Dirac gauginos, R symmetry and the 125 GeV Higgs

Claudia Frugiuele Dirac gauginos, R symmetry and the 125 GeV Higgs with E.Bertuzzo, T. Grègoire and E. Ponton hep ph 1402.5432 GOAL 8, 14/08/2014

OUTLINE Dirac gauginos and natural SUSY R symmetric models How to raise the Higgs mass up to 125 GeV in this framework Conclusions

Waiting for LHC13...and coping with the lack of discoveries Rethinking the concept of naturalness More exotic scenarios to hide new physics from LHC searches If the EW scale is somewhat tuned, what is the next scale? Minisplit, high scale SUSY..

Waiting for LHC13...and coping with the lack of discoveries Rethinking the concept of naturalness focus of my talk More exotic scenarios to hide new physics from LHC searches If the EW scale is somewhat tuned, what is the next scale? Minisplit, high scale SUSY..

SUSY after the LHC first run RPV slepton EWK gauginos sbottom stop squark gluino production 0 g qq χ 0 g bb χ 0 g tt χ 0 g t( t t χ ) ± 0 g qq( χ Wχ ) ± 0 g b( b t( χ Wχ )) 0 q q χ 0 t t χ + 0 t b( χ Wχ ) 0 0 t t b χ ( χ H G) 0 t ( t t χ ) Z 2 1 01 t ( t t χ ) H 2 1 1 b 0 b χ 0 χ 0 χ b tw b bz 0 ± 0 0 χ χ lll ν χ χ + 2 0 - + - 0 χ χ l l ν ν χ χ 0 0 0 0 χ χ Z Z χ χ 2 02 ± 0 0 χ χ W Z χ χ 2 0 0 0 0 χ χ H Z χ χ 2 2 ± 0 0 0 χ χ H W χ χ 0 2 ± 0 0 χ χ llτ ν χ χ 2 0 ± 0 0 χ χ τττ ν χ χ 2 0 l l χ g qllν λ 122 g qllν λ g qllν λ 123 233 g qbtµ λ ' 231 g qbtµ λ ' g qqb λ '' 233 113/223 g qqq λ '' g tbs λ '' 112 323 g qqqq λ '' q qllν λ 112 122 q qllν λ 123 q qllν λ 233 q qbtµ λ ' 231 q qbtµ λ ' 233 q qqqq λ '' R 112 t µ e ν t λ R 122 t µ τν t λ R 123 t µ τν t λ R 233 t tbtµ λ ' R 233 Summary of CMS SUSY Results* in SMS framework m(mother)-m(lsp)=200 GeV SUS 13-019 L=19.5 /fb SUS-14-011 SUS-13-019 L=19.3 19.5 /fb SUS-13-007 SUS-13-013 L=19.4 19.5 /fb SUS-13-008 SUS-13-013 L=19.5 /fb SUS-13-013 L=19.5 /fb SUS-13-008 SUS-13-013 L=19.5 /fb SUS-13-019 L=19.5 /fb SUS-14-011 L=19.5 /fb SUS-13-011 L=19.5 /fb SUS-13-014 L=19.5 /fb SUS-13-024 SUS-13-004 L=19.5 /fb SUS-13-024 SUS-13-004 L=19.5 /fb SUS-13-018 L=19.4 /fb SUS-13-008 SUS-13-013 L=19.5 /fb SUS-13-008 L=19.5 /fb SUS-13-006 L=19.5 /fb SUS-13-006 L=19.5 /fb SUS-14-002 L=19.5 /fb SUS-13-006 L=19.5 /fb SUS-14-002 L=19.5 /fb SUS-14-002 L=19.5 /fb SUS-13-006 L=19.5 /fb SUS-13-006 L=19.5 /fb SUS-13-006 L=19.5 /fb SUS-12-027 L=9.2 /fb SUS-12-027 L=9.2 /fb SUS-12-027 L=9.2 /fb SUS-12-027 L=9.2 /fb SUS-12-027 L=9.2 /fb EXO-12-049 L=19.5 /fb EXO-12-049 L=19.5 /fb SUS-13-013 L=19.5 /fb SUS-12-027 L=9.2 /fb SUS-12-027 L=9.2 /fb SUS-12-027 L=9.2 /fb SUS-12-027 L=9.2 /fb SUS-12-027 L=9.2 /fb SUS-12-027 L=9.2 /fb SUS-12-027 L=9.2 /fb SUS-13-003 L=19.5 9.2 /fb SUS-12-027 L=9.2 /fb SUS-13-003 L=19.5 9.2 /fb SUS-13-003 L=19.5 /fb x = 0.25 x = 0.50 x = 0.75 x = 0.95 x = 0.05 x = 0.50 x = 0.95 x = 0.05 x = 0.50 x = 0.20 x = 0.50 ICHEP 2014 m(lsp)=0 GeV CMS Preliminary For decays with intermediate mass, = x m +(1-x) m m intermediate 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Mass scales [GeV] *Observed limits, theory uncertainties not included Only a selection of available mass limits Probe *up to* the quoted mass limit mother lsp

SUSY after the LHC first run RPV slepton EWK gauginos sbottom stop squark gluino production 0 g qq χ 0 g bb χ 0 g tt χ 0 g t( t t χ ) ± 0 g qq( χ Wχ ) ± 0 g b( b t( χ Wχ )) 0 q q χ 0 t t χ + 0 t b( χ Wχ ) 0 0 t t b χ ( χ H G) 0 t ( t t χ ) Z 2 1 01 t ( t t χ ) H 2 1 1 b 0 b χ 0 χ 0 χ b tw b bz 0 ± 0 0 χ χ lll ν χ χ + 2 0 - + - 0 χ χ l l ν ν χ χ 0 0 0 0 χ χ Z Z χ χ 2 02 ± 0 0 χ χ W Z χ χ 2 0 0 0 0 χ χ H Z χ χ 2 2 ± 0 0 0 χ χ H W χ χ 0 2 ± 0 0 χ χ llτ ν χ χ 2 0 ± 0 0 χ χ τττ ν χ χ 2 0 l l χ g qllν λ 122 g qllν λ g qllν λ 123 233 g qbtµ λ ' 231 g qbtµ λ ' g qqb λ '' 233 113/223 g qqq λ '' g tbs λ '' 112 323 g qqqq λ '' q qllν λ 112 122 q qllν λ 123 q qllν λ 233 q qbtµ λ ' 231 q qbtµ λ ' 233 q qqqq λ '' R 112 t µ e ν t λ R 122 t µ τν t λ R 123 t µ τν t λ R 233 t tbtµ λ ' R 233 Summary of CMS SUSY Results* in SMS framework m(mother)-m(lsp)=200 GeV SUS 13-019 L=19.5 /fb SUS-14-011 SUS-13-019 L=19.3 19.5 /fb SUS-13-007 SUS-13-013 L=19.4 19.5 /fb SUS-13-008 SUS-13-013 L=19.5 /fb SUS-13-013 L=19.5 /fb SUS-13-008 SUS-13-013 L=19.5 /fb SUS-13-019 L=19.5 /fb SUS-14-011 L=19.5 /fb SUS-13-011 L=19.5 /fb SUS-13-014 L=19.5 /fb SUS-13-024 SUS-13-004 L=19.5 /fb SUS-13-024 SUS-13-004 L=19.5 /fb SUS-13-018 L=19.4 /fb SUS-13-008 SUS-13-013 L=19.5 /fb SUS-13-008 L=19.5 /fb SUS-13-006 L=19.5 /fb SUS-13-006 L=19.5 /fb SUS-14-002 L=19.5 /fb SUS-13-006 L=19.5 /fb SUS-14-002 L=19.5 /fb SUS-14-002 L=19.5 /fb SUS-13-006 L=19.5 /fb SUS-13-006 L=19.5 /fb SUS-13-006 L=19.5 /fb x = 0.25 x = 0.50 x = 0.75 x = 0.95 x = 0.05 x = 0.50 x = 0.95 x = 0.05 x = 0.50 SUS-12-027 L=9.2 /fb SUS-12-027 L=9.2 /fb SUS-12-027 L=9.2 /fb SUS-12-027 L=9.2 /fb SUS-12-027 L=9.2 /fb EXO-12-049 L=19.5 /fb EXO-12-049 L=19.5 /fb SUS-13-013 L=19.5 /fb SUS-12-027 L=9.2 /fb SUS-12-027 L=9.2 /fb SUS-12-027 L=9.2 /fb SUS-12-027 L=9.2 /fb SUS-12-027 L=9.2 /fb Is there still room for natural SUSY? SUS-12-027 L=9.2 /fb SUS-12-027 L=9.2 /fb SUS-13-003 L=19.5 9.2 /fb SUS-12-027 L=9.2 /fb SUS-13-003 L=19.5 9.2 /fb SUS-13-003 L=19.5 /fb x = 0.20 x = 0.50 ICHEP 2014 m(lsp)=0 GeV CMS Preliminary For decays with intermediate mass, = x m +(1-x) m m intermediate 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Mass scales [GeV] *Observed limits, theory uncertainties not included Only a selection of available mass limits Probe *up to* the quoted mass limit mother lsp

Essential for naturalness SubTeV gluinos, stops, (left) sbottom and Higgsino required stronger bounds on first and second generation

Stop bounds LSP mass [GeV] 700 600 500 t-t production, CMS Preliminary s = 8 TeV ICHEP 2014-1 SUS-13-011 1-lep (MVA) 19.5 fb t t χ 0 1 / c Observed Expected -1 SUS-14-011 0-lep + 1-lep + 2-lep (Razor) 19.3 fb χ 0 1 q q m t < 600 3 log 5 GeV 400 SUS-14-011 0-lep (Razor) + 1-lep (MVA) 19.3 fb -1 0 SUS-13-009 (monojet stop) 19.7 fb ( t c χ ) -1 SUS-13-015 (hadronic stop) 19.4 fb 1-1 300 200 m t - m χ 0 m t = m W 1 1 - m χ = m 0 t 750 GeV bound! 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 stop mass [GeV] few loopholes, but we are getting there!

Gluino bounds

Gluino bounds M g < 900 sin log TeV ( 1 20 ) 1/2 SubTeV gluinos almost ruled out!

...however there is a bias in these ex: t! t 0 1 searches t! b ± 1 these are RPC conserving final states! Can we hide SUSY with R-parity violating?

Proton stability Leptonic RPV ijkl i L j e c k + 0 ijk L iq j d c k leptons /or neutrinos, ex: t! lj clean signatures! baryonic RPV 00 ijk uc i dc j dc k or no MET or leptons t! jj baryonic RPV can hide the stop well!

Still strong bounds on gluinos! g 6q) [pb] σ(pp g 4 10 3 10 2 10 10 1 Obs 95% CL Limit Exp Limit ±1 σ Exp Limit ±2 σ Exp Limit g g Cross-Section (NLO+NLL) BR(t)=0%, BR(b)=0%, BR(c)=0% -1 L dt 20.3 fb, s = 8 TeV -1 10-2 10-3 10 ATLAS Preliminary 600 800 1000 1200 m g [GeV]

Still strong bounds on gluinos! g 6q) [pb] σ(pp g 4 10 3 10 2 10 10 1 Obs 95% CL Limit Exp Limit ±1 σ Exp Limit ±2 σ Exp Limit g g Cross-Section (NLO+NLL) BR(t)=0%, BR(b)=0%, BR(c)=0% -1 L dt 20.3 fb, s = 8 TeV We can not significantly relax LHC bounds on gluinos, can we -1 10 relax the naturalness bound? -2 10-3 10 ATLAS Preliminary 600 800 1000 1200 m g [GeV]

Dirac gauginos New Adjoints superfields for each SM gauge group B W g Supersoft SUSY Breaking R d 2 M W 0 W i i W 0 D Fox,Nelson,Weiner, 2002 D term spurion

Supersofteness No log divergent contributions to the scalar masses scalar adjoint Few TeV Dirac gluinos are natural!

Smaller squarks cross section Majorana mass insertion no q q 0 production of same chirality squarks

Relaxed bounds on squarks kribs&martin 12 1st & 2nd generation bounds lowered, 800 GeV updated bounds kribs&raj 13

R symmetry: another reason to care about Dirac gauginos

U(1)R symmetry U(1) acts on superspace coordinates it acts differently on the bosonic and on the fermionic component of a superfield scalar component R chiral superfield R fermionic component R-1 vector superfield R=0 gauge boson R=0 gaugino R=1

The R symmetry forbids: Majorana gaugino masses Trilinear scalar interaction (no left right mixing) Standard mu term Larger flavor and CP violation compatible with experimental bounds Kribs, Poppitz,Weiner 07 It alleviates also the bounds on RPV CF, Grègoire, 2011 Biggio,Pomarol,Riva, 2012 CF, Grègoire, 2011

R symmetry & the SUSY flavor problem

F =2 gluino Majorana mass insertion F =1 mu term

EDM bounds EW Baryogenesis Fok,Kribs, Martin,Tsai (2012) µ! e no chirality flip from Majorana mass insertion or mu term suppressed by the Yukawa coupling

EDM bounds EW Baryogenesis Fok,Kribs, Martin,Tsai (2012) µ! e no chirality flip from Majorana mass insertion or mu term Does this have any consequences for LHC pheno? suppressed by the Yukawa coupling

Large flavor and CP violation at the LHC Squark flavor violation at the LHC Kribs, Martin, Roy, 2009 / Agrawal,CF 2013 Larger CP violation- same sign dilepton asymmetry (Ipek,McKeen,Nelson,2014)

Phenomenological consequences of a large flavor mixing R symmetry allows M 2 ij M 2 q 1 t! jlsp Relax bounds on stop mass Blanke, Giudice,Paradise, Perez,Zupan 2013 m t <m LSP + m t P.Agrawall&CF 2013 Open up a new region of the parameter space

Tevatron dedicated searches covered just the parameter space relevant for the MSSM CDF t! clsp is this a way to hide a light stop? region significant for us, but not for the MSSM

Recasting CMS razor CMS razor analysis sensitive to signatures from compressed spectra Delgado,Giudice,Isidori,Pierini, Strumia 2012

ATLAS search 20 fb 1

ATLAS search 20 fb 1 still the only region covered is the one allowed in the MSSM

Non standard R symmetries

Non standard R symmetries We can identify the R symmetry either with the lepton or the baryon number Gherghetta, Pomarol, 2002 CF,Grègoire, 2011 Sundrum et al 2011

Non standard R symmetries We can identify the R symmetry either with the lepton or the baryon number Gherghetta, Pomarol, 2002 CF,Grègoire, 2011 Sundrum et al 2011 RPV couplings in the superpotential ijkl i L j e c k + 0 ijk L iq j d c k if the R symmetry is the lepton number 00 ijk uc i dc j dc k if the R symmetry is the baryon number

Lepton number as R symmetry Gherghetta, Pomarol, 2002 CF,Grègoire, 2011 Biggio,Pomarol,Riva,2012 SM particles: just the electron and its neutrino carry R charge SuperField U(1) R Q i 1 u c i 1 d c i 1 e c 2 L e 0 L e Ex: Qi R charge 1, fermion R charge 1-1=0 has R charge 0, fermion component 0-1=-1 SUSY partners carry R charge besides the electron scalar partners Squarks are then leptoquarks!

