Supersymmetric Seesaws

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Supersymmetric Seesaws"

Dinah Hampton
5 years ago
Views:

1 Supersymmetric Seesaws M. Hirsch Astroparticle and High Energy Physics Group Instituto de Fisica Corpuscular - CSIC Universidad de Valencia Valencia - Spain Thanks to: J. Esteves, S. Kaneko, W. Porod, L. Reichert, J. Romao, F. Staub, A. Vicente and A. Villanova MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.1/53

2 The seesaw mechanism MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.2/53

3 Supersymmetric seesaw MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.3/53

4 Supersymmetric seesaw??? LHC = SUSY telescope??? MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.3/53

5 Outline I. Introduction II. Supersymmetric seesaws III. LFV in seesaw IV. SUSY spectra and the seesaw scale MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.4/53

6 I. Introduction MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.5/53

7 Neutrino oscillation data Neutrino masses are non-zero: Parameter Best fit 3 σ c.l. m 2 [10 5 ev 2 ] m 2 Atm [10 3 ev 2 ] sin 2 θ sin 2 θ Atm sin 2 θ Data from updated global fit: Schwetz, Tórtola & Valle, New J Phys 10:113011, 2008; arxiv: [hep-ph] updated V3: 11 Feb 2010 Hint for no-zero θ 13 at 1.5 σ? - Fogli et al., 2008 MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.6/53

8 Neutrino angles Very good first approximation to this data is the so-called tri-bimaximal mixing ansatz of Harrison, Perkins and Scott, PLB530: U TBM ν = Corresponding to tan 2 θ Atm = 1, tan 2 θ = 1 2, sin 2 θ R = 0 MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.7/53

9 Absolute mass scale Tritium decay end point searches: m β ν = i U ei 2 m 2 i 2.2 ev Double beta decay: Majorana neutrino! m ββ ν = i U 2 ei m i ( ) ev Cosmology (CMB + LSS + ): i m ν i ( ) ev Recall for hierarchical neutrinos: m 2Atm 50 mev and m 2 9 mev MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.8/53

10 Majorana M ν If Lepton Number is Violated: H H Weinberg, 1979 (M LNV ) 1 m ν = 1 M LNV (LH)(LH) ν L Many possible models: ν L (i) Seesaw mechanism: Type-I, Type-II, Type-III, Inverse seesaw, etc... (ii) Radiative models: Zee, Babu, LQs... (iii) SUSY neutrino masses: R/ p (iv) MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.9/53

11 Majorana M ν If Lepton Number is Violated: H H Weinberg, 1979 (M LNV ) 1 m ν = 1 M LNV (LH)(LH) ν L Many possible models: (i) Seesaw mechanism: Type-I, Type-II, Type-III, Inverse seesaw, etc... (ii) Radiative models: Zee, Babu, LQs... (iii) SUSY neutrino masses: R/ p (iv) ν L E. Ma, PRL81, 1998: At tree level only three realizations of seesaw operator MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.9/53

12 Classical Seesaw In the basis (ν L, ν R ) write mass matrix: M ν = 0 m D m D M M. Minkowski, 1977 Yanagida, 1979 Gell-Mann, Ramond & Slansky, 1979 Mohapatra & Senjanovic, 1980 If m D M M : H H m 1/2 ( m2 D M M, M M ) ν R ν L ν L For 3 ν R 21 parameters Santamaria, 1993 At low energy12 parameters measurable: 3 m li, 3 m νi, 3 angles & 3 phases Predictive power: -9 MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.10/53

13 Seesaw: Type II with: M ν = m M m M Y ν 0 L Schechter & Valle, 1980, 1982 Cheng & Li, 1980 Mohapatra, Senjanovic, H H Example: SU(5) with 15: 0 L h0 2 m 15 ν L ν L With 2 triplets (SUSY) 15 parameters Predictive power (low energy): -3 MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.11/53

