DO-TH 97/07 April 997 arxiv:hep-ph/9704232v 4 Apr 997 Dark matter constraints on the parameter space and particle spectra in the nonminimal SUSY standard model A. Stephan Universität Dortmund, Institut für Physik, D-4422 Dortmund, Germany Abstract We investigate the dark matter constraints for the nonminimal SUSY standard model (NMSSM). The cosmologically restricted mass spectra of the NMSSM are compared to the minimal SUSY standard model (MSSM). The differences of the two models concerning the neutralino, sfermion and Higgs sector are discussed. The dark matter condition leads to upper bounds for the mass of the SUSY particles m χ 0 < 300 GeV, mẽr < 300 GeV, m q < 2 TeV, m g < 2.2 TeV and for the mass of the lightest scalar Higgs m S < 40 GeV.
i) Introduction. Supersymmetry (SUSY) is suggested to solve the hierarchy problem of the standard model (SM), if it is embedded in a grand unified theory (GUT). The simplest SUSY extension of the SM is the minimal SUSY standard model (MSSM) []. In the nonminimal SUSY standard model (NMSSM) [2] the Higgs sector of the MSSM is extended by a Higgs singlet N. By introducing a Higgs singlet N the µ-parameter of the MSSM (µ-problem) can be dynamically generated via µ = λx with the vaccum expectation value (VEV) N = x and λ being the Yukawa coupling of the Higgs fields. The NMSSM can be derived from superstring inspired E 6 or SU(5) U() GUT models. In SUSY models with Higgs singlets there exist the possibility of spontaneous breaking of the CP symmetry. In addition to the particle spectrum of the MSSM there are two extra Higgses and one extra neutralino in the NMSSM, which can mix with the other Higgses and neutralinos, and thus modify their properties. In many SUSY models the lightest SUSY particle (LSP) is a neutralino, which is a good candidate for cold dark matter. In this paper we investigate, how the dark matter condition restricts the mass spectra of the SUSY particles in the NMSSM. The cosmologically restricted mass spectra of the MSSM and NMSSM are compared and differences are discussed. ii) The NMSSM. The NMSSM [2] is a supersymmetric SU(3) C SU(2) I U() Y gauge theory with two Higgs doublets H, H 2 and a Higgs singlet N. This model is defined by the superpotential (with only dimensionless couplings) W = h d H T ǫ Q D + h u H2 T ǫ Q Ũ + λ HT ǫ H 2 N 3 k N3 () and the SUSY soft breaking terms L soft = m 2 H H 2 m 2 H 2 H 2 2 m 2 N N 2 M 2 Q Q 2 M 2 U Ũ 2 M 2 D D 2 +h d A d H T ǫ Q D + h u A u H T 2 ǫ Q Ũ + h.c. +λ A λ H T ǫ H 2 N + 3 k A k N 3 + h.c. 2 M 3 λ 3 λ 3 2 M 2 λ a 2 λ a 2 2 M λ λ + h.c. (2) The effective loop Higgs potential consists of the tree-level potential and the radiative
corrections V loop = V tree + V rad. (3) The contributions of the top quark and stops t,2 are considered in the radiative corrections to the effective potential [3] V rad = ( ) 2S i (2S 64 π 2 i + ) m 4 i i ln( m2 i ). (4) Q2 The electroweak gauge-symmetry SU(2) I U() Y is spontaneously broken to the electromagnetic gauge-symmetry U() em by the Higgs VEVs H 0 i = v i with i =, 2 and N = x. The 3 minimum conditions for the VEVs have the form: 2 m2 Z = m2 H + Σ (m 2 H 2 + Σ 2 ) tan 2 β tan 2 λ 2 x 2 (5) β sin(2β) = 2 λ x (A λ + k x) m 2 H + Σ + m 2 H 2 + Σ 2 + 2 λ 2 x 2 + λ 2 v 2 (6) sin(2β) = 2 ((m2 N + Σ 3 ) x 2 + λ 2 x 2 v 2 k A k x 3 + 2 k 2 x 4 ), (7) λ x v 2 (A λ + 2 k x) where Σ i = V rad / v 2 i and v = v 2 + v 2 2 = 74 GeV. Gauge