Supersymmetry at the LHC

Transcription

1 at the LHC Heidelberg PSI, 10/2010

2 Standard Model effective theory Building a fundamental theory Fermi 1934: theory of weak interactions [n pe νe] (2 2) transition amplitude A G F E 2 probability/ unitarity violation pre-80s effective theory for E < 600 GeV

3 Standard Model effective theory Building a fundamental theory Fermi 1934: theory of weak interactions [n pe νe] (2 2) transition amplitude A G F E 2 probability/ unitarity violation pre-80s effective theory for E < 600 GeV

4 Standard Model effective theory Building a fundamental theory Fermi 1934: theory of weak interactions [n pe νe] (2 2) transition amplitude A G F E 2 probability/ unitarity violation pre-80s effective theory for E < 600 GeV Yukawa 1935: massive particles Fermi s theory for E M four fermions unitary for E M: A g 2 E 2 /(E 2 M 2 ) unitarity violation in WW WW current effective theory for E < 1.2 TeV [LHC energy!!]

5 Standard Model effective theory Building a fundamental theory Fermi 1934: theory of weak interactions [n pe νe] (2 2) transition amplitude A G F E 2 probability/ unitarity violation pre-80s effective theory for E < 600 GeV Yukawa 1935: massive particles Fermi s theory for E M four fermions unitary for E M: A g 2 E 2 /(E 2 M 2 ) unitarity violation in WW WW current effective theory for E < 1.2 TeV [LHC energy!!] Higgs 1964: spontaneous symmetry breaking unitarity for massive W, Z unitarity for massive fermions fundamental scalar below TeV

6 Standard Model effective theory Building a fundamental theory Fermi 1934: theory of weak interactions [n pe νe] (2 2) transition amplitude A G F E 2 probability/ unitarity violation pre-80s effective theory for E < 600 GeV Yukawa 1935: massive particles Fermi s theory for E M four fermions unitary for E M: A g 2 E 2 /(E 2 M 2 ) unitarity violation in WW WW current effective theory for E < 1.2 TeV [LHC energy!!] Higgs 1964: spontaneous symmetry breaking unitarity for massive W, Z unitarity for massive fermions fundamental scalar below TeV t Hooft & Veltman 1971: renormalizability beware of 1/M couplings! theory valid to high energy truly fundamental theory

7 Standard Model effective theory What is the Standard Model? gauge theory with local SU(3) SU(2) U(1) massless SU(3) and U(1) gauge bosons massive W, Z bosons [Higgs mechanism] Dirac fermions in doublets with masses = Yukawas generation mixing in quark and neutrino sector renormalizability L m 2 W WµW µ m f ΨΨ + ghψψ? + ghw µνw µν /M fundamental theory: particle content, interactions, renormalizability

8 Standard Model effective theory What is the Standard Model? gauge theory with local SU(3) SU(2) U(1) massless SU(3) and U(1) gauge bosons massive W, Z bosons [Higgs mechanism] Dirac fermions in doublets with masses = Yukawas generation mixing in quark and neutrino sector renormalizability L m 2 W WµW µ m f ΨΨ + ghψψ? + ghw µνw µν /M fundamental theory: particle content, interactions, renormalizability

9 Standard Model effective theory What is the Standard Model? gauge theory with local SU(3) SU(2) U(1) massless SU(3) and U(1) gauge bosons massive W, Z bosons [Higgs mechanism] Dirac fermions in doublets with masses = Yukawas generation mixing in quark and neutrino sector renormalizability L m 2 W WµW µ m f ΨΨ + ghψψ? + ghw µνw µν /M fundamental theory: particle content, interactions, renormalizability And how complete is it experimentally? dark matter? [scale of new physics? WIMP miracle?] quark mixing flavor physics? [new operators above 10 4 GeV?] neutrino masses and mixing? [see-saw at GeV?] matter antimatter asymmetry? [universe mostly matter?] gauge coupling unification? gravity missing? [mostly negligible but definitely unrenormalizable] large cut-off scale unavoidable, size negotiable, renormalizability desirable all experimental, so who the hell cares???