14 Seesaw: Type-III As in seesaw type-i. Replace ν R by Σ = (Σ +, Σ 0, Σ ). In the basis (ν L, Σ 0 ) write mass matrix: M ν = 0 m D m D M Σ. R. Foot et al., 1988 E. Ma, 1998 If m D M Σ : H H m 1/2 ( m2 D M Σ, M Σ ) Σ 0 For 3 Σ 21 parameters Predictive power: -9 ν L ν L MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.12/53

15 II. Supersymmetric seesaws MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.13/53

16 The GUT scale Type-I Type-II W RHN = Y I N N c 5 5 H M R N c N c W 15H = 1 2 Y II N λ 1 5 H 15 5 H λ 2 5 H 15 5 H +Y H + Y H + M M 5 5 H 5 H Type-III W 24M = 2 Y H 1 4 Y H + YN III 5 H 24 M MM M MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.14/53

17 The SU(5)-broken phase Under SU(3) SU L (2) U(1) Y The 5 contains: 5 = (d c, L) The 15 decomposes as 15 H =S(6, 1, 2 3 ) + T (1, 3, 1) + Z(3, 2, 1 6 ) The 24 decomposes as 24 M =W M (1, 3, 0) + B M (1, 1, 0) + X M (3, 2, 5 6 ) + X M ( 3, 2, 5 6 ) + G M(8, 1, 0) MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.15/53

18 Gauge coupling unification 1/α1, 1/α2, 1/α Log 10 (Q) [GeV] In the MSSM (nearly) perfect unification of gauge couplings Evolution of inverse of gauge couplings α i = g2 i 4π : Note change in slope at Q = 1T ev MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.16/53

19 Gauge coupling unification 1/α1, 1/α2, 1/α Log 10 (Q) [GeV] Adding a (pair of) triplet fields T and T at any Q (few) < GeV destroys unification of gauge couplings MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.17/53

20 Gauge coupling unification 1/α1, 1/α2, 1/α Log 10 (Q) [GeV] Adding complete SU(5) multiplets changes α(m GUT ), but maintains unification of gauge couplings Note change in α(m GUT ) Note change in slope at Q = GeV MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.18/53

21 Landau poles 2.0 ggut Seesaw type-ii Seesaw type-iii 1.0 g replacements log(m Seesaw /GeV) Perturbativity of α(m GUT ) gives lower limit for M Seesaw dashed lines: 1-loop; full lines: full 2-loop RGEs MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.19/53

22 msugra Boundary conditions: msugra ( minimal Supergravity ) : M 1 = M 2 = M 3 = M 1/2, m 2 H u = m 2 H d = m 2 0, M 2 Q = M 2 Ũ = M 2 D = M 2 L = M 2 Ẽ = m , A d = A 0 Y d, A u = A 0 Y u, A e = A 0 Y e. # of parameters: (m 0, M 1/2, A 0, tan β, sgn(µ)) Sometimes also called the CMSSM (C = constrained) All low energy masses can then be calculated by RGE ( renormalization group equations ) No neutrino masses and no LFV More complicated SUSY breaking schemes could be studied, however need: Λ SUSY > M Seesaw MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.20/53

23 V soft & the seesaw-ii scale RGEs allow to calculate low-scale SUSY masses. Example, only rough estimate: m 2 L m M 2 1/2 m 2 Ẽ m M 2 1/2 M M 1/2 Form invariants : (m 2 L m 2 Ẽ )/M Buckley & Murayama, 2006 Different invariants can be defined To first approximation no dependence on m 0 and M 1/2 Departure from msugra expecation contains info on high energy physics! MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.21/53

24 Seesaw & running of V soft Just one example (full => type-i; dotted => type-ii; dash-dotted => type-iii): /2 M Q 500 M 3 1/2 M Q, M L, M E (GeV) M L M 1,M 2,M 3 (GeV) M M E 100 M M Seesaw (GeV) M Seesaw (GeV) Gaugino mass parameters run faster then sfermion masses type-iii changes faster than type-ii; type-i: no change MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.22/53