coupling unification in non-supersymmetric GUTs is already excluded by the precision measurements at LEP [4]. In supersymmetric GUTs gauge coupling unification g a (M X ) = g 5 0.72 is possible at a scale M X.6 0 6 GeV. For the SUSY soft breaking parameters we suppose universality at the GUT scale M X : m i (M X ) = m 0 M a (M X ) = m /2 A i (M X ) = A 0 (A λ (M X ) = A 0 ). (8) With the SUSY RGEs [5] the SUSY soft breaking parameters and the Yukawa couplings λ, k and h t are evolved from the GUT scale to the electroweak scale M weak 00GeV. At M weak we minimize the effective loop Higgs potential. The 8 parameters of the NMSSM are m 0, m /2, A 0, λ 0, k 0, h t0, tan β and x, with only 5 of them being independent, which in our procedure are taken as λ 0, k 0, h t0, tan β and x. The remaining 3 parameters (m 0, m /2, A 0 ) are numerically calculated from the three minimum conditions (5-7). Because 2
we assume h t h b, h τ, we restrict tanβ to be smaller than 20 [6]. For the singlet VEV x we choose the range x < 80 TeV [6, 7, 8]. The physical minimum of the Higgs potential should be the global minimum. We check, whether the physical minimum is lower than the unphysical minima of V loop (v, v 2, x) with at least one vanishing VEV [9]. The conditions [5], that the minimum of the Higgs potential does not break the conservation of charge and colour, can be formulated as follows: A 2 u i 3(m 2 H 2 + m 2 Q i + m 2 U i ) at scale Q A ui /h ui (9) A 2 d i 3(m 2 H + m 2 Q i + m 2 D i ) at scale Q A di /h di (0) A 2 e i 3(m 2 H + m 2 L i + m 2 E i ) at scale Q A ei /h ei. () For the top quark pole mass we take the range 63.2 GeV < m t < 88.8 GeV [0]. The SUSY particles in the NMSSM have to fulfill the following experimental conditions: m ν 4.8 GeV [], mẽ 65 GeV [2], m q 76 GeV (if m g < 300 GeV ) [] and m q 70GeV (for allm g )[3], m t 58.3GeV [4], m g 73GeV [5], m χ + 7.3GeV [6], m H + 43.5 GeV [], m S 58.4 GeV or the coupling of the lightest scalar Higgs S to the Z boson is reduced compared to the SM [7] i,j Γ(Z χ 0 i χ0 j ) 30 MeV [8] Γ(Z χ 0 χ 0 ) < 7 MeV [8] BR(Z χ 0 i χ 0 j) < 0 5, (i, j) (, ) [8]. iii) Dark matter constraints. Inflationary cosmological models suggest a flat universe with Ω = ρ/ρ crit =. Big bang nucleosynthesis restricts the baryon density to Ω baryons 0.05. The missing matter is called dark matter. One of the favoured theories to explain the structure formation of the universe is the cold + hot dark matter model (CHDM) [9]. In this model the dark matter consists of hot dark matter (massiv neutrinos) and cold dark matter (neutralinos) with Ω hot 0.3 and Ω cold 0.65. With the Hubble constant H 0 = 00 h 0 km s Mpc and the range 0.4 < h 0 <, the condition for the cosmic 3
density of the neutralinos in the CHDM model reads 0. Ω χ h 2 0 0.65. (2) With the annihilation cross section of the neutralinos σ ann v = a + b v 2 (v is the relative velocity of the neutralinos) the cosmic neutralino density [20, 2, 22] can be calculated Ω χ h 2 0 =.07 09 x fr g M P (a + 3 b x fr ) GeV, (3) where M P =.22 0 9 GeV is the Planck mass and g 8 is the effective number of degrees of freedom at T fr. The freeze-out temperature of the neutralinos T fr follows from the equation [20, 2, 22] a + 6 b x x fr = ln 0.0764 m χ 0 M fr P g c (2 + c) (4) x fr with x fr = m χ 0 /T fr and c = /2. In the MSSM the formulas for the annihilation cross section of the neutralinos into the