrot-Versillé, Lafaye, Phys. Rev. D93 (2016) 015011)

˜ χ0

1 ˜

χ0

1( 10 GeV) → νµνµ in the sun (Enberg, Munir, de los Heros, Werder, 1506.05714)

blind spots: σSI ≈ 0

(Badziak, Olechowski, Szczerbiak, JHEP 1603 (2016) 179)

Other dark matter candidates

right-handed sneutrino ˜ νR

(Cerdeño, Peiró, Robles, JCAP 1604 (2016) 011)

gravitino ˜ G

(Hasenkamp, Winkler, Nucl. Phys. B877 (2013) 419)

and much more . . .

4 / 9

SLIDE 7

Introduction NMSSM Phenomenology Constraints SUSY Searches Scan Simulation Conclusion

Experimental constraints

Measurement Value and error Unit M(H2) 125.09 ± 0.24 (exp) ± 3 (theo) [GeV] M(˜ χ0

1)

< M(˜ t1), M(˜ b1), M(˜ τ ±

1 ), M(˜

χ±

1 )

ΩCDMh2 0.1188 ± 0.0010 (exp) ± 10 % (theo) σSI(˜ χ0

1 − 54Xe)

< LUX limits M(˜ χ±

1 )

> 103 [GeV] M(H±) > 78.6 [GeV] BR(B → Xsγ) 3.43 ± 0.21 (exp) ± 0.07 (theo) [10−4] BR(B0

s → µ+µ−)

2.9 ± 0.7 (exp) [10−9] BR(B+ → τ +ντ) 1.14 ± 0.22 (exp) [10−4]

SFitter: MCMC scan of NMSSM parameter space based on a χ2 distribution computed from experimental constraints NMSSMTools: computation

f Higgs and sparticle

masses, couplings and decays in the NMSSM micrOMEGAs: computation

f relic density and direct

detection cross sections of neutralino dark matter

5 / 9

SLIDE 8

Introduction NMSSM Phenomenology Constraints SUSY Searches Scan Simulation Conclusion

ATLAS’ supersymmetry searches at 13 TeV

0-lepton analysis (1605.03814)

search for one-step decays ˜ q → q ˜ χ0

1

˜ g → qq ˜ χ0

1

in events with E miss

T

, jets and no leptons

2jm 0L 4jt 0L 5j 0L Leptons no lepton E miss

T

[GeV] > 200 200 200 pT(jets) [GeV] > 300, 50 200, 100, 200, 100, 100, 100 . . ., 100 ∆ϕ( jet1...3, E miss

T

) > 0.4 0.4 0.4 ∆ϕ( jet>3, E miss

T

) > – 0.2 0.2 A > – 0.04 0.04 E miss

T

/√HT [GeV1/2] > 15 – – E miss

T

/meff(Nj) > – 0.2 0.25 meff(incl.) [GeV] > 1600 2200 1600

Event generation

MadGraph5_aMC@NLO: cross section computation and generation of hard events for ˜ g˜ g, ˜ g˜ q, ˜ q˜ q production Pythia6: sparticle decays and showering of hard events with the kT-jet MLM scheme Delphes: fast simulation of the ATLAS detector’s response MadAnalysis: implementation of cut-based ATLAS analyses to compare with upper limits derived from data

6 / 9

SLIDE 9

Introduction NMSSM Phenomenology Constraints SUSY Searches Scan Simulation Conclusion

ATLAS’ supersymmetry searches at 13 TeV

1-lepton analysis (1605.04285)

search for two-step decays ˜ g → qq ˜ χ±

1 , ˜

χ±

1 → W ± ˜

χ0

1

in events with E miss

T

, jets and one isolated lepton

5j SL 4j low-x HL 5j HL Leptons

ne soft lepton
ne hard lepton

pT(lepton) [GeV] < 35, > 7(8) > 35 E miss

T

[GeV] > 375 200 250 pT(jets) [GeV] > 200, 200, 325, 150, 225, 50, 30, 30, 30 150, 150 . . ., 50 mT [GeV] > 100 425 125 HT [GeV] > 1100 – – A > 0.02 0.04 0.04 E miss

T

/meff(incl.) > – – 0.1 meff(incl.) [GeV] > – 2000 1800

Event generation

MadGraph5_aMC@NLO: cross section computation and generation of hard events for ˜ g˜ g, ˜ g˜ q, ˜ q˜ q production Pythia6: sparticle decays and showering of hard events with the kT-jet MLM scheme Delphes: fast simulation of the ATLAS detector’s response MadAnalysis: implementation of cut-based ATLAS analyses to compare with upper limits derived from data

6 / 9

SLIDE 10

Introduction NMSSM Phenomenology Constraints SUSY Searches Scan Simulation Conclusion

Preliminary results: SFitter scan – Profile likelihood in M1/2 : m0

tan β = 5.44 AGUT

λ

= 1400 GeV AGUT

κ

= 1488 GeV λSUSY = 0.6 κSUSY = 0.18 µeff = 208.7 GeV

[GeV] M

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

[GeV]

1/2

M

750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Profile Likelihood

2

χ

= ⇒ scan in {m0, M1/2, A0} space with fixed other parameters = ⇒ identify regions compatible with all constraints = ⇒ choose points in this region suitable to construct a grid

7 / 9

SLIDE 11

Introduction NMSSM Phenomenology Constraints SUSY Searches Scan Simulation Conclusion