25 Soft masses and seesaw-ii Four examples of invariants as function of M 15 = M T : 10 (m2 D m 2 L)/M (m2 Q m 2 Ẽ )/M 1 2, 1 (m 2 L m 2 Ẽ )/M 2 1, (m 2 Q m 2 Ũ )/M Analytic 1-loop leading-log approximation M 15 = M T [GeV] Consistent departures from msugra point to M T Dependence on M T only log(m T ) MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.23/53

26 Compare type-ii and type-iii Four examples of invariants as function of M 15 = M 24 : 10 (m2 D m 2 L)/M (m2 Q m 2 Ẽ )/M 1 2, 1 (m 2 L m 2 Ẽ )/M 2 1, (m 2 Q m 2 Ũ )/M Analytic 1-loop leading-log approximation M 15 = M 24 [GeV] Type-III seesaw invariants run faster Dependence on M Seesaw only log(m Seesaw ) MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.24/53

27 Soft masses and seesaw-ii m L 2 m E 2 M SPS1a, 1 loop SPS1a, 2 loop SPS3, 1 loop SPS3, 2 loop Analytic Quantitative analysis requires accurate knowledge of complete SUSY spectrum Difficult at LHC! M 15 M T GeV Invariant (m 2 L m 2 Ẽ )/M 2 1, calculated with Y T 0 Analytic : Leading-log 1-loop 1-loop and 2-loop: numerical calculation MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.25/53

28 III. LFV & SUSY Seesaw MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.26/53

29 Lepton flavour violation Decay Current Future (?) τ µγ τ eγ µ eγ τ 3µ τ e µ + µ τ e + µ µ τ µ e + e τ µ + e e τ 3e µ 3e PDG 2006 In the SM: all Br 0! In SM + Seesaw I: unmeasurably small: Br(µ eγ) < MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.27/53

30 msugra and RGEs Seesaw type-i: Borzumati & Masiero, 1986 Note: L i = log[m G /M i ]. ( M 2 L) ij 1 8π 2 f(m 0, A 0, M 1/2,...)(Y ν LY ν ) ij 9 new independent parameters Seesaw type-ii: ( M 2 L) ij 1 8π 2 g(m 0, A 0, M 1/2,...)(Y T Y T ) ij log(m G /M T ) 9+12=21, but only 15 (14) parameters Measuring all entries in ( M 2 L) ij over-constrains type-ii seesaw??? Note: type-iii equation as type-i, but larger LFV... see below MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.28/53

31 µ eγ in msugra sessaw 10-7 m 0 =M 1/2 =300 (GeV), tanβ=10, A 0 =0 (GeV) 10-9 m 0 =M 1/2 =1000 (GeV), tanβ=10, A 0 =0 (GeV) Br(µ e γ) Br(µ e γ) M Seesaw (GeV) M Seesaw (GeV) The three different seesaws are: type-iii, type-ii and type-i General expectation: Large LFV for large M Seesaw General expectation LFV in type-iii type-i MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.29/53

32 Type-I and type-iii only 10-8 m 0 =M 1/2 =1000 (GeV), tanβ=10, A 0 =0 (GeV) 10-8 m 0 =M 1/2 =1000 (GeV), tanβ=10, A 0 =0 (GeV) Br(µ e γ) Br(τ e γ) s 2 13 s 2 13 Note: This example as function of s 13, but cancellations independent of any low-energy neutrino physics can be found in fine-tuned portions of parameter space No prediction of LFV possible, but: Observation of LFV => constraints on RH sector MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.30/53

33 Collider versus low energy Soft SUSY breaking: V = (m 2 L) ij L i Lj + Off-diagonal elements induce decays: Hinchliffe and Page, 2001 Porod and Majerotto, 2002 many others γ µ ~ µ e ~ χ 0 k e (m 2 L) 21 Slepton decays and l i l j γ related: µ e χ 0 µ ~ ~ e χ (m 2 L) 21 MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.31/53

34 Numerical results: LHC Seesaw-I: Left: SPS1a Right: SPS3 χ) Br(τ e χ), Br(τ µ m ν =0 ev 1 Br( τ e χ) Br( τ µ χ) Excluded by Br(µ e γ ) χ) Br(τ e χ), Br(τ µ m ν =0 ev 1 Br( τ e χ) Br( τ µ χ) Excluded by Br(µ e γ ) M 1 (GeV) M 1 (GeV) Seesaw-II: Left: SPS1a Right: SPS3 Br Τ 2 Χ1 e, Br Τ 2 Χ1 Μ Br Τ Χ 1 e Br Τ Χ 1 Μ Excluded by 10 6 Br Μ eγ 10 7 Br Τ 2 Χ1 e, Br Τ 2 Χ1 Μ 10 1 Br Τ Χ 1 e Br Τ Χ 1 Μ Excluded by 10 6 Br Μ eγ M 15 M T GeV LHC can see LFV (if SPS3-like...) M 15 M T GeV MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.32/53

35 (Small detour) SUSY Left-right symmetric model MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.33/53

36 SUSY LR model Consider gauge group: SU(3) c SU(2) L SU(2) R U(1) B L Advantages:. Restoration of parity at high energy. Generates seesaw: N c is part of theory. Provides (potentially) solution to CP problems. Can be embedded in SO(10). R-parity conservation can be automatic MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.34/53

37 LFV in SUSY LR model 1500 M Seesaw = (GeV) tanβ=10, A 0 =0 (GeV) 1500 M Seesaw = (GeV) tanβ=10, A 0 =0 (GeV) x m 0 (GeV) m 0 (GeV) x x M 1/2 (GeV) M 1/2 (GeV) As in seesaw Br(µ + e + γ) strong function of M Seesaw... but... MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.35/53

38 LFV in SUSY LR model 1500 M Seesaw = (GeV) tanβ=10, A 0 =0 (GeV) 1500 M Seesaw = (GeV) tanβ=10, A 0 =0 (GeV) m 0 (GeV) m 0 (GeV) M 1/2 (GeV) M 1/2 (GeV) Asymmetry: A(µ + e + γ) = A L 2 A R 2 A L 2 + A R 2, Note: In msugra seesaw A = 1 always MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.36/53

39 IV. SUSY spectra & seesaw scale MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.37/53

40 SUSY mass spectra Seesaw II (m 0 : 70, M 1/2 : 250, tanβ : 10, A 0 : 300) Seesaw III (m 0 : 70, M 1/2 : 250, tanβ : 10, A 0 : 300) 250 m χ 0 1 m τ1 250 m χ 0 1 m τ1 masses [GeV] mẽr m χ 0 2 mẽl masses [GeV] mẽr m χ 0 2 mẽl log(m SS ) [GeV] Seesaw II (m 0 : 70, M 1/2 : 250, tanβ : 10, A 0 : 300) log(m SS ) [GeV] Seesaw III (m 0 : 70, M 1/2 : 250, tanβ : 10, A 0 : 300) 700 masses [GeV] m b1 m b2 m qr m ql m g masses [GeV] m b1 m b2 m qr m ql m g log(m SS ) [GeV] log(m SS ) [GeV] MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.38/53

41 LHC observables - I In R P SUSY LHC does not measure SUSY masses directly Consider, for example, decay chain: q L χ q χ 0 2 l + l l ± + l + χ 0 1 Bachacou, Hinchliffe & Paige, PRD62 Signal: Two opposite sign leptons + jets + missing energy 5 independent kinematical variables: (m ll ) edge, (m lq ) edge low, (m lq) edge high, (m llq ) edge and (m llq ) thresh... but only 4 unknown masses involved! MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.39/53

42 LHC observables - II Variable Value (GeV) Error (GeV) m max ll m max llq m low lq m high lq m min llq m min llb m( l L ) m(lsp ) m max ll (χ 0 4 ) m max ττ m( g) 0.99 m(lsp ) G. Weiglein et al. Phys. Rep. 426 Values correspond to: msugra point SPS1a m( q R ) m(lsp ) m( g) m( b 1 ) m( g) m( b 2 ) MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.40/53

43 LHC observables - III Seesaw II (m 0 : 70, M 1/2 : 250, tanβ : 10, A 0 : 300) Seesaw II (m 0 : 70, M 1/2 : 250, tanβ : 10, A 0 : 300) obs(mss)/obs( ) [GeV] obs(mss)/obs( ) [GeV] log(m SS ) [GeV] (m ee ) edge m g m b2 m g m b1 m qr m χ 0 1 m ll m χ Seesaw II (m 0 : 70, M 1/2 : 400, tanβ : 10, A 0 : 300) log(m SS ) [GeV] (m ee ) edge m g m b2 m g m b1 m qr m χ obs(mss)/obs( ) [GeV] obs(mss)/obs( ) [GeV] m ll m χ (m ee ) edge (m llq ) edge (m llq ) thres (m lq ) edge low (m lq ) edge high log(m SS ) [GeV] Seesaw II (m 0 : 70, M 1/2 : 400, tanβ : 10, A 0 : 300) log(m SS ) [GeV] (m ee ) edge (m llq ) edge (m llq ) thres (m lq ) edge low (m lq ) edge high MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.41/53

44 LHC & ILC combined Particle Mass LHC ILC LHC+ILC h H χ χ χ χ ± Aguilar-Saavedra, et al. Eur. Phys. J. C46 Values correspond to: msugra point SPS1a ẽ R ẽ L τ q R q L t b g MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.42/53

45 Results ILC+LHC Seesaw type-ii Seesaw II (m 0 : 70, M 1/2 : 400, tanβ : 10, A 0 : 300) Note: log( mss) [GeV] (i) m SS + (m SS ) = M GUT at around m SS GeV 1 σ c.l. (ii) (m SS ) strongly dependent on m SS log(m SS ) [GeV] Seesaw II (m 0 : 70, M 1/2 : 400, tanβ : 10, A 0 : 300) Seesaw II (m 0 : 70, M 1/2 : 400, tanβ : 10, A 0 : 300) M1/2 [GeV] m0 [GeV] log(m SS ) [GeV] log(m SS ) [GeV] MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.43/53

46 Results ILC+LHC Seesaw type-iii Seesaw III (m 0 : 70, M 1/2 : 400, tanβ : 10, A 0 : 300) Note: log( mss) [GeV] log(m SS ) [GeV] (i) change in scale: m SS (ii) m SS + (m SS ) = M GUT at m SS (6 7) GeV 1 σ c.l. (iii) (m SS ) strongly dependent on m SS Seesaw III (m 0 : 70, M 1/2 : 400, tanβ : 10, A 0 : 300) Seesaw III (m 0 : 70, M 1/2 : 400, tanβ : 10, A 0 : 300) M1/2 [GeV] m0 [GeV] log(m SS ) [GeV] log(m SS ) [GeV] MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.44/53

47 Results LHC only Seesaw type-ii Seesaw II (m 0 : 120, M 1/2 : 720, tanβ : 10, A 0 : 0) Note: log( mss) [GeV] log(m SS ) [GeV] (i) m SS + (m SS ) = M GUT at around m SS GeV 1 σ c.l. (ii) All error bars much larger than for LHC + ILC Seesaw II (m 0 : 120, M 1/2 : 720, tanβ : 10, A 0 : 0) Seesaw II (m 0 : 120, M 1/2 : 720, tanβ : 10, A 0 : 0) M1/2 [GeV] m0 [GeV] log(m SS ) [GeV] log(m SS ) [GeV] MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.45/53