10 Standard Model effective theory Theorists do!! H t H W quantum corrections to Higgs mass... [ t E < 1]

11 Standard Model effective theory Theorists do!! quantum corrections to Higgs mass......imply effective field theory desaster m 2 H m2 H g2 3 (4π) 2 2 Λ 2 m 2 W h i m 2 H + 2m2 W + m2 Z 4m2 t + H t H W Higgs mass pulled to cut-off Λ where unitarization does not work hierarchy problem Higgs without stabilization incomplete

12 Standard Model effective theory Theorists do!! quantum corrections to Higgs mass......imply effective field theory desaster m 2 H m2 H g2 3 (4π) 2 2 Λ 2 m 2 W h i m 2 H + 2m2 W + m2 Z 4m2 t + H t H W Higgs mass pulled to cut-off Λ where unitarization does not work hierarchy problem Higgs without stabilization incomplete Starting from data which......indicates light Higgs [e-w precision data]...indicates effective Standard Model easy solution: counter term but against idea of symmetries or new physics at TeV scale: supersymmetry extra dimensions little Higgs composite Higgs, TopColor YourFavoriteNewPhysics... typically cancellation by new particles or discussing away high scale beautiful concepts, models in baroque state

13 Standard Model effective theory Theorists do!! quantum corrections to Higgs mass......imply effective field theory desaster m 2 H m2 H g2 3 (4π) 2 2 Λ 2 m 2 W h i m 2 H + 2m2 W + m2 Z 4m2 t + H t H W Higgs mass pulled to cut-off Λ where unitarization does not work hierarchy problem Higgs without stabilization incomplete Expectations from the LHC [Uli Baur s rule: always new physics at new scales] find light Higgs? find new physics stabilizing Higgs mass? see dark matter candidate?

14 Political motivation: consideration for early LHC 10 LHC events in 10 pb 1 not ruled out by LEP and flavor physics not ruled out by Tevatron for 10 fb 1 [shaded red] decay to (leptonic) background-free signatures 2 1 production via g 2 eff Gµν G µν [similar for q q, qq] [Bauer, Ligeti, Schmaltz, Thaler, Walker] X X Y X Y1 Y2... uu Resonance Reach geff 1 uu Resonance Reach geff 1 gg Resonance Reach geff 1 16Π TeV 6 TeV 5 TeV TeV 4 TeV TeV LHC Luminosity pb TeV 3 TeV 2 TeV LHC Luminosity pb TeV 2 TeV 1 TeV LHC Luminosity pb GeV 500 GeV TeV LHC Center of Mass Energy TeV LHC Center of Mass Energy TeV LHC Center of Mass Energy TeV

15 Political motivation: consideration for early LHC 10 LHC events in 10 pb 1 not ruled out by LEP and flavor physics not ruled out by Tevatron for 10 fb 1 [shaded red] decay to (leptonic) background-free signatures 2 1 production via g 2 eff Gµν G µν [similar for q q, qq] [Bauer, Ligeti, Schmaltz, Thaler, Walker] not a supermodel: Z ll [LEP limits g eff 2 BR l < (m Z /8 TeV) 2 ] not a supermodel: squark/leptoquark pairs [2-particle phase space]

16 Political motivation: consideration for early LHC 10 LHC events in 10 pb 1 not ruled out by LEP and flavor physics not ruled out by Tevatron for 10 fb 1 [shaded red] decay to (leptonic) background-free signatures 2 1 production via g 2 eff Gµν G µν [similar for q q, qq] [Bauer, Ligeti, Schmaltz, Thaler, Walker] not a supermodel: Z ll [LEP limits g eff 2 BR l < (m Z /8 TeV) 2 ] not a supermodel: squark/leptoquark pairs [2-particle phase space] Z or q q resonance decaying to leptons or new stable particles [ heavy leptons ] diquarks/lepto-diquarks uu D l L l + 2j R parity violating squarks b c b χ 1 l + l l 3j