different decay products X and Y can be found in [20] β f σ ann ( χ 0 χ0 X Y )v = 4 8πsS β f = [ A( S 0 ) 2 + ] 3 ( A(3 P 0 ) 2 + A( 3 P ) 2 + A( 3 P 2 ) 2 ) 2(m2 X + m 2 Y ) s (5) + (m2 X m 2 Y ) 2 s 2 (6) s 4m2 χ is the center of mass energy squared. S is a symmetry factor, which is 2 if X = Y. The partial wave amplitude A describes annihilation from an initial state 2S+ L J with spin S, orbital angular momentum L and total angular momentum J. In the NMSSM the annihilation cross section of the neutralinos changes because of more particles in this model, which can mix, and modified vertices. In our numerical analysis we consider all possible decay channels. The relevant formulas for the NMSSM are obtained by modifying the partial wave amplitudes in [20] and will be given in [23]. Here we only give the NMSSM formulas for the dominant decay channel χ 0 χ0 f a(h) f a (h). λ f = h h, where h and h are the helicities of the fermions. The fermions are produced by Z and Higgs exchange in the s-channel and sfermion exchange in the t- and u-channel. 4
The partial wave amplitudes in [20] for this decay channel have to be modified in the following way: A( S 0 ) : λ f = 0 2( ) h+/2 (X 2 a0 + W 2 a0 ) + v 2 + β 2 f 2P +2 2( ) h+/2 X a0 W a0 P + v 2 4 β 2 f 2P +(X a0 Z a0, W a0 Y a0, P P 2 ) R f 3P 2 P 6P + β 2 f 3P 2 + ( ) h+/2 2 2g 2 cos 2 θ W O L 00T 3a R f R 2 Z + 4 2( ) h+/2 gh Pi at Pi 00 4 RP 2 i + ig Pi [ + v2 4 ] (7) A( 3 P 0 ) : λ f = 0 6vβ f (X a0w a0) [ 2 ] + 6vβ P 3P 2 f (X 2 a0+w 2 a0) R f +(X P 2 a0 Z a0, W a0 Y a0, P P 2 ) 2 h ia T i00 6vβ f g (8) 4 RS 2 i + ig Si A( 3 P ) : λ f = 0 vr f P (X 2 a0 W 2 a0) + (X a0 Z a0, W a0 Y a0, P P 2 ) 2vg 2 O L [ ] 00 T3a 2e cos 2 fa sin 2 R f θ W θ W 4 RZ 2 + ig Z (9) λ f = ± [ 2v λ f β f (X 2 a0 + W 2 a0) + ] + (X 2 P P 2 a0 W 2 g 2 + 2 2v O L cos 2 θ W a0) P β2 f P 2 +(X a0 Z a0, W a0 Y a0, P P 2 ) 00 + 2β f λ f X a0w a0r f P 2 [ λf T 3a β f (T 3a 2e fa sin 2 θ W ) ] 4 R 2 Z + ig Z (20) 5
A( 3 P 2 ) : λ f = 0 2 3 vβ f P 2 λ f = ± [ Rf (X 2 a0 + W 2 a0 ) + 2X a0 W ] a0 + (X a0 Z a0, W a0 Y a0, P P 2 ) (2) 2vβf [ (X 2 P 2 a0 + W 2 a0 ) + β fλ f (X 2 a0 W 2 a0 ) 2R fx a0 W a0 ] X a0, W a0, Z a0 and Y a0 + (X a0 Z a0, W a0 Y a0, P P 2 ). (22) are the couplings [20] of the fermion to the sfermion and lightest neutralino. These couplings have the same form in the MSSM and NMSSM. The only difference follows from the matrix N, which diagonalizes the mass matrix of the neutralinos. In [20] the following definitions are used: O L ij R f = m f m χ P i = + R 2 fi R 2 f. (23) is the Z-coupling [20] to the neutralinos. This coupling has the same form in the MSSM and NMSSM, but a different matrix N enters. In the NMSSM the Higgs-couplings to the fermions have to be modified compared to the MSSM h Si u = g 2 m u U S i2 2 sin β m w h Si d = g 2 m d U S i 2 cosβ m w (24) h Pαu = g 2 m u U P α2 2 sin β m w h Pαd = g 2 m d U P α 2 cosβ m w. (25) The mass matrix of the scalar and pseudoscalar Higgses are diagonalised by the matrices U S and U P. The coupling of the scalar Higgs to the neutralinos is different in the NMSSM and the MSSM. In the NMSSM this coupling can be written as T Saij = U S a Q ij + US a2 S ij + US a3 Z ij (26) Q ij = 2 g 2 [N i3 (g 2 N j2 g y N j ) + 2 λ N i4 N j5 + (i j)] (27) 6