48 Results LHC only Seesaw type-iii log( mss) [GeV] Seesaw III (m 0 : 120, M 1/2 : 720, tanβ : 10, A 0 : 0) log(m SS ) [GeV] Note: (i) m SS + (m SS ) = M GUT at m SS GeV 1 σ c.l. (ii) All error bars much larger than for LHC + ILC Seesaw III (m 0 : 120, M 1/2 : 720, tanβ : 10, A 0 : 0) Seesaw III (m 0 : 120, M 1/2 : 720, tanβ : 10, A 0 : 0) M1/2 [GeV] log(m SS ) [GeV] m0 [GeV] log(m SS ) [GeV] MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.46/53

49 Results LHC only Seesaw II (m 0 : 120, M 1/2 : 720, tanβ : 10, A 0 : 0) Seesaw III (m 0 : 120, M 1/2 : 720, tanβ : 10, A 0 : 0) masses [GeV] m χ 0 1 m τ1 mẽr m χ 0 2 mẽl masses [GeV] m χ 0 1 m τ1 mẽr m χ 0 2 mẽl log(m SS ) [GeV] log(m SS ) [GeV] As function of m SS mass ordering changed! Edge variables crucial for LHC MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.47/53

Fitting msugra with seesaw Seesaw II (m 0 : 70, M 1/2 : 250, tanβ : 10, A 0 : 300) Seesaw III (m 0 : 70, M 1/2 : 250, tanβ : 10, A 0 : 300) 71 70 ILC+LHC

Seesaw II (m 0 : 70, M 1/2 : 250, tanβ : 10, A 0 : 300) Seesaw III (m 0 : 70, M 1/2 : 250, tanβ : 10, A 0 : 300) 75 75 m0 [GeV] 70 65 60 55 only LHC

50 Fitting msugra with seesaw Seesaw II (m 0 : 70, M 1/2 : 250, tanβ : 10, A 0 : 300) Seesaw III (m 0 : 70, M 1/2 : 250, tanβ : 10, A 0 : 300) ILC+LHC observables 71 LHC+ILC observables m0 [GeV] m0 [GeV] log(m SS ) [GeV] log(m SS ) [GeV] Seesaw II (m 0 : 70, M 1/2 : 250, tanβ : 10, A 0 : 300) Seesaw III (m 0 : 70, M 1/2 : 250, tanβ : 10, A 0 : 300) m0 [GeV] only LHC observables log(m SS ) [GeV] m0 [GeV] only LHC observables log(m SS ) [GeV] MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.48/53

51 ILC errors & observables Seesaw II (m 0 : 70, M 1/2 : 400, tanβ : 10, A 0 : 300) log( mss) [GeV] only χ 0 1, ẽ R \ ( l L, t 1 ) \ l L \ t 1 all ILC obs log(m SS ) [GeV] Switching off artificially different observables left-slepton mass measurement most important for m SS < measuring χ l R sufficient MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.49/53

52 LHC errors & observables Seesaw II (m 0 : 70, M 1/2 : 400, tanβ : 10, A 0 : 300) log( mss) [GeV] all LHC obs. \ Edges \(m g m b1/2 ) log(m SS ) [GeV] Switching off artificially different observables Edges at LHC most important Accurate m g m b1 brings significant improvement MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.50/53

53 Conclusions MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.51/53

54 Conclusions MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.51/53

55 V. Backup slides MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.52/53

56 Analysis outline Make forecast of expected sensitivity of mass measurements to M Seesaw with: For any set of msugra + seesaw parameters calculate observables Assume relative errors as in study points Calculate χ 2 - distribution, varying 5 parameters χ approximately expected 1 σ c.l. errors on parameters type-ii seesaw with one pair of 15, 15 type-ii seesaw 3 copies of 24 M All calculations using 2-loop RGEs (SPheno) Two data sets : (i) LHC+ILC and (ii) LHC only MPI-K, Heidelberg, 17/12/2010 p.53/53

Testing supersymmetric neutrino mass models at the LHC

Testing supersymmetric neutrino mass models at the LHC Werner Porod Universität Würzburg Vienna, 7 May W. Porod, Uni. Würzburg p. Overview Neutrinos & lepton flavour violation Signals in models with Dirac