17 Political motivation: consideration for early LHC 10 LHC events in 10 pb 1 not ruled out by LEP and flavor physics not ruled out by Tevatron for 10 fb 1 [shaded red] decay to (leptonic) background-free signatures 2 1 production via g 2 eff Gµν G µν [similar for q q, qq] [Bauer, Ligeti, Schmaltz, Thaler, Walker] not a supermodel: Z ll [LEP limits g eff 2 BR l < (m Z /8 TeV) 2 ] not a supermodel: squark/leptoquark pairs [2-particle phase space] Z or q q resonance decaying to leptons or new stable particles [ heavy leptons ] diquarks/lepto-diquarks uu D l L l + 2j R parity violating squarks b c b χ 1 l + l l 3j unconvincing LHC below 100 pb 1 a Standard Model machine

18 Physics motivation: supersymmetry H t H W partner for each Standard Model particle cancellation because of different spins obviously broken by masses, mechanism unknown assume dark matter, stable lightest partner LHC: measure spectrum with missing energy

19 Physics motivation: supersymmetry H t H W partner for each Standard Model particle cancellation because of different spins obviously broken by masses, mechanism unknown assume dark matter, stable lightest partner LHC: measure spectrum with missing energy Particle spectrum spin d.o.f. fermion f L, f R 1/2 1+1 sfermion fl, f R gluon Gµ 1 n-2 gluino g 1/2 2 Majorana gauge bosons γ, Z Higgs bosons h o, H o, A o 0 3 neutralinos χ o i 1/2 4 2 dark matter gauge bosons W ± Higgs bosons H ± 0 2 charginos χ ± i 1/2 2 4

20 Signatures New physics at the LHC 1 discovery inclusive signals for new physics 2 measurements spectrum, quantum numbers 3 parameters TeV scale Lagrangian, underlying theory approach independent of new physics model SUSY signals at Tevatron production of strongly interacting particles cascade decay to DM candidate jets and /E T : pp q q, g g, q g like sign dileptons: pp g g funny tops: pp t 1 t 1 tri-leptons: pp χ 0 2 χ 1 [ χ 0 2 l l χ 0 1 l l; χ 1 χ0 1 l ν]

21 Signatures New physics at the LHC 1 discovery inclusive signals for new physics 2 measurements spectrum, quantum numbers 3 parameters TeV scale Lagrangian, underlying theory approach independent of new physics model LHC searches beyond inclusive searches lots of strongly interacting particles general theme: try to survive QCD rate prediction not α s/(4π) 0.01 (collinear) jets everywhere better observables needed hep-ph/hep-ex cross listings crucial aim at underlying theory ! o + 2! 1 # # " t 1t " 1! 2o q! o 2 g Prospino2 (T Plehn) % tot [pb]: pp & g g, q q ", t 1t " 1,! 2 o! 1+, # # ",! 2o g,! 2o q q q " g g $S = 14 TeV NLO LO m [GeV]

22 Signatures New physics at the LHC 1 discovery inclusive signals for new physics 2 measurements spectrum, quantum numbers 3 parameters TeV scale Lagrangian, underlying theory approach independent of new physics model LHC searches beyond inclusive searches lots of strongly interacting particles general theme: try to survive QCD rate prediction not α s/(4π) 0.01 (collinear) jets everywhere better observables needed hep-ph/hep-ex cross listings crucial aim at underlying theory ! o + 2! 1 # # " t 1t " 1! 2o q! o 2 g Prospino2 (T Plehn) % tot [pb]: pp & g g, q q ", t 1t " 1,! 2 o! 1+, # # ",! 2o g,! 2o q q q " g g $S = 14 TeV NLO LO m [GeV]