The electronic sneutrino does not carry R charge/lepton number a sneutrino VeV does not break lepton number No Majorana mass for the neutrino induced

The electronic sneutrino does not carry R charge/lepton number a sneutrino VeV does not break lepton number No Majorana mass for the neutrino induced Gaugino Majorana insertion required.

The electronic sneutrino does not carry R charge/lepton number a sneutrino VeV does not break lepton number No Majorana mass for the neutrino induced Gaugino Majorana insertion required. The sneutrino can be the down type Higgs (CF,Grègoire 2011) or even the only Higgs (Biggio,Pomarol, Riva2012)

Trilinear LRPV couplings are Yukawa couplings ijkl i L j e c k + 0 ijk L iq j d c k bl x br trilinear LRPV coupling a b x b c left right mixing a forbidden by the R symmetry In the R symmetric limit the neutrino remain massless no neutrino bounds on the trilinear couplings

0 Mixed topologies j CF, Grégoire,Pontòn,Kumar can compete with gauge or large Yukawa couplings indirect hint of g s R e L Dirac nature of gauginos g s R X 0+ 1 Z same topology for 3rd gen j ν e Different pheno than the MSSM with RPV

R symmetry as baryon number relaxed bound from neutron neutron oscillation

Summarising.. the advantages Models with Dirac gauginos ameliorate the tension between naturalness and the LHC bounds on superpartners. Interesting new possibilities for model building and non standard phenomenology still to answer: how do we get 125 GeV Higgs in this scenario? Partial answer by Benakli, Goodsell &Staub, but for a non R symmetric Higgs sector

At first the situation does not look promising g 0 M BS(H 2 u H 2 d ) gm W T (H 2 u H 2 d ) Extra D terms Mixing with the triplet and singlet push down the Higgs mass Tree level mass is lower than the MSSM

Radiative corrections from the stops are also suppressed since the R symmetry forbids A terms

Radiative corrections from the stops are also suppressed since the R symmetry forbids A terms more tuned than the MSSM?

Radiative corrections from the stops are also suppressed since the R symmetry forbids A terms Is this with the the only stop this way scenario we is more have tuned to than the MSSM! raise the Higgs mass?

Higgs sector R symmetry violating Higgs sector: two Higgs doublet model. Tree level mass is lower than the MSSM. R preserving Higgs sector: 4 Higgs doublets model or sneutrino is one/ the Higgs b µ H u H d standard Higgs fields µ u H u R d + µ d H d R u two extra inert doublets to give mass to the Higgsino

Higgs sector R symmetry violating Higgs sector: two Higgs doublet model. Tree level mass is lower than the MSSM. R Enlarged preserving Higgs Higgs sector: sector: two 4 extra Higgs (inert) doublets doublets+ model singlet or sneutrino & triplet is adjoints. one/ the Can Higgs we raise the Higgs mass via this extra matter? b µ H u H d standard Higgs fields µ u H u R d + µ d H d R u two extra inert doublets to give mass to the Higgsino

Couplings with the adjoints If we break the R symmetry SH u H d S or T H u H d T extra quartic (H u H d ) 2 NMSSM-like enhancement Benakli,Goodsell,Staub 2012 in the R symmetric limit SH u R d S or T H u R d T R d is an inert doublet!

Tree level mass in the R symmetric limit extra couplings allow to reach the MSSM tree level mass m 2 h u,t = v( p 2gM W +2 T ( S v s + T v T + µ)) large tanbeta natural limit to consider (m 2 h ) tree ' m 2 Z (m 2 hu,t )2 m 2 T R + 2 T v2 (m 2 hu,s )2 m 2 S R + 2 S v2 125 GeV via radiative corrections

Radiative corrections from extra matter V CW Higgs 1 4 apple 5 4 T 32 2 log m2 T M 2 W + 4 S 32 2 log m2 S M 2 B 2 T ( 2 T +2 2 S) 16 2 h 4 u, for large couplings comparable to the stop contribution V CW Higgs 1 4 h 3 16 2 y 2 t yt 2 m 2 Z 2v 2 + 3y4 t (16 2 ) 2 3 2 y2 t 32 3 (m t ) log 2 M 2 m 2 t log M 2 m 2 + i t h 4 u, These extra particle are colour singlets no large 2 loops negative contributions!

Fine tuning = max ai @ log m 2 h @a i m T. m S. m Q,ũ. 600 GeV m Rd. 600 GeV T 1000 GeV S 1000 GeV p 6 2 T +2 2 S q m h 3 125GeV log /1TeV q q m h 3 125GeV log /1TeV 5 q q m h 3 125GeV log /1TeV 5 q q m h 3 125GeV log /1TeV q 5 5 The inert doublet is the one which drives the fine tuning

Fine tuning = max ai @ log m 2 h @a i m T. m S. m Q,ũ. 600 GeV m Rd. 600 GeV T 1000 GeV S 1000 GeV p 6 2 T +2 2 S q m h 3 125GeV log /1TeV q q m h 3 125GeV log /1TeV 5 q q m h 3 125GeV log /1TeV 5 q q m h 3 125GeV log /1TeV q 5 5 Light scalars and large couplings necessary to The raise inert the Higgs doublet and minimise is the one the FT! which drives the fine tuning

Tension with EWPM Tree level contributions to T from the triplet vev 1400 1200 T 1 mt HGeVL 1000 800 600 v T < 3 GeV 400 200 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 M D2 HGeVL adjoints and gauginos cannot be too light

Tension with EWPM Loop contribution from 4 T H u D µh u 2 2 fermions large coupling good for Higgs mass, dangerous for EWPM!

= 20TeV 125 GeV Higgs 2 - M 2 D M B T =B S = 1 2 I-m adj 2000 1800 50 m t = 300 GeV 1600 madj HGeVL 1400 1200 20 1000 m t = m Region allowed adj by EWPM m T = m S = m Rd = m adj 30 800 600 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 M D HGeVL fine tuning at few % level

125 GeV Higgs 2 - M 2 D M B T =B S = 1 2 I-m adj 2000 1800 50 m t = 300 GeV Lighter stop more tuned scenario. More 1600 natural scenario: stops might be out madj HGeVL 1400 1200 20 of the LHC reach! 1000 m t = m Region allowed adj by EWPM m T = m S = m Rd = m adj 30 800 600 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 M D HGeVL fine tuning at few % level

Summary Improvement with respect to the tension between natural SUSY and the LHC direct bounds on sparticles We can raise the Higgs mass to 125 GeV in R symmetric models with a fine tuning of few percent This framework offers many interesting directions to explore

BACKUP

Possible problems from the Adjoint scalar sector m 2 A A A not holomorphic masses for the adjoints tm 2 t 32 2 3 (4 ) 2 m 2 A 3 can run the squarks mass tachyonic Arvanitaki et al, 2013 B A A 2 holomorphic masses are supersoft Pure supersoft has problems with tachyonic adjoint masses 4m 2 D + B A > 0 & -B A > 0 m 2 A B A M 2 D for a viable phenomenological spectrum

Possible problems from the Adjoint scalar sector m 2 A A A not holomorphic masses for the adjoints tm 2 t 32 2 3 (4 ) 2 m 2 A 3 can run the squarks mass tachyonic B A A 2 Villadoro et al.,2013 However most of the UV completion have holomorphic masses are supersoft m 2 A B A 16 2 M 2 D Pure supersoft has problems with tachyonic adjoint masses Similar to mu/bmu problem in gauge mediation 4m 2 D + B A > 0 & -B A > 0 Csaki,Shirman et al,2013 m 2 A B A M 2 D for a viable phenomenological spectrum