Introduction to SUSY. Giacomo Polesello. INFN, Sezione di Pavia

Transcription

1 . Introduction to SUSY Giacomo Polesello INFN, Sezione di Pavia

2 Introduction For 20 years SUSY most popular template for exploration of new physics SUSY: large class of models with many possible signatures Canonical model for experimental studies is MSSM with R-parity conservation Prototype of a generic model with: Rich spectrum of new particles Complex decay chains Two undetected particles in final state (LSP) I am not a theorist, but I will describe in some detail the features of the model which I found useful to know to understand the detail of the experimental and phenomenological studies on the market The basic reference, from which I extracted most of the material is: S.P. Martin: A Supersymmetry Primer arxiv:hep-ph/ v4

3 Based on the simple MSSM model, I will address SUSY at the LHC as the development of a program passing through different phases, each posing a different challenge Discovery based on challenging and varied signatures, dominated by /E T from undetected LSP Measurement of sparticle masses/couplings requires development of new spectroscopic techniques Model discrimination: techniques to differentiate models with similar mass hierarchy Connection with low energy and astrophysical data: reconstruction of weak-scale model Reconstruction of the high-scale model, understanding of SUSY breaking Concentrate on measurement techniques on specific exemplary model, as an example of how a complex new physics signal might be treated at the LHC

4 Why physics beyond the Standard Model? Gravity is not yet incorporated in the Standard Model Hierarchy/Naturalness problem Standard Model only valid up to scale Λ < M pl (ex: M H =115 GeV Λ < 10 6 GeV ) Higgs mass becomes unstable to quantum corrections: from sfermion loops, δm 2 H λ 2 fλ 2 Additional problems: Unification of couplings, Flavour/family problem Need a more fundamental theory of which SM is low-e approximation

5 Hierarchy problem Mass is what determines the properties of the free propagator of a particle Free propagation H H inverse propagator: i(p 2 M 2 H) Loop correction H f f H inverse propagator: i(p 2 M 2 H + m 2 H) Consider coupling of higgs to fermion f with term -λ f H ff. Correction is: m 2 H λ2 f 4π 2(Λ2 + m 2 f) +... Where Λ is high-energy cutoff to regulate loop integral, energy where new physics alters high-energy behaviour of theory If Λ M P lanck GeV, need counterterms fine-tuned to 16 orders of magnitude to regularize higgs mass

6 Consider now interaction with a scalar f, of the form λ 2 fh 2 f 2 Quantum correction becomes: m 2 H λ2 f 4π 2(Λ2 + m 2 f) +... Considering the existence of N f fermionic degrees of freedom and N f scalar partners, the correction becomes m 2 H (N f λ 2 f N fλ 2 f)λ 2 + (m 2 f) i (m 2 f) i quadratic divergences cancel if: N f = N f λ 2 f = λ 2 f Complete correction vanishes furthermore if for each f f pair m f = m f

7 Alternative approaches: Strong Dynamics New, higher scale QCD: technicolor No Higgs, natural low scale, Resonances predicted in VV scattering Extended TC (Fermion masses), walking TC (avoid FCNC), top-color assisted TC (top mass) Highly contrived, strong constraints from precision EW measurements Little Higgs Enlarged symmetry group with gauged subgroup Higgs as Goldstone boson natural low mass. New fermions, vectors and scalar bosons Strong constraints from precision EW measurements Extra-Dimensions Hierarchy generated by geometry of space-time Rich array of models and signatures, studied in detail for the LHC

8 Supersymmetry Systematic cancellation of quadratic divergences through a symmetry of lagrangian Involved symmetry ought to relate fermions and bosons: operator Q generating symmetry must be spinor with: Q boson = fermion Q fermion = boson Algebra of such operator highly restricted by general theorems: {Q, Q } = P µ {Q, Q} = {Q, Q } = 0 [P µ, Q] = [P µ, Q ] = 0 Where P µ is the momentum generator of space-time translations It can be demonstrated that starting from this algebra the conditions for cancellation of quadratic divergences are achieved:

9 Single-particle states of SUSY theory fall into irreducible representations of the SUSY algebra called supermultiplets SUSY generator commute with gauge generators: particles in same multiplet have the same gauge numbers: λ 2 f = λ 2 f It can be demonstrated (see Martin) that each multiplet must contain the same number of bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom: n B = n F Most relevant supermultiplets: Chiral supermultiplet: 1 2, 0 Weyl fermion (two helicity states, n F = 2) + two real scalars (each with N b = 1) Vector supermultiplet:-1, 1 2 Massless gauge boson (2 helicity states, n B = 2) + Weyl fermion (N F = 2) Graviton supermultiplet: -2, 3 2 graviton+gravitino Write lagrangian including these matter fields invariant under SUSY transformation