Preliminary results: SFitter scan – Profile likelihood in M1/2 : m0

no 125 GeV Higgs wrong relic density wrong b → sγ excluded by LUX

[GeV] M

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

[GeV]

1/2

M

750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Profile Likelihood

2

χ

= ⇒ scan in {m0, M1/2, A0} space with fixed other parameters = ⇒ identify regions compatible with all constraints = ⇒ choose points in this region suitable to construct a grid

7 / 9

SLIDE 12

Introduction NMSSM Phenomenology Constraints SUSY Searches Scan Simulation Conclusion

Preliminary results: SFitter scan – Profile likelihood in A0 : M1/2

no 125 GeV Higgs wrong relic density wrong b → sγ excluded by LUX

[GeV]

1/2

M

700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100

[GeV] A

1850 − 1800 − 1750 − 1700 − 1650 − 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Profile Likelihood

2

χ

= ⇒ scan in {m0, M1/2, A0} space with fixed other parameters = ⇒ identify regions compatible with all constraints = ⇒ choose points in this region suitable to construct a grid

7 / 9

SLIDE 13

Introduction NMSSM Phenomenology Constraints SUSY Searches Scan Simulation Conclusion

Preliminary results: SFitter scan – Profile likelihood in M1/2 : m0

m

0 = 400.3 GeV

M

1/2 = 795.2 GeV

A

0 = −1715 GeV

m•

0 = 307.7 GeV

M•

1/2 = 851.1 GeV

A•

0 = −1706 GeV

m0 = 559.8 GeV M1/2 = 902.1 GeV A0 = −1698 GeV m

0 = 1034 GeV

M

1/2 = 966.9 GeV

A

0 = −1705.9 GeV

[GeV] M

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

[GeV]

1/2

M

750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Profile Likelihood

2

χ

= ⇒ scan in {m0, M1/2, A0} space with fixed other parameters = ⇒ identify regions compatible with all constraints = ⇒ choose points in this region suitable to construct a grid

7 / 9

SLIDE 14

Introduction NMSSM Phenomenology Constraints SUSY Searches Scan Simulation Conclusion

Preliminary results: SFitter scan – Profile likelihood in M(˜ uR) : M(˜ g)

M(˜ g) = 1.78 TeV M(˜ uR) = 1.62 TeV M( ˜ χ0

1) = 107.8 GeV

M(˜ g)• = 1.89 TeV M(˜ uR)• = 1.70 TeV M( ˜ χ0

1)• = 108.6 GeV

M(˜ g) = 2.01 TeV M(˜ uR) = 1.85 TeV M( ˜ χ0

1)

= 109.3 GeV M(˜ g) = 2.17 TeV M(˜ uR) = 2.14 TeV M( ˜ χ0

1) = 110.1 GeV

S2

15 ≃ 65 %

) [GeV] g ~ M(

1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500

) [GeV]

R

u ~ M(

1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Profile Likelihood

2

χ

= ⇒ scan in {m0, M1/2, A0} space with fixed other parameters = ⇒ identify regions compatible with all constraints = ⇒ choose points in this region suitable to construct a grid

7 / 9

SLIDE 15

Introduction NMSSM Phenomenology Constraints SUSY Searches Scan Simulation Conclusion

Preliminary results: Benchmark points in ATLAS simulation at 13 TeV

ATLAS*

σ(pp → ˜ g˜ g, ˜ g˜ q, ˜ q˜ q) [pb] 30.70 ± 0.06 20.25 ± 0.05 10.46 ± 0.02 3.25 ± 0.01 ǫσ · 3.2 fb−1 4jt 0L 4.99 ± 0.33 2.93 ± 0.20 1.99 ± 0.13 0.70 ± 0.04 < 8.7 5j 0L 1.61 ± 0.15 0.93 ± 0.09 0.61 ± 0.05 0.24 ± 0.02 < 5.0 4j low-x HL 2.90 ± 0.22 2.44 ± 0.17 1.26 ± 0.09 0.46 ± 0.03 < 3.9 5j HL 1.40 ± 0.14 1.39 ± 0.12 0.60 ± 0.05 0.24 ± 0.02 < 2.8 * model-independent upper limits at 95 % CL Mass spectrum of point : 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Mass / GeV h1 h2 a1 H± a2 h3 ˜ qR ˜ qL ˜ b1 ˜ t2 ˜ t1 ˜ νL ˜ ℓL ˜ τ1 ˜ ντ ˜ τ2 ˜ g ˜ χ0

1

˜ χ0

2

˜ χ0

3

˜ χ±

1

˜ χ0

4

˜ χ±

2

˜ χ0

5

˜ b2 ˜ ℓR

8 / 9

SLIDE 16

Introduction NMSSM Phenomenology Constraints SUSY Searches Scan Simulation Conclusion

Conclusions We found a cNMSSM grid compatible with all the experimental constraints that should be accessible at LHC run 2. The 0/1-lepton analyses should be able to discover or exclude a big number of parameter configurations with 50 fb−1 of 14 TeV

data. Other searches (like stop analyses) could be more sensitive

to this grid. Complementary, future results of direct detection experiments will probe the grid. Our ongoing work will include more experimental results as input measurements; evaluate the capability of the grid configurations to explain the Galactic Center Excess; consider the possibility that the lightest Higgs boson has a mass of 125 GeV.

9 / 9