BSM Physics at the LHC

BSM Physics at the LHC

Sven Heinemeyer, IFCA (CSIC, Santander)

Barcelona, 09/2010

1. Introduction

2. Introduction to Supersymmetry 3. Supersymmetry at the LHC

4. More BSM phenomenology at the LHC 5. Conclusions

BSM Physics at the LHC

Sven Heinemeyer, IFCA (CSIC, Santander)

Barcelona, 09/2010

1. Introduction

2. Introduction to Supersymmetry 3. Supersymmetry at the LHC

4. More BSM phenomenology at the LHC 5. Conclusions

BSM Physics at the LHC (II) Supersymmetry at the LHC

1. SUSY Higgs physics at the LHC 2. Colored Sparticles at the LHC

3. SUSY fits and predictions for the LHC

1. SUSY Higgs at the LHC

Enlarged Higgs sector: Two Higgs doublets

H₁ =



 H₁¹ H₁²



 =



 v₁ + (φ₁ + iχ₁)/√ 2 φ⁻₁





H₂ =



 H₂¹ H₂²



 =



 φ⁺₂

v₂ + (φ₂ + iχ₂)/√ 2





V = m²₁H₁H¯₁ + m²₂H₂H¯₂ − m²₁₂(ǫ_abH₁^aH₂^b + h.c.) + g^′2 + g²

| {z8 }

(H₁H¯₁ − H₂H¯₂)² + g²

|{z}2

|H₁H¯₂|² gauge couplings, in contrast to SM physical states: h⁰, H⁰, A⁰, H^±

Goldstone bosons: G⁰, G^±

Input parameters: (to be determined experimentally) tanβ = v₂

v₁, M_A² = −m²₁₂(tanβ + cotβ)

Enlarged Higgs sector: Two Higgs doublets

H₁ =



 H₁¹ H₁²



 =



 v₁ + (φ₁ + iχ₁)/√ 2 φ⁻₁





H₂ =



 H₂¹ H₂²



 =



 φ⁺₂

v₂ + (φ₂ + iχ₂)/√ 2



 e^iξ

V = m²₁H₁H¯₁ + m²₂H₂H¯₂ − m²₁₂(ǫ_abH₁^aH₂^b + h.c.) + g^′2 + g²

| {z8 }

(H₁H¯₁ − H₂H¯₂)² + g²

|{z}2

|H₁H¯₂|² gauge couplings, in contrast to SM physical states: h⁰, H⁰, A⁰, H^±

2 CP-violating phases: ξ, arg(m₁₂) ⇒ can be set/rotated to zero Input parameters: (to be determined experimentally)

tanβ = v₂

v₁, M_H² _±

Discovering the Higgs boson

What has to be done?

1. Find the new particle

Discovering the Higgs boson

What has to be done?

1. Find the new particle

2. measure its mass (⇒ ok?)

Discovering the Higgs boson

What has to be done?

1. Find the new particle

2. measure its mass (⇒ ok?)

3. measure coupling to gauge bosons 4. measure couplings to fermions

Discovering the Higgs boson

What has to be done?

1. Find the new particle

2. measure its mass (⇒ ok?)

3. measure coupling to gauge bosons 4. measure couplings to fermions

5. measure self-couplings

Discovering the Higgs boson

What has to be done?

1. Find the new particle

2. measure its mass (⇒ ok?)

3. measure coupling to gauge bosons 4. measure couplings to fermions

5. measure self-couplings 6. measure spin, . . .

Discovering the Higgs boson

What has to be done?

1. Find the new particle T 2. measure its mass (⇒ ok?) T 3. measure coupling to gauge bosons

4. measure couplings to fermions 5. measure self-couplings

6. measure spin, . . . T = Tevatron,

Discovering the Higgs boson

What has to be done?

1. Find the new particle T L 2. measure its mass (⇒ ok?) T L 3. measure coupling to gauge bosons L 4. measure couplings to fermions L 5. measure self-couplings

6. measure spin, . . . T = Tevatron, L = LHC,

Discovering the Higgs boson

What has to be done?

1. Find the new particle T L I 2. measure its mass (⇒ ok?) T L I 3. measure coupling to gauge bosons L I 4. measure couplings to fermions L I

5. measure self-couplings I

6. measure spin, . . . I

T = Tevatron, L = LHC, I = ILC We need the ILC to find the Higgs

and to establish the Higgs mechanism!