10 Masses of SUSY particles Unbroken SUSY is uniquely defined, once the involved supermultiplets are defined. Evaluate super partner masses in unbroken SUSY Consider fermionic state f with mass m there is a bosonic state b = Q α f P 2 f = m 2 f P 2 b = P 2 Q α f = Q α P 2 f = Q α m 2 f = m 2 b for each fermionic state there is a bosonic state with the same mass This means that for each particle we should have a superparticle with same mass and couplings: this should have been observed since a long time No possible particle-sparticle pair among the observed particles SUSY must be broken

11 SUSY breaking From theoretical point of view expect SUSY to be an exact symmetry which is spontaneously broken, but No consensus on how this should be done Parametrize our ignorance introducing extra terms which break SUSY explicitly, but conserve good features for which SUSY was introduced Soft SUSY-breaking terms: do not re-introduce quadratic divergences in the theory Possible terms: Mass terms M λ λ a λ a for each gauge group Scalar (mass) 2 (m 2 ) i jφ j φ i terms Bilinear b ij φ i φ j (scalar) 2 mixing terms Trilinear a ijk φ i φ j φ k (scalar) 3 mixing terms Based on these terms, build a realistic minimal SUSY model: MSSM

12 Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model SUSY model with soft breaking of SUSY and minimal particle content: L MSSM soft = 1 ( M3 g g + M2 W W + M 1 B B ) + c.c. 2 (ũ au QH u d a d QH d ẽ a LH ) e d + c.c. Q m 2 Q Q L m 2 L L ũ m2 u ũ d m 2 d d ẽ m2 e ẽ m 2 H u H uh u m 2 H d H dh d (bh u H d + c.c.). Gaugino mass terms. Parameters: M 1, M 2, M 3 Trilinear f fh terms. Parameters a u, a d, a e Sfermion mass terms. Parameters m 2 Q, m 2 L, m 2 u, md 2, m2 e SUSY breaking contributions to Higgs potential. Parameters: m 2 H u, m 2 H d, b a f and m 2 f complex 3 3 matrices model has 105 parameters!

13 Chiral and vector supermultiplets of MSSM Names spin 0 spin 1/2 SU(3) C, SU(2) L, U(1) Y squarks, quarks Q (ũl d L ) (u L d L ) ( 3, 2, 1 6 ) ( 3 families) u ũ R u R ( 3, 1, 2 3 ) d d R d R ( 3, 1, 1 3 ) sleptons, leptons L ( ν ẽl) (ν e L ) ( 1, 2, 1 2 ) ( 3 families) e ẽ R e R ( 1, 1, 1) Higgs, higgsinos H u (H + u H 0 u) ( H + u H d (H 0 d H d ) ( H 0 d Hu) 0 ( 1, 2, ) Hd ) ( 1, 2, 1 2 ) Names spin 1/2 spin 1 SU(3) C, SU(2) L, U(1) Y gluino, gluon g g ( 8, 1, 0) winos, W bosons bino, B boson W ± W 0 W ± W 0 ( 1, 3, 0) B 0 B 0 ( 1, 1, 0)

14 Consider fermion mass terms in SM case: Why two higgs doublets Q L = In SUSY: term Q L H not allowed L SM = m d QL Hd R + m u QL HuR u d L H = iσ 2 H H 0 v H (For SUSY invariance superpotential must depend only on φ i and not on φ i ) v 0 No soft SUSY-breaking terms allowed for chiral fermions H u and H d needed to give masses to down- and up-type fermions Moreover: two doublets needed for cancellation of triangle gauge anomaly. The superpotential for the MSSM is thus: W MSSM = uy u QH u dy d QH d ey e LH d + µh u H d. (1)

15 SUSY higgses: basic structure Two higgs doublets, with vacuum expectation values (VEV) at minimum v u, v d Connected to Z mass by: vu 2 + vd 2 = v 2 = 2m 2 Z/(g 2 + g 2 ) (174 GeV) 2. Define: tan β v u /v d. After EW symmetry breaking, three of the 8 real degrees of freedom become the longitudinal modes of Z and W bosons. Five physical higgs states left over: CP-odd A 0 two charged states H ± two scalars: h, H. All MSSM Higgs phenomenology can be expressed at tree level by two parameters, traditionally take m(a), tan β

