Indirect constraints on the (C)MSSM parameter space Frédéric Ronga ETH Zurich Switzerland CKM Workshop, Rome September 11, 2008 Contents 1 Introduction 2 Combining today s constraints 3 Prospects for LHC discoveries 4 Sensitivity to individual observables 5 Conclusion
Introduction The LHC has turned on! Busy beam event lighting up the CMS detector, Sep. 10, 2008 last moment to circumscribe the SUSY playground for LHC... global fit to today s experimental data F.J. Ronga (ETHZ) CMSSM CKM2008 2 / 14
Introduction Using external constraints: the CMSSM case Today s external constraints Low Energy (precision) data: Flavour Physics (in particular B Physics) Other low-energy observables (e.g., g 2) High energy (precision) data: Precision electroweak observables (e.g., m top, m W ) Cosmology/Astroparticle data: e.g., relic density How to exploit this information? state-of-the-art theoretical predictions ( tools ) a framework to consistently combine the tools Collaboration between experiment and theory Buchmüller, Oliver (CERN) Exp. De Roeck, Albert (CERN & Uni. Antwerpen) Exp. Flächer, Henning (CERN) Exp. Isidori, Gino (INFN Frascati) Theo. Paradisi, Paride (Tech. Uni. München) Theo. Weiglein, Georg (Durham) Theo. Cavanaugh, Richard (Uni. of Florida) Exp. Ellis, John (CERN) Theo. Heinemeyer, Sven (Santander) Theo. Olive, Keith (Uni. of Minnesota) Theo. Ronga, Frédéric (CERN) Exp. F.J. Ronga (ETHZ) CMSSM CKM2008 3 / 14
Combining today s constraints
Combining today s constraints Common framework for indirect constraints Steering Code Input parameters e.g. M 0, m 1/2, a0, tan(ß), sign(µ) Spectrum calculators SoftSusy Higgs sector FeynHiggs SLHA Predictors SuSpect Cosmology MicrOMEGAs DarkSUSY Consistency Relies on the SUSY Les Houches Accord (SLHA) Modularity Compare calculations Add/remove predictions State-of-the art calculations Direct use of code from experts Flavour Physics Isidori et al. MicrOMEGAS EWK Physics SUSYPope FeynHiggs Predictions Legend Data Components Modules F.J. Ronga (ETHZ) CMSSM CKM2008 4 / 14
Combining today s constraints Use-case: fit today s data (χ 2 minimisation) Steering Code Input parameters e.g. M 0, m 1/2, a0, tan(ß), sign(µ) Spectrum calculators SoftSusy Higgs sector FeynHiggs SLHA Predictors SuSpect Cosmology MicrOMEGAs DarkSUSY Constrain SUSY parameter space Even more interesting when combined with discoveries!... Various modes: Overall best minimum (Minuit) χ 2 scan Markov chain Monte Carlo Flavour Physics Isidori et al. MicrOMEGAS EWK Physics SUSYPope FeynHiggs χ 2 Predictions References Legend Data Components Modules F.J. Ronga (ETHZ) CMSSM CKM2008 5 / 14
Combining today s constraints χ 2 fit of the CMSSM parameters Multi-parameter χ 2 fit: χ 2 = N i (C i P i ) 2 M σ(c i ) 2 + σ(p i ) 2 + j (f obs SM j f fit SM j ) 2 σ(f SMj ) 2 C i : experimental constraint P i : predicted value for a given CMSSM parameter set fitting for all CMSSM parameters: m 0 common scalar mass (at GUT scale) m 1/2 common gaugino mass (at GUT scale) a 0 tri-linear mass parameter (at GUT scale) tan β ratio of Higgs vacuum expectation values sign(µ) sign of Higgs mixing parameter (fixed) including relevant SM uncertainties (m top, m Z, α (5) had ) Details in O. Buchmüller et al., PLB 657/1-3 pp. 87-94 F.J. Ronga (ETHZ) CMSSM CKM2008 6 / 14
Combining today s constraints List of available predictions [relevant today already] Low energy observables R(b sγ) Isidori & Paradisi micromegas R(B τν) Isidori & Paradisi BR(K τν) Isidori & Paradisi R(B X s ll) Isidori & Paradisi R(K πν ν) Isidori & Paradisi BR(B s ll) Isidori & Paradisi micromegas BR(B d ll) Isidori & Paradisi R( m s ) Isidori & Paradisi R( m s )/R( m d ) Isidori & Paradisi R( m K ) Isidori & Paradisi R( 0 (K γ)) SuperIso (g 2) FeynHiggs Higgs sector observables FeynHiggs m light h Cosmology observables Ωh 2 micromegas DarkSUSY DarkSUSY σ SI p Electroweak observables α (5) had (m2 Z ) SUSY-Pope m Z SUSY-Pope σhad 0 SUSY-Pope R l SUSY-Pope A fb (l) SUSY-Pope A l (P τ ) SUSY-Pope R b SUSY-Pope R c SUSY-Pope A fb (b) SUSY-Pope A fb (c) SUSY-Pope A b SUSY-Pope A c SUSY-Pope A l (SLD) SUSY-Pope sin 2 θw(q l fb ) SUSY-Pope m W SUSY-Pope SUSY-Pope m t not used in this study F.J. Ronga (ETHZ) CMSSM CKM2008 7 / 14
Combining today s constraints What s new? Extensive sampling of the CMSSM parameter space: 25 million Markov chain Monte Carlo points all constraints included (in particular from flavour physics) overall best fit point determined using Minuit All constraints updated to most recent values W and top masses (latest Tevatron results) B physics (B τν, b sγ) g 2 Prospects for LHC discoveries Influence of various constraints Re-weighting of χ 2 on 25 million points removal/inclusion of constraints, scaling of constraints error Details in: O. Buchmüller et al., arxiv:0808.4128 F.J. Ronga (ETHZ) CMSSM CKM2008 8 / 14
Prospects for LHC discoveries
Prospects for LHC discoveries Sparticle searches M 1/2 [GeV] 1000 900 τ LSP 1 5σ discovery reach 1/fb tanβ = 10, A 0 = 0, µ> 0 jets + MET (CMS) 800 0 lepton + 4 jets (ATLAS) 700 1 lepton + 4 jets (ATLAS) 600 SS 2µ (CMS) 500 Higgs (2/fb ) (CMS) 400 full CMSSM 300 parameter space 68% C.L. 200 95% C.L. 100 NO EWSB 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 M 0 [GeV] F.J. Ronga (ETHZ) CMSSM CKM2008 9 / 14
Prospects for LHC discoveries Sparticle searches M 1/2 [GeV] 1000 900 600 500 "# LSP 1 5σ discovery reach jets + MET (CMS) tan! = 10, A 0 = 0, µ > 0 1/fb @ 14 TeV 800 100/pb @ 14 TeV 700 50/pb @ 10 TeV If CMSSM is realised in nature, a signal will be seen fairly early! 400 300 200 100 full CMSSM parameter space 68% C.L. 95% C.L. Otherwise, exclusion will be possible... NO EWSB 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 M 0 [GeV] Including direct searches at LEP and Tevatron (dashed areas). F.J. Ronga (ETHZ) CMSSM CKM2008 9 / 14
Prospects for LHC discoveries Prediction for B s µµ Best fit point: BR(B s µµ) = 2.9 10 9 "!!. / 0120 %4 "&' &' 4 3 -, Preliminary! + * ) ( & ' %&' ' &' (' )' *' +',' -'!"#$!! F.J. Ronga (ETHZ) CMSSM CKM2008 10 / 14
Prospects for LHC discoveries Prediction for B s µµ Best fit point: BR(B s µµ) = 2.9 10 9 / "!!. 0120 &' 4 3 -, + * ) ( %4 "&' Preliminary! If CMSSM (and minimal flavour violation) is realised in nature this will not be a free lunch... & ' %&' ' &' (' )' *' +',' -'!"#$!! LHCb reach, from P. Koppenburg s talk on Tuesday F.J. Ronga (ETHZ) CMSSM CKM2008 10 / 14
/ Prospects for LHC discoveries Prediction for B s µµ Best fit point: BR(B s µµ) = 2.9 10 9 "!!. 0120 &' 4 3 -, + * ) ( %4 "&' Preliminary! If CMSSM (and minimal flavour violation) is realised in nature this will not be a free lunch... & ' %&' ' &' (' )' *' +',' -'!"#$!! LHCb reach, from P. Koppenburg s talk on Tuesday But: still an order of magnitude to go. Plenty of room for NP discovery! F.J. Ronga (ETHZ) CMSSM CKM2008 10 / 14
Sensitivity to individual observables
Sensitivity to individual observables How big is the influence of cosmological data? Compare 95% CL with/without WMAP constraint M 1/2 [GeV] 1200 1000 with WMAP without WMAP [GeV] M 0 1200 1000 with WMAP without WMAP 800 800 600 600 400 400 200 200 0 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 M 0 [GeV] 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 tanβ Enforces correlation between m 0 and tan β (coannihilation strips ) Moderate influence F.J. Ronga (ETHZ) CMSSM CKM2008 11 / 14
Sensitivity to individual observables How big is the influence of b sγ? Compare 95% CL in various error scaling scenarios m 1/2 [GeV] 1200 1000 800 600 m0 [GeV] 2000 1500 1000 0.7 error 0.9 error 1.0 error 1.1 error 1.2 error 1.3 error 400 200 0 0.7 error 0.9 error 1.0 error 1.1 error 1.2 error 1.3 error 500 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 m 0 [GeV] Reducing the error has a big effect on tan β Very sensitive observable -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 tan β F.J. Ronga (ETHZ) CMSSM CKM2008 12 / 14
Sensitivity to individual observables Quantifying the sensitivity Relative Change in Area [%] Percentage change in contour content as a function of relative uncertainty 300 250 200 150 100 (g 2) b sγ 2 Ωh B τν m W (m 0, m 1/2 ) plane Importance of g 2, b sγ B τν fairly sensitive Ωh 2 not so sensitive in these projections 50 0 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 Relative Change in Uncertainty F.J. Ronga (ETHZ) CMSSM CKM2008 13 / 14
Conclusion Summary New global fits to the CMSSM CPU (and disk) intensive 25 million MCMCs latest experimental and theoretical input Prospects for the CMSSM at LHC the end of a long story? Sensitivity to individual observables (g 2) µ and BR(b sγ) are the winners BR(B u τν τ ) also makes a difference moderate influence of Ωh 2 Now we ll be busy understanding new data (back to reality... ) F.J. Ronga (ETHZ) CMSSM CKM2008 14 / 14
Conclusion Summary New global fits to the CMSSM CPU (and disk) intensive 25 million MCMCs latest experimental and theoretical input Prospects for the CMSSM at LHC the end of a long story? Sensitivity to individual observables (g 2) µ and BR(b sγ) are the winners BR(B u τν τ ) also makes a difference moderate influence of Ωh 2 Now we ll be busy understanding new data (back to reality... ) F.J. Ronga (ETHZ) CMSSM CKM2008 14 / 14