But the LHC can do a crucial part already!

Contrary to the SM:

m_h is not a free parameter

MSSM tree-level bound: m_h < M_Z ⇒ SUSY always requires a light Higgs!

Large radiative corrections:

Dominant one-loop corrections:

∆M_h² ∼ G_µm⁴_t log m_˜t

1m_˜t

2

m²_t

!

The MSSM Higgs sector is connected to all other sector via loop corrections

(especially to the scalar top sector)

Measurement of M_h, Higgs couplings ⇒ test of the theory

Upper bound on M_h in the MSSM:

“Unconstrained MSSM”:

M_A, tanβ, 5 parameters in ˜t–˜b sector, µ, m_˜g, M₂ M_h <

∼ 135 GeV for m_t = 173.3 ± 1.1 GeV

(including theoretical uncertainties from unknown higher orders)

⇒ observable at the LHC Obtained with:

FeynHiggs

[S.H., W. Hollik, G. Weiglein ’98 – ’02]

[T. Hahn, S.H., W. Hollik, H. Rzehak, G. Weiglein ’03 – ’10]

www.feynhiggs.de

→ all Higgs masses, couplings, BRs, XSs (easy to link, easy to use :-)

Higgs couplings, tree level:

g_{hV V} = sin(β − α) g_{HV V}^SM , V = W^±, Z g_{HV V} = cos(β − α) g_{HV V}^SM

g_hAZ = cos(β − α) g^′ 2 cos θ_W g_hb¯b, g_hτ+τ⁻ = −sin α

cosβ g_Hb^SM_{¯b,Hτ+τ−} g_ht¯t = cos α

sinβ g_Ht^SM_¯t g_Ab¯b, g_Aτ+τ⁻ = γ₅ tanβ g_Hb^SM_¯b

⇒ g_{hV V} ≤ g_{HV V}^SM , g_{hV V} , g_{HV V} , g_hAZ cannot all be small

g_hb¯b, g_hτ+τ⁻: significant suppression or enhancement w.r.t. SM coupling

g

hb

b

;g

h +

: possible

The decoupling limit:

For M_A >

∼ 150 GeV:

The lightest MSSM Higgs is SM-like

The heavy MSSM Higgses:

M_A ≈ M_H ≈ M_H±

of course there are exceptions . . .

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

MA [GeV]

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

M Higgs [GeV]

h H A H^+-

m_h^max scen., tanβ = 5

FeynHiggs2.2

Higgs search at the LHC:

Important SM production channel at the LHC:

Gluon-Fusion:

t

t g t

g

H

WBF:

q q

q^′ q^′

W W

H

Important decay for Higgs mass measurement:

W W

W γ

γ

H t

t

t γ

γ H

SM Higgs search at the LHC: ⇒ full parameter accessible

Overview about SUSY Higgs production cross sections (φ = h, H, A)

[Tev4LHC Higgs working group report ’06]

100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

M_Φ [GeV]

10^-1 10⁰

10¹ 10² 10³ 10⁴ 10⁵ 10⁶

Φ production cross section [fb]

h H A

LHC, √s = 14 TeV m_h^max, tanβ = 5

(bb)Φ ggΦ

qqΦ

W/ZΦ ttΦ

gluon fusion: gg → φ

weak boson fusion (WBF):

qq¯→ q^′q¯^′φ

top quark associated production: gg, qq¯→ t¯tφ weak boson associated production: qq¯^′ → W φ, Zφ NEW: b¯bφ

Search for the lightest MSSM Higgs at the LHC:

Possible problem in SUSY:

gg → h → γγ

can be strongly suppressed

→ “gluophobic Higgs scenario”

[M. Carena, S.H., C. Wagner,

G. Weiglein ’02]

⇒ Strong suppression of gg → h → γγ possible

over the whole parameter space

(not realized in

mSUGRA/CMSSM, GMSB, AMSB, . . . )

0 200 400 600 800 1000

M_A [GeV]

0 10 20 30 40 50

tanβ

0.0 - 0.2 0.2 - 0.4 0.4 - 0.6 0.6 - 0.8 0.8 - 1.0

> 1.0

M_h measurement in the “nice” m^max_h scenario:

[CMS ’06]

Measurement possible only for M_A >

∼ 250 GeV

⇒ δM_h ≈ 200 MeV other channels:

h → ZZ^∗ → 4µ (M_h >

∼ 130 GeV) otherwise: δM_h >

∼ 1 − 2 GeV

The heavy MSSM Higgs bosons

MSSM Higgs discovery contours in M_A–tan β plane (m^max_h benchmark scenario): [ATLAS ’99] [CMS ’03]

ATLAS

LEP 2000

ATLAS

m_A (GeV)

tanβ

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 109 20 30 40 50

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

h0 H A^{0 0}H^+- h0 H A^{0 0}H^+-

h0 H A^{0 0}

h H0 ^+-

h H0 +-

h only0

0 0

H h

ATLAS - 300 fb

maximal mixing

-1

LEP excluded

areas where only h is observable ⇒ “LHC wedge”

Latest results for neutral heavy Higgs bosons:

MSSM Higgs discovery contours in M_A–tan β plane (Φ = H, A) (m^max_h benchmark scenario): [CMS PTDR ’06]

,GeV/c

M

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

β tan

10 20 30 40 50

CMS, 30 fb-1

= h,H,A φ

φ,

→ bb pp

scenario

max

mh

= 1 TeV/c2

MSUSY

= 200 GeV/c2

M2

= 200 GeV/c2

µ

= 800 GeV/c2 gluino

m

= 2 MSUSY

Stop mix: Xt

eµ ττ→ φ→

µ+jet ττ→ φ→

e+jet

→ τ τ

→ φ

-1

jet+jet, 60 fb τ→

→ τ φ

→µµ φ

Charged Higgs boson searches:

MSSM Higgs discovery contours in M_A–tan β plane (m^max_h benchmark scenario): [CMS PTDR ’06]

,GeV/c2

MA

100 200 300 400 500 600

β tan

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

CMS, 30 fb-1

νν

τ

± →

±, H

→ tbH pp

= 175 GeV/c2

mt

scenario

max

mh

= 1 TeV/c2

MSUSY

= 200 GeV/c2

M2

= 200 GeV/c2

µ

= 800 GeV/c2 gluino

m

= 2 MSUSY

Stop mix: Xt

→ jjb

→ Wb t

lb ν

→ l

→ Wb t

light charged Higgs:

M_H± < m_t

heavy charged Higgs:

M_H± > m_t

Differences compared to the SM Higgs:

Additional enhancement factors compared to the SM case:

b

¯b

A y_b → y_b tanβ

1 + ∆_b

At large tan β: either H ≈ A or h ≈ A t

¯b

H⁺ y_b tanβ

1 + ∆_b

∆_b = 2α_s

3π m_˜g µ tanβ × I(m_˜b

1, m_˜b

2, m_˜g) + α_t

4π A_tµ tanβ × I(m_˜t

1, m_˜t

2, µ)

⇒ other parameters enter ⇒ strong µ dependence

Most powerful search modes for heavy MSSM Higgs bosons:

b¯b → H/A → τ⁺τ⁻ + X gb → tH^± + X, H^± → τ ν_τ

pp → t¯t → H^± + X, H^± → τ ν_τ Enhancement factors compared to the SM case:

H/A : tan² β

(1 + ∆_b)² × BR(H → τ⁺τ⁻) + BR(A → τ⁺τ⁻) BR(H → τ⁺τ⁻)_SM

H^± : tan² β

(1 + ∆_b)² × BR(H^± → τ ν_τ)

⇒ ∆_b effects so far not included in ATLAS/CMS analyses also relevant for BR(H/A → τ⁺τ⁻), BR(H^± → τ ν_τ)

also relevant: correct evaluation of Γ(H/A/H^± → SUSY)

⇒ additional effects on BR(H/A → τ⁺τ⁻), BR(H^± → τ ν_τ)

Dependence of LHC wedge from b¯b → H/A → τ⁺τ⁻ → 2 jets on µ:

[S.H., A. Nikitenko, G. Weiglein et al. ’06]

,GeV/c2

MA

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

βtan

10 20 30 40 50

= -1000 GeV/c2

µ

= -200 GeV/c2

µ

= 200 GeV/c2

µ

= 1000 GeV/c2

µ

CMS, 60 fb-1

→ j+j τ τ

→ φ

→ bb pp

scenario

maxh

m

= 1 TeV/c2

MSUSY

= 200 GeV/c2

M2

= 0.8 MSUSY gluino

m

= 2 MSUSY

Stop mix: Xt

,GeV/c2

MA

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

βtan

10 20 30 40 50

= -1000 GeV/c2

µ

= -200 GeV/c2

µ

= 200 GeV/c2

µ

= 1000 GeV/c2

µ

CMS, 60 fb-1

→ j+j τ τ

→ φ

→ bb pp

no mixing scenario = 2 TeV/c2

MSUSY

= 200 GeV/c2

M2

= 0.8 MSUSY gluino

m

t = 0 Stop mix: X

⇒ now based on full CMS simulation

⇒ non-negligible variation with the sign and absolute value of µ (→ numerical compensations in production and decay)

Charged Higgs: comparison with CMS PTDR (m^max_h scenario):

[M. Hashemi, S.H., R. Kinnunen, A. Nikitenko, G. Weiglein ’07]

,GeV/c2

MA

100 200 300 400 500 600

βtan

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

= -1000 GeV/c2

µ

= -200 GeV/c2

µ

= 200 GeV/c2

µ 2

= 1000 GeV/c µ

scenario

max

mh

= 1 TeV/c2

MSUSY

= 200 GeV/c2

M2

= 0.8 MSUSY gluino

m

= 2 MSUSY

Xt

→ note: M_A–tan β plane light charged Higgs:

always worse than PTDR better M_H± calculation!

inclusion of ∆_b effects heavy charged Higgs:

PTDR in “the middle”

new results partially substantially worse

2. Colored sparticles at the LHC

SUSY particle production at the LHC:

⇒ colored (s)particles are copiously produced

⇒ production of gluinos, squarks, . . .

As in QCD: NLO corrections are crucial!

Example for SUSY production:

[Prospino collaboration]

As in QCD: NLO corrections are crucial!

Production of SUSY particles at the LHC

will in general result in complicated final states

⇒ cascade decays

˜g → q¯q˜→ qq¯ χ˜⁰₂ → qq¯ τ τ˜ → ¯qqτ τχ˜⁰₁

Production of uncolored particles via cascade decays often dominates over direct production

Many states are produced at once

⇒ Main background for SUSY is SUSY itself!

Another model beyond the SM: Extra dimensions

Another model beyond the SM: Little Higgs

Comparison of SUSY with e.g. Extra Dimensions:

⇒ cascades may look very similar:

⇒ In order to establish SUSY experimentally:

Need to demonstrate that:

− every particle has superpartner

− their spins differ by 1/2

− their gauge quantum numbers are the same

− their couplings are identical

− mass relations hold . . .

⇒ Precise measurements of masses, branching ratios, cross sections, angular distributions, . . . mandatory for

− establishing SUSY experimentally

− disentangling patterns of SUSY breaking

3. SUSY fits and predictions for the LHC:

How to make a prediction?

Comparison of precision observables with theory:

Precision data: Theory:

M_W,sin² θ_eff, a_µ, . . . ↔ SM, MSSM , . . .

⇓

Test of theory at quantum level: Sensitivity to loop corrections X

⇓

⇒ Information about unknown parameters

Very high accuracy of measurements and theoretical predictions needed

Example: Prediction for M_W in the SM and the MSSM :

[S.H., W. Hollik, D. Stockinger, A. Weber, G. Weiglein ’07]

160 165 170 175 180 185

m_t [GeV]

80.20 80.30 80.40 80.50 80.60 80.70

M W [GeV]

SM

MSSM

M_H = 114 GeV

M_H = 400 GeV

light SUSY

heavy SUSY

SM MSSM both models

Heinemeyer, Hollik, Stockinger, Weber, Weiglein ’09

MSSM band:

scan over

SUSY masses overlap:

SM is MSSM-like MSSM is SM-like SM band:

variation of M_H^SM

Example: Prediction for M_W in the SM and the MSSM :

[S.H., W. Hollik, D. Stockinger, A. Weber, G. Weiglein ’07]

160 165 170 175 180 185

m_t [GeV]

80.20 80.30 80.40 80.50 80.60 80.70

M W [GeV]

SM

MSSM

M_H = 114 GeV

M_H = 400 GeV

light SUSY

heavy SUSY

SM MSSM both models

Heinemeyer, Hollik, Stockinger, Weber, Weiglein ’09

experimental errors 68% CL:

LEP2/Tevatron (today)

MSSM band:

scan over

SUSY masses overlap:

SM is MSSM-like MSSM is SM-like SM band:

variation of M_H^SM

Example: Prediction for M_W in the SM and the MSSM :

[S.H., W. Hollik, D. Stockinger, A. Weber, G. Weiglein ’07]

160 165 170 175 180 185

m_t [GeV]

80.20 80.30 80.40 80.50 80.60 80.70

M W [GeV]

SM

MSSM

M_H = 114 GeV

M_H = 400 GeV

light SUSY

heavy SUSY

SM MSSM both models

Heinemeyer, Hollik, Stockinger, Weber, Weiglein ’09

experimental errors: LEP2/Tevatron (today) 68% CL

95% CL MSSM band:

scan over

SUSY masses overlap:

SM is MSSM-like MSSM is SM-like SM band:

variation of M_H^SM

Global fit to all SM data:

[LEPEWWG ’10]

⇒ M_H = 89⁺³⁵₋₂₆ GeV

M_H < 158 GeV, 95% C.L.

Assumption for the fit:

SM incl. Higgs boson

⇒ no confirmation of Higgs mechanism

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

100

30 300

m

[ GeV ]

∆χ

Excluded Preliminary

∆α_had =

∆α⁽⁵⁾

0.02758±0.00035 0.02749±0.00012 incl. low Q² data

Theory uncertainty

July 2010 m_Limit = 158 GeV

⇒ Higgs boson seems to be light, M_H <

∼ 160 GeV

Main idea of SUSY fits: do the same in Supersymmetry!

Combine all existing precision data:

• Electroweak precision observables (EWPO)

• B physics observables (BPO)

• Cold dark matter (CDM)

• . . . Predict:

• best-fit points

• ranges for Higgs masses

• ranges for SM parameters

• ranges for SUSY masses ⇒ LHC/ILC reach

Indirect constraints on M_SUSY from existing data?

• Electroweak precision observables (EWPO) ?

• B physics observables (BPO) ?

• Cold dark matter (CDM) ?

⇒ combination of EWPO, BPO, CDM ?

Indirect constraints on M_SUSY from existing data?

• Electroweak precision observables (EWPO) ?

• B physics observables (BPO) ?

• Cold dark matter (CDM) ?

⇒ combination of EWPO, BPO, CDM ?

EWPO M_W : information on m_˜t, m_˜b or M_A, tan β or . . .

EWPO (g − 2)_µ : information on tanβ and/or m_χ˜0, m_χ˜± and/or m_˜µ, m_˜νµ BPO BR(b → sγ) : information on tanβ and/or M_H± and/or m_˜t, m_χ˜± CDM (LSP gives CDM) : information on m_χ˜0

1 and m_˜τ or M_A or . . .

Indirect constraints on M_SUSY from existing data?

• Electroweak precision observables (EWPO) ?

• B physics observables (BPO) ?

• Cold dark matter (CDM) ?

⇒ combination of EWPO, BPO, CDM ?

EWPO M_W : information on m_˜t, m_˜b or M_A, tan β or . . .

EWPO (g − 2)_µ : information on tanβ and/or m_χ˜0, m_χ˜± and/or m_˜µ, m_˜νµ BPO BR(b → sγ) : information on tanβ and/or M_H± and/or m_˜t, m_χ˜± CDM (LSP gives CDM) : information on m_χ˜0

1 and m_˜τ or M_A or . . .

⇒ combination makes only sense if all parameters are connected!

⇒ GUT based models: ⇒ CMSSM, NUHM, . . .