S ij = 2 g 2 [N i4 (g 2 N j2 g y N j ) 2 λ N i3 N j5 + (i j)] (28) Z ij = 2 g 2 [ 2 λ N i3 N j4 + 2 k N i5 N j5 + (i j)]. (29) The coupling of the pseudoscalar Higgs to the neutralinos also changes. In the NMSSM this coupling has the following form T Pαij = U P α Q ij + U P α2 S ij U P α3 Z ij (30) Q ij = 2 g 2 [N i3 (g 2 N j2 g y N j ) 2 λ N i4 N j5 + (i j)] (3) S ij = 2 g 2 [N i4 (g 2 N j2 g y N j ) + 2 λ N i3 N j5 + (i j)] (32) Z ij = Z ij. (33) iv) Particle spectra. To obtain the mass spectra of the SUSY particles in the NMSSM, we randomly generate 2 0 8 points in the 5 dimensional parameter space of the input parameters λ 0, k 0, h t0, tanβ and x. For m 0, m /2 and A 0 we randomly generate starting points for the search-algorithmus. With the SUSY RGEs [5] we evolve the parameters from the GUT scale to the electroweak scale. By minimizing the effective loop Higgs potential, we numerically calculate the parameters m 0, m /2 and A 0. Then we impose the theoretical and experimental constraints described in ii). With all these requirements, about 3000 solutions remain, from which about 200 solutions are cosmologically acceptable. For the constrained MSSM in [24] a scatter-plot of solutions in the (m 0, m /2 ) plane is shown. Upper bounds of. TeV for m /2 and 600 GeV for m 0 are found. For m /2 00 GeV solutions with much larger m 0 are allowed due to Z-pole enhanced neutralino pair annihilation (m χ 0 m Z /2). The comparable scatter-plot for the NMSSM (more details in [23]) shows only a few cosmologically allowed solutions with m 0 m /2. The reason, why the case m 0 m /2 is somewhat suppressed in the NMSSM, is discussed in [25]. It follows from the condition, that the minimum of the Higgs potential does not break the conservation of charge and colour, and from the condition that the physical 7
minimum is lower than the symmetric vacuum, A 2 0 > 9m 2 0. As a few representative examples for the importance of the dark matter constraints we show in the following some scatter-plots for the mass of SUSY particles. In the upper left picture of figure the mass of the LSP neutralino versus the mass of the lighter selectron is shown for the MSSM. In the MSSM the LSP neutralino is mostly a bino. In the upper right picture the dark matter condition is imposed and gives un upper bound of 300 GeV for the LSP neutralino and the lighter selectron. Heavier selectrons are cosmologically allowed, if Z-pole or Higgs-pole enhanced neutralino pair annihilation [24] occurs. In the NMSSM some LSP neutralinos can have a large singlino portion. But with the dark matter condition nearly all LSP singlinos can be excluded (more details in [23]). For the NMSSM the lower left picture of figure shows the mass of the LSP neutralino versus the mass of the lighter selectron. Compared to the MSSM there are not so many solutions in the NMSSM with small LSP neutralino mass and large selectron mass, which follows from the suppression of m 0 m /2 in the NMSSM [25]. The lower right picture of figure shows the NMSSM solutions, which survive the dark matter condition. The cosmologically allowed solutions in the MSSM and NMSSM look quite similar except that heavier selectrons are allowed in the former. In the left picture of figure 2 we show the mass of the lighter u-squark and the lighter stop versus the mass of the gluino for the NMSSM. In contrast to the MSSM [26, 23], the squark masses in the NMSSM are nearly proportional to the gluino mass. The already mentioned reason is, that in the NMSSM solutions with m 0 m /2 are somewhat