Access by Xinjiang University

Diagnosis of supersymmetry breaking mediation schemes by mass reconstruction at the LHC

Bhaskar Dutta¹, Teruki Kamon^1,2, Abram Krislock^1,3, Kuver Sinha¹, and Kechen Wang¹

¹Department of Physics & Astronomy, Mitchell Institute for Fundamental Physics, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843-4242, USA
²Department of Physics, Kyungpook National University, Daegu 702-701, South Korea
³Department of Physics, AlbaNova, Stockholm University, SE-106 91, Stockholm, Sweden

Phys. Rev. D 85, 115007 – Published 13 June, 2012

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.85.115007

Abstract

If supersymmetry is discovered at the LHC, the next question will be the determination of the underlying model. While this may be challenging or even intractable, a more optimistic question is whether we can understand the main contours of any particular paradigm of the mediation of supersymmetry breaking. The determination of superpartner masses through endpoint measurements of kinematic observables arising from cascade decays is a powerful diagnostic tool. In particular, the determination of the gaugino sector has the potential to discriminate between certain mediation schemes (not all schemes, and not between different UV realizations of a given scheme). We reconstruct gaugino masses, choosing a model where anomaly contributions to supersymmetry breaking are important (KKLT compactification), and find the gaugino unification scale. Moreover, reconstruction of other superpartner masses allows us to solve for the parameters defining the UV model. The analysis is performed in the stop and stau coannihilation regions where the lightest neutralinos are mainly gauginos, to additionally satisfy dark matter constraints. We thus develop observables to determine stau and stop masses to verify that the coannihilation mechanism is indeed operational, and solve for the relic density.

Article Text

References (27)

S. P. Martin, in Perspectives on Supersymmetry, edited by G. L. Kane, pp. 1–98 (World Scientific, Singapore, 1998); H. P. Nilles, Phys. Rep. 110, 1 (1984).
J. A. Conley, H. K. Dreiner, L. Glaser, M. Kramer, and J. Tattersall, arXiv:1110.1287; H. K. Dreiner, M. Kramer, J. M. Lindert, and B. O’Leary, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2010) 109; P. Bechtle, K. Desch, M. Uhlenbrock, and P. Wienemann, Eur. Phys. J. C 66, 215 (2010); C. G. Lester, M. A. Parker, and M. J. White, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2006) 080.
A. H. Chamseddine, R. L. Arnowitt, and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 970 (1982); R. Barbieri, S. Ferrara, and C. A. Savoy, Phys. Lett. B 119, 343 (1982); L. J. Hall, J. D. Lykken, and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 27, 2359 (1983); P. Nath, R. L. Arnowitt, and A. H. Chamseddine, Nucl. Phys. B227, 121 (1983); For a review, see H. P. Nilles, Phys. Rep. 110, 1 (1984).
G. F. Giudice and R. Rattazzi, Phys. Rep. 322, 419 (1999); L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Nucl. Phys. B557, 79 (1999); G. F. Giudice, M. A. Luty, H. Murayama, and R. Rattazzi, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (1998) 027.
J. P. Conlon, F. Quevedo, and K. Suruliz, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2005) 007.
K. Choi, K. S. Jeong, and K.-i. Okumura, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2005) 039.
S. Kachru, R. Kallosh, A. D. Linde, and S. P. Trivedi, Phys. Rev. D 68, 046005 (2003).
K. Choi and H. P. Nilles, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2007) 006.
D. E. Kaplan, G. D. Kribs, and M. Schmaltz, Phys. Rev. D 62, 035010 (2000); Z. Chacko, M. A. Luty, A. E. Nelson, and E. Ponton, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2000) 003; M. Schmaltz and W. Skiba, Phys. Rev. D 62, 095005 (2000).
R. L. Arnowitt, B. Dutta, A. Gurrola, T. Kamon, A. Krislock, and D. Toback, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 231802 (2008).
I. Hinchliffe, F. E. Paige, M. D. Shapiro, J. Soderqvist, and W. Yao, Phys. Rev. D 55, 5520 (1997); I. Hinchliffe and F. E. Paige, 61, 095011 (2000).
B. C. Allanach and M. J. Dolan, arXiv:1107.2856; A. Fowlie and L. Roszkowski, arXiv:1106.5117; L. Roszkowski, R. Ruiz de Austri, and R. Trotta, Phys. Rev. D 82, 055003 (2010).
H. Baer, V. Barger, and A. Mustafayev, arXiv:1202.4038; R. L. Arnowitt, B. Dutta, and Y. Santoso, arXiv:hep-ph/0010244; Nucl. Phys. B606, 59 (2001).
B. Dutta, T. Kamon, A. Krislock, N. Kolev, and Y. Oh, Phys. Rev. D 82, 115009 (2010).
R. Rattazzi, A. Strumia, and J. D. Wells, Nucl. Phys. B576, 3 (2000).
K. Choi, K. Y. Lee, Y. Shimizu, Y. G. Kim, and K.-i. Okumura, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 12 (2006) 017; H. Baer, E.-K. Park, X. Tata, and T. T. Wang, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2007) 033.
P. Gondolo, J. Edsjo, P. Ullio, L. Bergstrom, M. Schelke, and E. A. Baltz, arXiv:astro-ph/0211238.
F. E. Paige, S. D. Protopopescu, H. Baer, and X. Tata, arXiv:hep-ph/0312045. We use $I S A J E T$ version 7.74.
T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2006) 026.
$P G S 4$ is a parameterized detector simulator. We use version 4 (http://www.physics.ucdavis.edu/~conway/research/software/pgs/pgs4-general.htm) in the LHC detector configuration. We assume the $τ$ identification efficiency with $p_{T}^{vis} > 15 GeV$ is 50%, while the probability for a jet being misidentified as a $τ$ is 1%. The $b$ -jet tagging efficiency in PGS is $\sim 42 %$ for $E_{T} > 50 GeV$ and $| η | < 1.0$ , and degrading between $1.0 < | η | < 1.5$ . The $b$ -tagging fake rate for $c$ and light quarks/gluons is $\sim 9 %$ and 2%, respectively.
ATLAS Collaboration, arXiv:1203.6580.
ATLAS Collaboration, arXiv:1204.3852.
CMS Collaboration, CMS Physics Analysis Summary, Report No. CMS-PAS-SUS-11-007, 2011.
CMS Collaboration, Report No. CMS-PAS-TAU-11-001, 2011.
R. L. Arnowitt, B. Dutta, T. Kamon, N. Kolev, and D. A. Toback, Phys. Lett. B 639, 46 (2006).
B. Dutta, T. Kamon, N. Kolev, and A. Krislock, Phys. Lett. B 703, 475 (2011).
B. Dutta, T. Kamon, A. Krislock, N. Kolev, and Y. Oh, Phys. Rev. D 82, 115009 (2010).

Physical Review D

Export citation

Export citation

Diagnosis of supersymmetry breaking mediation schemes by mass reconstruction at the LHC

Abstract

Article Text

References (27)

Outline

Information

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation