1

Discussion on the SUSY Les Houches Accord 2 project

P. Skands

Flavour in the Era of the LHC, CERN, MAy 15-17 2006

RPV, CPV, FLV, NMSSM, THEORY ERRORS,

CROSS SECTIONS, GENERAL BSM RESONANCES, …

2

• 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

Outline

3

SUSY Les Houches Accord v1

+ F77 I/O Library by T. Hahn (now also SLHA2)

SUSY MODEL

MSSMSUGRAGMSBAMSBNMSSMRPVCPVFLV…

CPSUPERHFEYNHIGGSISASUSYNMHDECAYSOFTSUSYSPHENOSUSPECT…

SPECTRUM CALCULATOR

CALC/COMPHEPAF’S SLEPTONSGRACEHERWIG (++)ISAJETPROSPINOPYTHIASHERPASMADGRAPHSUSYGENWHIZARD…

MC EVENT GEN /XS CALCULATOR

MICRΩSDARKSUSYNEUTDRIVERPLATON (?)

CDM PACKAGE

DECAY PACKAGE

FEYNHIGGS FCHDECAY HDECAY NMHDECAY SDECAY SPHENO

spectrum

spc+decspc

input

spectrum

FITTINO, SFITTERFITTERS

4

Example SLHA Spectrum

5

How to Generalise? MSSM

2. Superpotential (at scale Q (normally MGUT) in DRbar)

RPVCPVFLV

3. SUSY Breaking Terms (at scale Q in DRbar)

6

How to Generalise? Model Definition

• Additions to global switches in block MODSEL:

3) Choice of particle content0: MSSM (default)1: NMSSM

4) R-parity violation0: R-parity conserved (default)1: R-parity violated

5) CP violation0: CP conserved (default)1: CP violated but only by CKM phase2: CP violated, general phases allowed

6) Flavour violation0: No (SUSY) flavour violation (default)1: Flavour violated

Q: Is one model sufficient for NMSSM, nMSSM, MNMSSM, …

In principle the models are qualitatively different, but still … same particle content?

Q: Is this adequate?

NB: For SLHA2 we are keeping RPV, CPV, and FLV ~ separate

NB: Yes.

There was some mention of an “MFV” option, but not clear how useful it

would be. (MFV would

not affect the general mixing

structure etc, all mixings

would still be generated radiatively)

7

How to Generalise? FLV

see next:: (Jaume)

• 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

– NB: no explicit proposal yet for input of non-diagonal soft SUSY-breaking trilinear and bilinear terms, e.g. MSQ2IN, MSU2IN, MSD2IN?

• LAGRANGIAN PARAMETERS (all DRbar at scale Q) :– Yukawas: Super-CKM basis always diagonal (but same blocks as SLHA1)

– VCKM and bilinear SUSY-breaking MSQ2, MSU2, MSD2 matrices

– Matrices are symmetric: Give only i<j entries of Mij?

– Or entire matrix i ≤ j ? (i=j already in EXTPAR inconsistencies?)

– Hermiticity MSQ2(i,j)=MSQ2(j,i)* keep these matrices real?

NB: Not addressed

NB: No comments.

What Jaume is doing is

fine. Of course, I can always make my code able to deal with i=j

if I like.

8

• EW SCALE MIXING:– USQMIX: 6x6 up-squark mixing in super-CKM basis– DSQMIX: 6x6 down-squark mixing in super-CKM basis

• Problem: which quark is which? Enumeration of mass eigenstates.

How to Generalise? FLV

• (from Jaume): “Particle codes: we have taken the following convention: squarks ordered in growing mass, the PDG codes for squarks are used:”

Down squarks:

PDG code1000001 d_11000003 d_21000005 d_32000001 d_42000003 d_52000005 d_6

Up squarks:PDG Code

1000002 u_11000004 u_21000006 u_32000002 u_42000004 u_52000006 u_6

Main Issue:PDG (no-mixing limit):

1000002u_L

1000004c_L

1000006t_1

2000002u_R

2000004c_R

2000006t_2

1000001d_L

1000003s_L

1000005b_1

2000001d_R

2000003s_R

2000005b_2

FCHDECAYfchdecay.googlepages.com

NB: Yes

9

• 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

How to Generalise? RPV

example…

NB: Include Golstones

NB: Inputs not independent,

due to constraints

from EWSB. 5 conditions instead of

normal 2. In MSSM, choice

between (mh1,mh2) or (mu,mA). Here

what to do? One

possibility: rotate to basis

where sneutrino vevs

disappear. Give usual

parameters. Other

possibilities? Allow

freedom? Werner and me

to make explicit

proposal.

10

• Mixing Example: Charged colour-singlet fermions

Flavour basise+ = e+ flavour eigenstatemu+ = 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 lightest1000027 (chi1+) = … 1000037 (chi2+) = heaviest charged colour-singlet fermion

How to Generalise? RPV

NB: currently using U,V mixing etc for each sector separatelyand not “Super-MNS” for leptons/Higgses. Need to discuss?

NB: OK

11

• 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

– IMCVHMIX: imaginary parts

– Charged Higgs mixing (2x2) not yet agreed upon

How to Generalise? CPV

NB: Yes. Include Goldstones. In principle their composition is

specified by theory, but can

be hard to calculate, so

why not?

NB:

Mixing is real!

No IMCVHMIX (only for zon-zero

width)

12

Cf. NMHDecay,Ellwanger, Gunion, Hugonie

2. Superpotential (at scale Q (normally MGUT) in DRbar)

(usually with μMSSM=0)

NMSSM

3. SUSY Breaking Terms (at scale Q in DRbar) EXTPAR:61) lambda62) kappa63) A_lambda64) A_kappa65) mu_eff=lambda<S>

4. 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

13

Cross Sections & Theory ErrorsNB: Not included in current LH status report

• Theory Errors– Introduce (unphysical) input variables corresponding to

variations within theoretical uncertainty -> range of spectra. (Similar in spririt to error PDF's)

– Calculation of observables from spectrum +/- errors on computed variables

• Cross Sections used by fit programs– Templated in SPheno. Collecting experiences now.

Fittino, Sfitter

These (and more?) to be included in journal writeup

NB: No explicit progress at this time

14

• 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? (m2

SUSY = 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:

Including (possibility for) well-defined mixing matrices

e.g. BLOCK NMIX Q=… or BLOCK DRNMIX Q=…

BLOCK NMIXDR 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.

15

• MC4BSM: first workshop to focus explicitly on tools for non-SUSY BSM:– Survey what is available: communication + feedback

– Identify promising models and start to fill up the gaps

– Streamlining the process of going from models to events

Monte Carlo Tools for Beyond-the-Standard-Model Physics. March 20-21 2006. Fermilab

MC4BSM Workshop

• One question that came up:• Successive resonance decays of general new physics resonances?• Can be done with SLHA decay tables, just add basic information about particle Proposal for SLHA2. BLOCK QNUMBERS (or PARTICLE?)

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_guyDECAY 1234567 1.000000E+00 # new_guy width 1.0000E-00 2 22 22 # Br(new_guy -> gamma gamma)

•( Already used to interface CalcHEP, NMHDecay, and PYTHIA, for the NMSSM)

NB: essentially no comment

16

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:– Flavour in the Era of the LHC, CERN, May 15-17, 2006 (flavour)

– 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

17

Work 1

WM SSM = ²ab£(YE )i j H a

1Lbi

¹E j + (YD )i j H a1Qb

i¹D j + (YU )i j H b

2Qai

¹Uj ¡ ¹ H a1H b

2

¤

V3 = ²ab

X

i j

h(TE )i j H a

1~Lb

iL~e¤j R

+ (TD )i j H a1

~QbiL

~d¤j R

+ (TU )i j H b2

~QaiL

~u¤j R

i+ h:c: ;

V2 = m2H 1

H ¤1aH a

1 + m2H 2

H ¤2aH a

2 + ~Q¤iL a(m2

~Q)i j

~Qaj L

+ ~L¤iL a(m2

~L)i j

~L aj L

+

~uiR(m2

~u)i j ~u¤j R

+ ~diR(m2

~d)i j

~d¤j R

+ ~eiR(m2

~e)i j ~e¤j R

¡ (m23²abH a

1H b2 + h:c:) :

LG =12

³M1

~b~b+ M2 ~wA ~wA + M3~gX ~gX´

+ h:c: :

18

Work 2

W = ²ab£(YE )i j H a

1Lbi

¹E j + (YD )i j H a1Qb

i¹D j + (YU )i j H b

2Qai

¹Uj

+12¸ i j kLa

i Lbj Ek + ¸0

i j kLai Qb

j Dk ¡ ²iLai H b

2 ¡ ¹ H a1H b

2

¸+

12¸00

ij kUiD j Dk

V3 = ²ab

X

i j

h(TE )i j H a

1~Lb

iL~e¤j R

+ (TD )i j H a1

~QbiL

~d¤j R

+ (TU )i j H b2

~QaiL

~u¤j R

+12(T¸ )i j k

~LaiL

~Lbj L

~e¤kR

+ (T¸ 0)i j k~La

i~Qb

j~d¤kR

i+

12(T¸ 00)i j k ~u¤

iR~d¤j R

~d¤kR

+ h:c:

LG =12

³M1

~b~b+ M2 ~wA ~wA + M3~gX ~gX´

+ h:c: :

V2 = m2H 1

H ¤1aH a

1 + m2H 2

H ¤2aH a

2 + ~Q¤iL a(m2

~Q)i j

~Qaj L

+ ~L¤iL a(m2

~L)i j

~L aj L

+

~uiR(m2

~u)i j ~u¤j R

+ ~diR(m2

~d)i j

~d¤j R

+ ~eiR(m2

~e)i j ~e¤j R

¡ ²ab(m23H

a1H b

2 + D i Lai H b

2

+ h:c:) :mLiH L ai H b

1+

19

Work 3

W = WM SSM + ¸²abSH a1H b

2 +·3

S3

V3 = V3;M SSM + (²ab¸A¸ SH a1H b

2 + h:c:) +·3

A · S3;

V2 = V2;M SSM + m2SS2

20

ConclusionsTough conditions call for good tools! We will be

ready for NMSSM, CPV, RPV, FLV, …

Then all we need is a signal …

21

• 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

• 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

MC4BSM WorkshopMonte Carlo Tools for Beyond-the-Standard-Model Physics. March 20-21 2006. Fermilab

22

The SLHA1 Conventions

1. Experimental boundary conditions

• “SM” gauge couplings and Yukawas (measured) “MSSM” couplings and Yukawas (not the same, since different

field content different quantum corrections)

2. Superpotential (at scale Q (normally MGUT) in DRbar)

3. SUSY Breaking Terms (at scale Q in DRbar)

A

¹

mAM 1

2

mo