16 Higgs masses are given by: m 2 A0 =2b/ sin 2β m 2 H ± =m2 A 0 + m2 W m 2 h 0,H 0 = 1 2 (m2 A 0 + m2 Z (m 2 A 0 + m 2 Z) 2 4m 2 Zm 2 A 0 cos 2 2β). Lower bound on masses of H, H ±. A, H, H ± degenerate for high b Upper bound on h mass at tree level: m h 0 < cos 2β m Z Phenomenological disaster, h should have been discovered at LEP One-loop radiative corrections dominated by top-stop loops in scalar potential. In the limit of heavy stops m t 1, m t 2 m t : (m 2 h 0) = 3 4π 2v2 y 4 t sin 4 β ln 1 m t 2 m t m 2 t Two-loop corrections currently available. Approximate upper limit in MSSM: m h 0 < 130 GeV.

17 Additional ingredient: To guarantee lepton and baryon number conservation require conservation of new quantum number, R-parity: R = ( 1) 3(B L)+2S Phenomenological consequences: Lightest Supersymmetric Particle (LSP) is stable All sparticle eventually decay to the LSP Sparticles produced in pairs R-parity conservation imposed by hand by omitting from the Lagrangian L or B violating terms: W L=1 = 1 2 λijk L i L j e k + λ ijk L i Q j d k + µ i L i H u (2) W B=1 = 1 2 λ ijk u i d j d k (3) Can build models where some of these terms are present in the Lagrangian compatible with all present constraints: RP V models Completely different phenomenology, I will not address it here

18 Low energy constraints on soft parameters Need to avoid contrast with basic experimental observations such as the suppression of Flavour changing neutral currents impose constraints on soft SUSY breaking: Squark and slepton mass matrices flavour blind (avoid FCNC, LFV): each proportional to 3 3 identity matrix in family space. Trilinear couplings proportional to the corresponding Yukawa coupling matrix No new complex phases in soft parameters (avoid CP violation effects) Constraints normally implemented in existing studies Additional optional constraint in many models: gaugino soft terms are proportional to coupling constants of respective groups: M 1 α 1 = M 2 α 2 = M 3 α 3 After all constraints number of model parameters: 15 20

19 quarks squarks q L, q R The SUSY Zoo leptons sleptons ll lr W ± winos χ ± 1,2 charginos H ± charged higgsinos χ ± 1,2 charginos γ photino χ 0 1,2,3,4 neutralinos Z zino χ 0 1,2,3,4 neutralinos h,h higgsinos χ 0 1,2,3,4 neutralinos g gluino g For each fermion f two partners f L and f R corresponding to the two helicity states The SUSY partners of the W and of the H ± mix to form 2 charginos The SUSY partners of the neutral gauge and higgs bosons mix to form 4 neutralinos Phenomenology determined by the mixing in gaugino sector and by sfermion left-right mixing

20 Neutralino mixing Gauginos and higgsinos ( B, W 3, H d, 0 H u) 0 mix to form mass eigenstates: χ 0 i (i=1,2,3,4) through matrix: M = M 1 0 m Z c β s W m Z s β s W 0 M 2 m Z c β c W m Z s β c W m Z c β s W m Z c β c W 0 µ m Z s β s W m Z s β c W µ 0 (4) Entries M 1 and M 2 come from the soft breaking terms in lagrangian Entries µ are supersymmetric higgsino mass terms Terms proportional to m Z arise from EW symmetry breaking Diagonalize M by unitary matrix N: M diag Ñ = N MÑN 1 Each of the neutralino states is a linear combination of gauginos and higgsinos: With m( χ 0 1) < m( χ 0 2) < m( χ 0 3) < m( χ 0 4) χ 0 i = N i1 B + Ni2 W 3 + N i3 H0 d + N i4 H0 u

21 Special case, realised e.g. in most of msugra parameter space: m Z µ ± M 1, µ ± M 2 Putting the EW terms to zero, the characteristic eigenvalue equation det(λi M) = 0 becomes: (λ 2 µ 2 )(λ M 1 )(λ M 2 ) = 0 If we have the hierarchy M 1 < M 2 < µ we obtain: χ 0 1 B, χ 0 2 W 3 χ 0 3 ( H u H d )/ 2, χ 0 4 ( H u + H d )/ 2 m( χ 0 1) M 1, m( χ 0 2) M 2, m( χ 0 3) m( χ 0 4) µ Similarly diagonalisation of chargino mixing matrix gives: χ ± 1 W ±, χ ± 2 H ± m( χ ± 1 ) M 2, m( χ ± 2 ) µ χ 0 1 pure bino. If gaugino mass unification m( χ 0 2) 2m( χ 0 1) χ 0 2 and χ ± pure W inos degenerate in mass χ 0 3, χ 0 4, χ 2 pure higgsinos, degenerate in mass

22 Sfermion mixing (mass) 2 terms in Lagrangian mix the gauge-eigenstates ( f L, m 2 F = m 2 Q + m 2 q + L q m q X q L q, R q Electroweak correction terms M 2 Z f R ) through matrix: m q Xq mr 2 + X q A q µ (cot β) 2T 3q. m2 q + R q After diagonalization have mass eigenstates f 1, f 2 with m 2 f 1 < m 2 f 1 f 2 = cos θ f sin θf sin θ f cos θ f All fermion masses M z except b, τ, t: L R mixing only for third generation Consider in phenomenology mass autostates ( t 1, t 2 ), ( b 1, b 2 ), ( τ 1, τ 2 ) t 1, b 1 lighter than other squarks, τ 1 lighter than other sleptons mixing of left and right components changes coupling with gauginos. e.g.: BR( χ 0 2 l R l) < BR( χ 0 2 τ 1 l) Because of left component in τ 1 f L f R f 2

23 Sparticle decays Sfermion decays: two possibilities: gauge interactions and Yukawa interactions Yukawa interactions to m 2 of corresponding fermions: only third generation For gauge interactions same couplings as corresponding SM vertexes. For squarks: q L q L q L(R) q L(R) q L 2gT 3 q L g 2g tan θw Y W 3 Decay to χ 0 1 always kinematically favoured, but decays into heavier gauginos may dominate because of the chargino/neutralino composition Cascade decays If q gq open: dominates because of α s coupling, otherwise weak decays W ± Case: m Z M 1 < M 2 < µm Z ; gaugino composition is: χ 0 1 B, χ 0 2 W 3, χ ± 1 W ± From the vertexes above one easy sees: BR( q L χ 0 2q) = 30% BR( q L χ ± 1 q ) = 60% BR( q R χ 0 q) = 100% B

24 SUSY breaking models MSSM agnostic approach, one would like to have a model for SUSY breaking Spontaneous breaking not possible in MSSM, need to postulate hidden sector. Supersymmetry breaking origin (Hidden sector) Flavor-blind interactions MSSM (Visible sector) Phenomenological predictions determined by messenger field: Three main proposals, sparticle masses and couplings function of few parameters Gravity: msugra. Parameters m 0, m 1/2, A 0, tan β, sgn µ Gauge interactions: GMSB. Parameters Λ = F m /M m, M m, N 5 (number of messenger fields) tan β, sgn(µ), C grav Anomalies: AMSB: Parameters: m 0, m 3/2, tan β, sign(µ)

25 SUSY breaking structure SUSY breaking communicated to visible sector at some high scale m 0, m 1/2, A 0, tan β, sgn µ (msugra) Evolve down to EW scale through Renormalization Group Equations (RGE) M 1, M 2, M 3, m( f R ), m( f L ), A t, A b, A τ, m(a), tan β, µ From soft terms derive mass eigenstates and sparticle couplings. m( χ 0 j), m( χ ± j ), m( q R ), m( q L ), m( b 1 ), m( b 2 ), m( t 1 ), m( t 2 )... Structure enshrined in Monte Carlo generators (e.g ISAJET) Task of experimental SUSY searches is to go up the chain, i.e. to measure enough sparticles and branching ratios to infer information on the SUSY breaking mechanism

26 Supergravity (SUGRA) inspired model: Soft SUSY breaking mediated by gravitational interaction at GUT scale. Gravitation is flavour blind, soft breaking lagrangian at GUT scale like the MSSM lagrangian with the identification: M 3 = M 2 = M 1 = m 1/2 ; m 2 Q = mu 2 = m 2 d = m 2 L = m 2 e = m 2 0 1; m 2 H u = m 2 H d = m 2 0; a u = A 0 y u ; a d = A 0 y d ; a e = A 0 y e ; b = B 0 µ. This unification is valid at the GUT scale, all parameters are running, need to evolve them down to the electroweak scale

27 Evolution performed through renormalisation group equations: Different running of different masses as a function of the gauge quantum numbers of the particles: splitting at the EW scale Example: H d (µ 2 +m 0 2 ) 1/2 Mass [GeV] H u M 2 M 3 M 1 sleptons squarks m 1/2 m Log 10 (Q/1 GeV) One of the higgs masses driven negative by RGE radiative EW symmetry breaking

28 Radiative EW symmetry breaking: require correct value of M Z at electroweak scale MZ 2 2 = m2 H d m 2 H u tan β 2 tan β 2 1 µ, b given in terms of tan β, sgn µ. µ 2 Final set of parameters of model: Universal gaugino mass m 1/2. Universal scalar mass m 0. Universal A 0 trilinear term. tan β sgn µ Highly predictive: Masses set mainly by m 0, m 1/2. Very simple model, useful testing ground, but very constrained, important to keep in mind that nature may have chosen completely different approach

29 Masses in msugra tanβ=10, µ>0 tanβ=10, µ> g (2000) q (2000) 1000 χ 1 + (700) m 1/2 (GeV) g (1500) g (1000) q (1500) m 1/2 (GeV) l R(400) l R(600) χ 1 + (500) χ 1 + (300) l R(800) 200 q (500) q (1000) 200 l R(200) χ 1 + (100) m 0 (GeV) m 0 (GeV) RGE for m 1/2 give for soft gaugino terms M 3 : M 2 : M 1 : m 1/2 = 7 : 2 : 1 : 2.5 m( g) M 3. In msugra m( χ 0 1) M 1, m( χ 0 2) m( χ ± 1 ) M 2 Sfermion mass determined by RGE running of m 0 and coupling to gauginos: m( l L ) m m 2 1/2 ; m( l R ) m m 2 1/2 ; m( q) m m 2 1/2 A and tan β: significant contribution only to 3 rd generation RGE and mixing

30 Existing limits: LEP Direct slepton production: Look for process e + e l + l, followed by decay l l χ 0 1 with l = (e, µ, τ) Signatures: 2 acoplanar leptons + /E T Small DM Approximately at the kinematic limit for ẽ and µ F. Gianotti

31 LEP: chargino production e + e χ + 1 χ 1, followed by decays: χ + 1 χ 1 ν + l + νl νν χ 0 1 χ 0 1l + l Acoplanar leptons χ ± 1 W χ 0 1. Both hadronic and leptonic final states for this decay: WW qqqq WW l qq WW l l l l l - Main backgrounds W W and ZZ. They can be rejected asking e.g. for large missing mass

32 Easy case : large scalar masses LEP chargino limits ADLO s > GeV kin. lim. m ( ) > GeV If high scalar masses, three-body decay χ ± 1 W χ 0 1 ff dominates If m( χ ± 1 ) 2m( χ 0 1) always visible Get very near to kinematic limit tan =2 =-200 GeV If decay to sleptons open, depend on the m between chargino and slepton ~ searches

33 Existing SUSY limits: Tevatron 1. /E T + jets search Look for production of squarks and gluinos decaying to hadronic jets Looking for heavy objects require high energies for jets and high sum of jet energies (H T ) to reduce SM backgrounds. Excess from SUSY in /E T distribution because of non-interacting LSP in final state Events/40 GeV CDF Run II Preliminary -1 Data (Lum=1.1 fb ) QCD + non QCD Bkg. non-qcd Bkg. Total Syst. Uncertainty Bkg.+Signal (M~ ~ M~ ~ 252 GeV/c g q 2 ) Events/20 GeV CDF Run II Preliminary -1 Data (Lum=1.1 fb ) QCD + non QCD Bkg. non-qcd Bkg. Total Syst. Uncertainty Bkg.+Signal (M~ ~ M~ ~ 252 GeV/c g q 2 ) [GeV] H T Missing E T [GeV] No excess observed with respect to SM. Put limits

34 Tevatron: /E T +jets limit Production X-section for given squark and gluino mass known /E T +jets signature has no big dependency on details of model set limit in M g M q plane: for M g M q mass limit at 400 GeV