Conclusion Summary New global fits to the CMSSM CPU (and disk) intensive 25 million MCMCs latest experimental and theoretical input Prospects for the CMSSM at LHC the end of a long story? Sensitivity to individual observables (g 2) µ and BR(b sγ) are the winners BR(B u τν τ ) also makes a difference moderate influence of Ωh 2 Now we ll be busy understanding new data (back to reality... ) F.J. Ronga (ETHZ) CMSSM CKM2008 14 / 14
Conclusion Summary New global fits to the CMSSM CPU (and disk) intensive 25 million MCMCs latest experimental and theoretical input Prospects for the CMSSM at LHC the end of a long story? Sensitivity to individual observables (g 2) µ and BR(b sγ) are the winners BR(B u τν τ ) also makes a difference moderate influence of Ωh 2 Now we ll be busy understanding new data (back to reality... ) F.J. Ronga (ETHZ) CMSSM CKM2008 14 / 14
Backup slides
Backup Experimental constraints Observable Constraint Add. Th. Unc. m W [GeV] 80.399 ± 0.025 0.010 aµ exp aµ SM (30.2 ± 8.8) 10 10 2.0 10 10 m h [GeV] > 114.4 (see text) 3.0 BR exp b sγ /BRSM b sγ 1.117 ± 0.076 exp ± 0.082 th(sm) 0.050 m t [GeV] 172.4 ± 1.2 Ω CDM h 2 0.1099 ± 0.0062 0.012 BR(B s µ + µ ) < 4.7 10 8 0.02 10 8 BR exp B τν /BRSM B τν 1.15 ± 0.40 [exp+th] BR(B d µ + µ ) < 2.3 10 8 0.01 10 9 BR exp B X s ll /BRSM B X s ll 0.99 ± 0.32 BR exp K µν /BRSM K µν 1.008 ± 0.014 [exp+th] BR exp K πν ν /BRSM M exp B s hline ( Mexp Bs ( M exp B d K πν ν < 4.5 / MB SM s 1.11 ± 0.01 exp ± 0.32 th(sm) / M SM ) Bs / M SM ɛ exp K / ɛsm B d ) 1.09 ± 0.01 exp ± 0.16 th(sm) K 0.92 ± 0.14 [exp+th] F.J. Ronga (ETHZ) CMSSM CKM2008 14 / 14
Backup CMSSM and SM EWK fits [previous study] CMSSM Variable Measurement Fit #" ) 0.02758 ± 0.00035 0.02774 (5) (m had Z mz [GeV] 91.1875 ± 0.0021 91.1873 $ [GeV] 2.4952± 0.0023 2.4952 Z 0! [nb] 41.540± 0.037 41.486 had Rl 20.767± 0.025 20.744 0,l A 0.01714 ± 0.00095 0.01641 fb Al (P ) % 0.1465± 0.0032 0.1479 Rb 0.21629 ± 0.00066 0.21613 Rc 0.1721± 0.0030 0.1722 0,b A 0.0992± 0.0016 0.1037 fb 0,c A 0.0707± 0.0035 0.0741 fb Ab 0.923± 0.020 0.935 A 0.670 ± 0.027 0.668 c Al (SLD) 0.1513± 0.0021 0.1479 2 sin & lept eff (Q ) fb 0.2324± 0.0012 0.2314 m [GeV] W 80.398± 0.025 80.382 m [GeV] t 170.9 ± 1.8 170.8 R(b(s' ) 1.13 ± 0.12 1.12 meas fit meas O -O /! 0 1 2 3-8 Bs(µµ [ 10 ] < 8.00 0.33 N/A (upper limit) -9 # a µ [ 10 ] 2.95 ± 0.87 2.95 2 ) h 0.113± 0.009 0.113 O. Buchmüller et al., PLB 657/1-3 pp. 87-94 χ 2 /ndof = 17.0/13 (20% prob.) SM Variable Measurement Fit #" ) 0.02758 ± 0.00035 0.02768 (5) (m had Z mz [GeV] 91.1875 ± 0.0021 91.1875 $ [GeV] 2.4952± 0.0023 2.4957 Z 0! [nb] 41.540± 0.037 41.477 had Rl 20.767± 0.025 20.744 0,l A 0.01714 ± 0.00095 0.01645 fb Al (P ) % 0.1465± 0.0032 0.1481 Rb 0.21629 ± 0.00066 0.21586 Rc 0.1721± 0.0030 0.1722 0,b A 0.0992± 0.0016 0.1038 fb 0,c A 0.0707± 0.0035 0.0742 fb Ab 0.923± 0.020 0.935 A 0.670 ± 0.027 0.668 c Al (SLD) 0.1513± 0.0021 0.1481 2 sin & lept eff (Q ) fb 0.2324± 0.0012 0.2314 m [GeV] W 80.398± 0.025 80.374 m [GeV] t 170.9 ± 1.8 171.3 $ [GeV] W 2.140 ± 0.060 2.091 meas fit meas O -O /! 0 1 2 3 arxiv:hep-ex/0612034 χ 2 /ndof = 18.2/13 (15% prob.) F.J. Ronga (ETHZ) CMSSM CKM2008 14 / 14