χ² calculation:

→ global χ² likelihood function

combines all theoretical predictions with experimental constraints:

χ² =

XN i

(C_i − P_i)²

σ(C_i)² + σ(P_i)² +

XM i

(f_SM^obs

i − f_SM^fit

i)² σ(f_SMi)²

N: number of observables studied M: SM parameters: ∆α_had, m_t, M_Z

C_i: experimentally measured value (constraint)

P_i: MSSM parameter-dependent prediction for the corresponding constraint

Best-fit points:

[2009]

CMSSM:

m_1/2 = 310 GeV, m₀ = 60 GeV, A₀ = 130 GeV, tanβ = 11, µ = 400 GeV, M_A = 450 GeV

χ²/N_dof = 20.6/19 (36 % probability)

⇒ very similar to SPS 1a :-)

NUHM1:

m_1/2 = 270 GeV, m₀ = 150 GeV, A₀ = −1300 GeV, tanβ = 11, µ = 1140 GeV, M_A = 310 GeV

(similar probability)

⇒ LSUSY

Masses for best-fit points: CMSSM

[2009]

⇒ largely accessible spectrum for LHC (and ILC)

Masses for best-fit points: NUHM1

[2009]

⇒ largely accessible spectrum for LHC (and ILC)

LHC (CMS) ⊕ CMSSM analysis:

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 0

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

τ LSP

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 0

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

NO EWSB 1

95% C.L.

68% C.L.

parameter space full CMSSM CMS preliminary

μ > 0 = 0,

= 10, A0

tanβ

Hadronic search, 95% C.L. curves

=7 TeV s

L = 1000/pb L = 100/pb

CMS-NOTE-2010-008

~

2

] [GeV/c M

]

[G e V/ c

M

⇒ best-fit point and part of 68% C.L. are can be tested in 2011

LHC (CMS) ⊕ NUHM1 analysis:

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 0

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

τ LSP

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 0

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

NO EWSB 1

CMS preliminary

μ > 0 = 0,

= 10, A0

β tan

Hadronic search, 95% C.L. curves

=7 TeV s

L = 1000/pb L = 100/pb

CMS-NOTE-2010-008

~

95% C.L.

68% C.L.

parameter space full NUHM1

2

] [GeV/c M

]

[G e V/ c

M

⇒ best-fit point and part of 68% C.L. are can be tested in 2011

LHC (CMS) ⊕ CMSSM analysis:

[2008]

reach with 1 fb⁻¹ @ 14 TeV incl. leptonic edge measurements

⇒ excellent prospects from early leptonic edge measurements!

Some more predictions: preferred M_A–tanβ parameter space

CMSSM NUHM1

2] [GeV/c MA

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

βtan

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

1-CL

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

CMS-NOTE-2010-008

2] [GeV/c MA

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

βtan

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

1-CL

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

CMS-NOTE-2010-008

red dotted: discovery with 1 fb⁻¹ @ 7 TeV

blue solid: 95% C.L. exclusion with 1 fb⁻¹ @ 7 TeV

⇒ preferred regions missed in 2010-2011 run

Some more predictions: m_˜g − m_q˜L

[2009]

CMSSM NUHM1

1-CL

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

2] [GeV/c mg~

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

]2 [GeV/c Lq~-m g~m

-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400

1-CL

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

2] [GeV/c mg~

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

]2 [GeV/c Lq~-m g~m

-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400

⇒ m_˜g often largest mass, but exceptions are possible

Prediction of M_H^SM (blue band) and M_h in the MSSM (red band):

[2009]

CMSSM

0 1 2 3 4

100

30 300

mH [GeV]

2

Excluded

Δ χ

M_h^CMSSM = 108.5 ± 6 ± 1.5 GeV

⇒ as good as the SM

NUHM1

0 1 2 3 4

100

30 300

mH [GeV]

2

Excluded

Δ χ

M_h^NUHM1 = 121⁺¹₋₁₄ ± 1.5 GeV

⇒ above the LEP limit

Some more predictions: direct search for dark matter

[2009]

CMSSM NUHM1

SuperCDMS (Projected) 25kg (7−ST@Snolab) XENON10 2007 (Net 136 kg−d)

CDMS: 2004+2005 (reanalysis) +2008 Ge

1−CL

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

2] [GeV/c

0

χ∼1

m

1 2

10 10 10³

]2 [cm

SI pσ

10−48

10−47

10−46

10−45

10−44

10−43

10−42

10−41

10−40

1−CL

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

102 10³

]2 [cm

SI pσ

10−48

10−47

10−46

10−45

10−44

10−43

10−42

10−41

10−40

2] [GeV/c

0

χ∼1

m

101

⇒ only partially covered by future experiments