35 2 Number of dimuon pairs / 8 GeV/c Tevatron three-lepton search Center of mass energy limits squark/gluino searches Consider direct production of gauginos, followed by decay of gauginos to leptons Best process: p p χ 0 2 χ ± 1 with decays: χ 0 2 l + l χ 0 1 χ ± 1 lν χ 0 1 Signature: three-leptons + /E T : very low cross-section, but little SM backgrounds Search for χ CDF RUN II Preliminary Ldt=745 pb -1 ± 1 χ 0 2 µµ+e/µ DATA Drell Yan+γ Drell Yan+jets Diboson msugra: χ 2 mass: 113 GeV/c ± χ Invariant mass of µ µ pairs (GeV/c ) ± χ Number of trilepton events / 2 GeV Search for χ Ldt=745 pb ± 1 χ -1 CDF RUN II Preliminary 0 2 µµ+e/µ DATA Drell Yan+γ Drell Yan+jets Diboson msugra: χ ± 2 χ mass: 113 GeV/c ± χ Missing Tranverse Energy (GeV) Other approach, to increase signal efficiency: same-sign dileptons

36 Tevatron 3-lepton limit No excess observed in any of the many channel considered, can put a limit Gaugino production and decay signature very model-dependent Only place limit on SUSY cross-section as a function of gaugino masses for standard assumptions on model: Limit of 140 GeV in considered scenario.

37 Indirect constraints: Dark Matter Existence of Dark Matter in the universe by now well established Studies of clusters of galaxies suggest Ω DM 0.2 to 0.3 where Ω X = ρ X /ρ crit From anisotropies in Cosmic Microwave Background (WMAP): Ω DM = 0.21 ± 0.01 From nucleosynthesis, only 4% of total matter density baryonic From analyses of structure formation in the universe: most DM must be cold, non-relativistic at onset of galaxy formation. DM candidates must be stable on cosmological time scales, interact very weakly with EM radiation, and give the right relic density. Main particle candidates: Axions Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMP) Mass: 10 GeV few TeV, and cross section of weak strength R-parity conserving SUSY provides candidate WIMP: Lightest SUSY Particle (LSP)

38 Relic Density and LSP annihilation Cross-Section At first, when T m χ all particles in thermal equilibrium. Then universe cools down and expands: When T < m χ is reached, only annihilation: density becomes exponentially suppressed As expansion goes on, particles can not find each other: freeze out and leave a relic density Master equation for n, number of LSP is: dn dt = 3Hn < σ Av > (n 2 n 2 eq) (5) σ A : LSP annihilation cross-section, v relative speed of LSP, and H Hubble parameter The relic density Ω χ 0 1 is defined as: Ω χ 0 1 = m χ 0 1 n χ 0 1 /ρ cri, ρ cri = h gcm 3 (6) From solving Boltzmann equation: Ω χ 0 1 1/ < σ A v > (7) LSP annihilation X-section and thence relic density can be calculated from parameters of SUSY model and compared with WMAP result.

39 Example: DM constraints in msugra Large annihilation sross-section required by WMAP data Boost annihilation via quasi-degeneracy of a sparticle with χ 0 1, or large higgsino content of χ 0 1 Regions in msugra (m 1/2, m 0 ) plane with acceptable χ 0 1 relic density (e.g. Ellis et al.): No EWSB focus point region Bulk region: annihilation dominated by slepton exchange, easy LHC signatures fom χ 0 2 ll m 0 m h, b sγ rapid annihilation funnel Coannihilation region: small m( χ 0 1) m( τ) (1-10 Gev). Dominant processes χ 0 1 χ 0 1 ττ, χ 0 1 τ τγ g 2 co annihilation region Similar to bulk, but softer leptons! bulk region Charged LSP Funnel region: m( χ 0 1) m(h/a)/2 at high tan β Annihilation through resonant heavy Higgs exchange. m 1/2 Heavy higgs at the LHC observable up to 800 GeV Focus Point: high m 0, large higgsino content enhanced annihilation through coupling to W/Z Sfermions outside LHC reach, study gluino decays.

40 Additional low energy constraints Precision measurements of higher order processes in Standard Model sensitive to loops involving SUSY particles g µ tan β = 10, µ > 0 Anomalous gyromagnetic ratio of muon ( 10 3 ) 700 m h = 114 GeV generated by EW radiative corrections a µ (g 2)/2 presently measured to 0.5 ppm Sensitive to SUSY contributions: m 0 (GeV) m χ ± = 104 GeV ν µ µ χ χ γ χ 0 µ µ µ µ (a µ ) SUSY [ 100GeV M SUSY ] 2 tan β γ m 1/2 (GeV)