23 Signatures New physics at the LHC 1 discovery inclusive signals for new physics 2 measurements spectrum, quantum numbers 3 parameters TeV scale Lagrangian, underlying theory approach independent of new physics model LHC searches beyond inclusive searches lots of strongly interacting particles general theme: try to survive QCD rate prediction not α s/(4π) 0.01 (collinear) jets everywhere better observables needed hep-ph/hep-ex cross listings crucial aim at underlying theory ! o + 2! 1 # # " t 1t " 1! 2o q! o 2 g Prospino2 (T Plehn) % tot [pb]: pp & g g, q q ", t 1t " 1,! 2 o! 1+, # # ",! 2o g,! 2o q q q " g g $S = 14 TeV NLO LO m [GeV]

24 Signatures New physics at the LHC 1 discovery inclusive signals for new physics 2 measurements spectrum, quantum numbers 3 parameters TeV scale Lagrangian, underlying theory approach independent of new physics model LHC searches beyond inclusive searches lots of strongly interacting particles general theme: try to survive QCD rate prediction not α s/(4π) 0.01 (collinear) jets everywhere better observables needed hep-ph/hep-ex cross listings crucial aim at underlying theory σ tot [pb]: pp SUSY χ o + 2 χ 1 χ 2o g t 1t 1* Prospino2.1 S = 7 TeV q g q q q q * g g 10-3 ν eν e* χ o 2 q LO m average [GeV]

25 Mass measurements Exercise in relativistic kinematics more than 10 7 squark gluino events at 14 TeV all decays to hard jets, missing energy, (leptons) example g b b χ 0 2 b b µ + µ b b χ 0 1 thresholds & edges [Cambridge, ATLAS TDR] m 2 ij = E i E j p i p j cos θ ij g b b ~ χ o 2 b µ µ µ ~ o χ 1 m 2 χ 0 < m 2 0 m 2 l µµ < 2 m l new physics masses from cascade decays m 2 l m 2 χ 0 1 m l

26 2 1 1 LHC Mass measurements Exercise in relativistic kinematics more than 10 7 squark gluino events at 14 TeV all decays to hard jets, missing energy, (leptons) example g b b χ 0 2 b b µ + µ b b χ 0 1 g b b ~ χ o 2 b µ µ µ ~ o χ 1 thresholds & edges [Cambridge, ATLAS TDR] m 2 ij = E i E j p i p j cos θ ij m 2 χ 0 < m 2 0 µµ < 2 m l m 2 l new physics masses from cascade decays m 2 l m2 χ 0 1 m l Masses from cascade decays [Gjelsten, Miller, Osland, Raklev...] all decay jets b quarks [otherwise dead by QCD] what s more in m ij? m " 0! 1 m~ l R m " 0! 2 m~ - m 0 q " L! 1 - m! "0 l R m~ - m! "0 m! "0 b ~ 1 - m m g ~ m~ - m 0 b " 1! 1 m~ - m g " 0! 1 m~ q L m~ g m~ b Sparticle masses and mass differences [GeV]

27 Spin measurements g ũ! +! 0 When will I believe it s SUSY? gluinos: strongly interacting Majorana fermions Majorana = its own antiparticle first jet in gluino decay: q or q final state leptons with charges 50% 50% gluino = like sign dileptons in SUSY like events µ + g ũ *! " µ "

28 Spin measurements When will I believe it s SUSY? gluinos: strongly interacting Majorana fermions Majorana = its own antiparticle first jet in gluino decay: q or q g ũ! + µ + g ũ *! "! 0 final state leptons with charges 50% 50% gluino = like sign dileptons in SUSY like events µ " All new physics is hypothesis testing b b µ µ loop hole: gluino is Majorana if fermion [Alves, TP] assume gluino cascade observed straw-man model where gluino is a boson: universal extra dimensions g b ~ χ 2 o µ ~ o χ 1 [spectra degenerate ignore; cross section larger ignore] compare angular correlations L d%/d#$ bb [events/bin] SUSY UED:! (1) = 0, "/2 UED:! (1) = "/ L = 100 fb -1 SPS1a Mass Spectrum #$ bb [deg]

29 Spin measurements When will I believe it s SUSY? gluinos: strongly interacting Majorana fermions Majorana = its own antiparticle first jet in gluino decay: q or q final state leptons with charges 50% 50% gluino = like sign dileptons in SUSY like events Asymmetries [Smillie, PhD 2006; Barr, Lester, Webber] shorter squark decay chain shape between endpoints: ˆm = m qµ/mqµ max dominant pp q g with q : q 2 : 1 production asymmetry with reduced errors similar for gluino decay A(m µj ) = σ(jµ+ ) σ(jµ ) σ(jµ + ) + σ(jµ ) gluino = fermion with like-sign dileptons sin θ/2 q µ µ q ~! 2 o µ ~ o! 1

30 from boosted particles 1 decay products too collinear to resolve 2 dangerous signal combinatorics 3 improved multi-jet mass reconstruction

31 from boosted particles 1 decay products too collinear to resolve 2 dangerous signal combinatorics 3 improved multi-jet mass reconstruction Boosted particles for LHC 1994 boosted W 2 jets from heavy Higgs [Seymour] 1994 boosted t 3 jets [Seymour] 2002 boosted W 2 jets from strongly interacting WW [Butterworth, Cox, Forshaw] 2006 boosted t 3 jets from heavy resonances [Agashe, Belyaev, Krupovnickas, Perez, Virzi] 2008 boosted H b b [Butterworth, Davison, Rubin, Salam] 2009 boosted χ jets in R parity violating SUSY [Butterworth, Ellis, Raklev, Salam] 2009 boosted t 3 jets from top partners [TP, Salam, Spannowsky, Takeuchi]

32 from boosted particles 1 decay products too collinear to resolve 2 dangerous signal combinatorics 3 improved multi-jet mass reconstruction Boosted particles for LHC 1994 boosted W 2 jets from heavy Higgs [Seymour] 1994 boosted t 3 jets [Seymour] 2002 boosted W 2 jets from strongly interacting WW [Butterworth, Cox, Forshaw] 2006 boosted t 3 jets from heavy resonances [Agashe, Belyaev, Krupovnickas, Perez, Virzi] 2008 boosted H b b [Butterworth, Davison, Rubin, Salam] 2009 boosted χ jets in R parity violating SUSY [Butterworth, Ellis, Raklev, Salam] 2009 boosted t 3 jets from top partners [TP, Salam, Spannowsky, Takeuchi]

33 Boosted Higgs Hadronic Higgs decays [Butterworth, Davison, Rubin, Salam] S: large m bb, boost-dependent R bb B: large m bb only for large R bb S/B: large m bb and small R bb, so boosted Higgs fat Higgs jet R bb 2m H /p T < /σ tot dσ/dp T 10-2 tth: p T,t 10-3 tth: p T,H 10-4 Wjj: p T,j WH: p T,H p T [GeV]

34 Boosted Higgs Hadronic Higgs decays [Butterworth, Davison, Rubin, Salam] S: large m bb, boost-dependent R bb B: large m bb only for large R bb S/B: large m bb and small R bb, so boosted Higgs fat Higgs jet R bb 2m H /p T < 1 challenge to jet algorithms [pp WH/ZH] σ S /fb σ B /fb S/ B 30 C/A, R = 1.2, MD-F k, R = 1.0, y cut SISCone, R =

35 Boosted Higgs Hadronic Higgs decays [Butterworth, Davison, Rubin, Salam] S: large m bb, boost-dependent R bb B: large m bb only for large R bb S/B: large m bb and small R bb, so boosted Higgs fat Higgs jet R bb 2m H /p T < 1 Higgs tag plus top tag [TP, Salam, Spannowsky] t th thought dead for many reasons tag top and tag Higgs trigger on lepton that s pretty much it! side bin in continuum t tb b promising for 100 fb 1 SUSY applications? dσ/dm b b dσ/dm b b [fb/5 GeV] [fb/5 GeV] t th t tz t tjj t tb b t th t tz t tjj t tb b m b b 180 [GeV]

36 Boosted top Highly boosted top quarks identify hadronic tops with p T 800 GeV isolation and b tagging challenging [Kaplan, Rehermann, Schwartz, Tweedie; Princeton, Seattle...] C/A algorithm with p T drop criterion all top decay jets identified 3 kinematic constraints: m W, m t, cos θ hel [no b tag] top mass included, no sidebins

37 Boosted top Highly boosted top quarks identify hadronic tops with p T 800 GeV isolation and b tagging challenging [Kaplan, Rehermann, Schwartz, Tweedie; Princeton, Seattle...] C/A algorithm with p T drop criterion all top decay jets identified 3 kinematic constraints: m W, m t, cos θ hel [no b tag] top mass included, no sidebins Standard Model: HEPTopTagger [TP, Salam, Spannowsky, Takeuchi] extend lower p T 250 GeV realistic for t t in Standard Model start like Higgs tagger [mass drop, R = 1.5] kinematic selection: m jjj, m (1), m (2) jj jj [no b tag, filtered] Number of tops QCD top tagged top W+jets p [GeV] T

38 Boosted top Highly boosted top quarks identify hadronic tops with p T 800 GeV isolation and b tagging challenging [Kaplan, Rehermann, Schwartz, Tweedie; Princeton, Seattle...] C/A algorithm with p T drop criterion all top decay jets identified 3 kinematic constraints: m W, m t, cos θ hel [no b tag] top mass included, no sidebins R bjj Standard Model: HEPTopTagger [TP, Salam, Spannowsky, Takeuchi] extend lower p T 250 GeV realistic for t t in Standard Model start like Higgs tagger [mass drop, R = 1.5] kinematic selection: m jjj, m (1), m (2) jj jj [no b tag, filtered] R bjj P T [GeV] P T [GeV] 1

39 Boosted top Highly boosted top quarks identify hadronic tops with p T 800 GeV isolation and b tagging challenging [Kaplan, Rehermann, Schwartz, Tweedie; Princeton, Seattle...] C/A algorithm with p T drop criterion all top decay jets identified 3 kinematic constraints: m W, m t, cos θ hel [no b tag] top mass included, no sidebins Standard Model: HEPTopTagger [TP, Salam, Spannowsky, Takeuchi] extend lower p T 250 GeV realistic for t t in Standard Model start like Higgs tagger [mass drop, R = 1.5] kinematic selection: m jjj, m (1), m (2) jj jj top reconstruction possible first tests by ATLAS [Kasieczka & Schätzel] hadronic top like tagged b [no b tag, filtered] Efficiencies inside fat jet tagged 0.2 tagged (unmatched) p [GeV] T

40 Stops Stop pairs [TP, Spannowsky, Takeuchi, Zerwas] t stop most important particle for hierarchy problem comparison to other top partners [Meade & Reece] dark matter means difficult semi-leptonic channel purely hadronic: t t t χ 0 1 t χ 0 1 [CMS TDR: leptons as spontaneous life guards] t events in 1 fb 1 t 1 t 1 t t QCD W +jets Z +jets S/B S/ B 10 fb 1 [ GeV] m t p T,j > 200 GeV, l veto n/a /E T > 150 GeV first top tag second top tag b tag m T 2 > 250 GeV

41 Stops Stop pairs [TP, Spannowsky, Takeuchi, Zerwas] t stop most important particle for hierarchy problem comparison to other top partners [Meade & Reece] dark matter means difficult semi-leptonic channel purely hadronic: t t t χ 0 1 t χ 0 1 stop mass from m T 2 endpoint [like sleptons or sbottoms] not even a hard analysis [CMS TDR: leptons as spontaneous life guards] [/20 GeV] dσ dm T2 σ tt t test MLSP =98 GeV M stop =340 GeV 0.2 M stop =540 GeV M T2 [GeV]

42 Model parameters From kinematics to weak scale parameters parameters: weak-scale Lagrangian measurements: kinematics, production or decay rates,... flavor, dark matter, electroweak constraints,... errors: general correlation, statistics & systematics & theory problem in grid: no local maximum problem in fit: no global maximum problem in interpretation: secondary maxima Probability maps of new physics want to evaluate probability of model being true p(m d) can compute likelihood map p(d m) over m Bayesian: p(m d) p(d m) p(m) with theorists bias p(m) [cosmology, BSM] frequentist: best fitting point max m p(d m) [flavor, Higgs]

43 Model parameters From kinematics to weak scale parameters parameters: weak-scale Lagrangian measurements: kinematics, production or decay rates,... flavor, dark matter, electroweak constraints,... errors: general correlation, statistics & systematics & theory problem in grid: no local maximum problem in fit: no global maximum problem in interpretation: secondary maxima Bayesian probabilities vs profile likelihood [Allanach, Cranmer, Lester, Weber] Which is the most likely parameter point? How does dark matter annihilate/couple? discussions about scientific childish! m 0 (TeV) M 1/2 (TeV) L/L(max)

44 SUSY parameters MSSM map for LHC [SFitter: Lafaye, TP, Rauch, Zerwas; Fittino] four neutralinos with (diagonal) mass parameters M 1, M 2, µ three of four mass-eigenstate neutralinos observed alternative solutions in parameter space µ e+0 1e M 1

45 SUSY parameters MSSM map for LHC [SFitter: Lafaye, TP, Rauch, Zerwas; Fittino] four neutralinos with (diagonal) mass parameters M 1, M 2, µ three of four mass-eigenstate neutralinos observed alternative solutions in parameter space 6e-07 5e-07 4e /! 2 3e-07 1/! e e M 1 M 1 quality of fit not useful: all the same... µ < 0 µ > 0 M M µ tan β M M µl M µr A t ( ) A t (+) m A m t let s try to not miss too many particles... [stop pairs]

46 Testing a Renormalization group analysis [Adams, Kneur, Lafaye, TP, Rauch, Zerwas; SFitter+SuSpect] are all mass parameters defined at high scales? [tachyonic solutions] do they unify? where is the scale? what are the unified fudamental parameters?

47 Testing a Renormalization group analysis [Adams, Kneur, Lafaye, TP, Rauch, Zerwas; SFitter+SuSpect] are all mass parameters defined at high scales? [tachyonic solutions] do they unify? where is the scale? what are the unified fudamental parameters? Starting from LHC results measuring m 1/2 : 8-fold degeneracy solved [modulo sign of µ] M gaugino (GeV) M1 M2 M log(q/gev)

48 Testing a Renormalization group analysis [Adams, Kneur, Lafaye, TP, Rauch, Zerwas; SFitter+SuSpect] are all mass parameters defined at high scales? [tachyonic solutions] do they unify? where is the scale? what are the unified fudamental parameters? Starting from LHC results measuring m 1/2 : 8-fold degeneracy solved [modulo sign of µ] M gaugino (GeV) M1 M2 M log(q/gev)

49 Testing a Renormalization group analysis [Adams, Kneur, Lafaye, TP, Rauch, Zerwas; SFitter+SuSpect] are all mass parameters defined at high scales? [tachyonic solutions] do they unify? where is the scale? what are the unified fudamental parameters? Starting from LHC results measuring m 1/2 : 8-fold degeneracy solved [modulo sign of µ] M gaugino (GeV) M1 M2 M log(q/gev)

50 Testing a Renormalization group analysis [Adams, Kneur, Lafaye, TP, Rauch, Zerwas; SFitter+SuSpect] are all mass parameters defined at high scales? [tachyonic solutions] do they unify? where is the scale? what are the unified fudamental parameters? Starting from LHC results measuring m 1/2 : 8-fold degeneracy solved [modulo sign of µ] M gaugino (GeV) M1 M2 M log(q/gev)

51 Testing a Renormalization group analysis [Adams, Kneur, Lafaye, TP, Rauch, Zerwas; SFitter+SuSpect] are all mass parameters defined at high scales? [tachyonic solutions] do they unify? where is the scale? what are the unified fudamental parameters? Starting from LHC results measuring m 1/2 : 8-fold degeneracy solved [modulo sign of µ] M gaugino (GeV) Gaugino masses M1 M2 M log(q/gev)

52 Testing a Renormalization group analysis [Adams, Kneur, Lafaye, TP, Rauch, Zerwas; SFitter+SuSpect] are all mass parameters defined at high scales? [tachyonic solutions] do they unify? where is the scale? what are the unified fudamental parameters? Starting from LHC results measuring m 1/2 : 8-fold degeneracy solved [modulo sign of µ] measuring m 0 : bottom-up vs top-down M sfermions (GeV) selectron and smuon L selectron and smuon R light squarks L light squarks R M sfermions (GeV) selectron and smuon L selectron and smuon R light squarks L light squarks R log(q/gev) log(q/gev)

53 Testing a Renormalization group analysis [Adams, Kneur, Lafaye, TP, Rauch, Zerwas; SFitter+SuSpect] are all mass parameters defined at high scales? [tachyonic solutions] do they unify? where is the scale? what are the unified fudamental parameters? Starting from LHC results measuring m 1/2 : 8-fold degeneracy solved [modulo sign of µ] measuring m 0 : bottom-up vs top-down measured high-scale masses m top-down m bottom-up log M /GeV m 1/2 = 250 GeV ±0.29 m 0 = 100 GeV ±0.6 one more aspects to better do right

54 New physics at the LHC New physics at the TeV scale there is physics beyond our Standard Model Higgs and new physics the same question a well-studied example solves the hierarchy problem easily explains dark matter exciting LHC predictions LHC more than discovery machine anomalies first cascade decays rule jets can be useful LHC to find and measure whatever there is

55 New physics at the LHC missing cascade mono- lepton di-jet top WW/ZZ W top charged displ. multi- spherical SUSY (heavy grav.) (p.17,26) SUSY (light grav.) (p.17,27) large extra dim (p.39) universal extra dim (p.47) technicolor (vanilla) (p.51) topcolor/top seesaw (p.53,54) little Higgs (w/o T) (p.55,58) little Higgs (w T) (p.55,58) warped extra dim (IR SM) (p.61,63) warped extra dim (bulk SM) (p.61,64) Higgsless/comp. Higgs (p.69,73) hidden valleys (p.75) energy decays jets/photon resnce resnce resnce resnce resnce partner tracks vertex photons events (p.89) (p.91) (p.15) (p.109) (p.109) (p.120) (p.15) (p.93) (p.116) (p.123) (p.123) (p.29) (p.47,76) [arxiv: , Morrissey, TP, Tait]

56

57 Higgs tagger for t th [TP, Salam, Spannowsky] uncluster one-by-one: j j 1 + j 2 [C/A algorithm, R = 1.2] 1 mass drop: m j1 > 0.8m j means QCD; discard j 2 2 soft m j1 < 30 GeV means QCD; keep j 1 double b tag [possibly add balance criterion] three leading J = p T,1 p T,2 ( R 12 ) 4 vs mbb filt no mass constraint side bin jets everywhere; underlying event and pileup deadly filter reconstruction jets [Butterworth Salam] decay plus one add l jet at R filt R jj /2 reconstruct masses w/ QCD jet