disfavoured. In the right picture of figure 2 the cosmologically allowed lighter u-squark and lighter stop masses are shown. The dark matter condition sets an upper bound of 2 TeV for the squarks and 2.2 TeV for the gluino. In the left picture of figure 3 the mass of the lightest scalar Higgs S versus the mass of the gluino is shown for the NMSSM. The lightest scalar Higgs can be lighter than the MSSM Higgs bound of 62.5 GeV [2]. In this case the lightest scalar Higgs is predominantly a Higgs singlet N [7]. The right picture of figure 3 shows only solutions, which fulfill the dark matter condition. As can be seen nearly all light scalar Higgs singlets can be cosmologically excluded. An upper bound for the lightest scalar Higgs of 40 GeV follows 8
from the dark matter condition in the NMSSM. The corresponding plots in the MSSM [27, 23] look very similar with the exception, that there are no Higgses below the bound of 62.5 GeV [2]. v) Conclusions. We have investigated the particle spectra of the MSSM and NMSSM without and with the dark matter condition. We found, that LSP singlinos and light scalar Higgs singlets are cosmologically excluded. In contrast to the MSSM, the squark masses in the NMSSM are nearly proportional to the gluino mass. With the dark matter condition, upper bounds for the mass of SUSY particles in the NMSSM can be set, which are comparable to the MSSM bounds. The LSP neutralino and lighter selectron have to be lighter than 300 GeV. The upper bound for the squarks is 2 TeV and for the gluino is 2.2 TeV. The lightest scalar Higgs is found to be lighter than 40 GeV. I am grateful to M. Glück and E. Reya for suggestions and many helpful discussions. Also I would like to thank U. Ellwanger and C.A. Savoy for useful conversations. The work has been supported by the Graduiertenkolleg am Institut für Physik der Universität Dortmund. References [] H.P. Nilles, Phys. Rep. 0 (984) ; H.E. Haber, G.L. Kane, Phys. Rep. 7 (985) 75. [2] J. Ellis, J.F. Gunion, H.E. Haber, L. Roszkowski, F. Zwirner, Phys. Rev. D39 (989) 844. [3] U. Ellwanger, Phys. Lett. B303 (993) 27. [4] J. Ellis, S. Kelley, D.V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. B260 (99) 3; U. Amaldi, W. de Boer, H. Fürstenau, Phys. Lett. B260 (99) 447; P. Langacker, M. Luo, Phys. Rev. D44 (99) 87. [5] J.P. Derendinger, C.A. Savoy, Nucl. Phys. B237 (984) 307. 9
[6] U. Ellwanger, M.R. de Traubenberg, C.A. Savoy, Phys. Lett. B35 (993) 33. [7] U. Ellwanger, M.R. de Traubenberg, C.A. Savoy, Z Phys. C67 (995) 665. [8] T. Elliott, S.F. King, P.L. White, Phys. Lett. B35 (995) 23. [9] U. Ellwanger, M.R. de Traubenberg, Z Phys. C53 (992) 52. [0] CDF Collab., F. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 (995) 2626. [] Particle Data Group, R.M. Barnett et al., Phys. Rev. D54 (996). [2] G. Cowan, talk given at CERN on 25 Feb. 997. [http://alephwww.cern.ch/alpub/seminar/cowan-72-jam/cowan.html] [3] M. Bisset, S. Raychaudhuri, D.K. Ghosh, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai preprint TIFR-TH-96-45, hep-ph/960842. [4] M. Pieri, talk given at CERN on 25 Feb. 997. [http://l3www.cern.ch/analysis/nplep2/plots.html] [5] CDF Collab., F. Abe et al., preprint FERMILAB-PUB-97/03-E, submitted to Phys. Rev. D. [6] F. Richard, talk given at CERN on 25 Feb. 997. [http://delphiwww.cern.ch/delfigs/richard970225/richard.html] [7] ALEPH Collab., D. Buskulic et al., Phys. Lett. B33 (993) 32. [8] M.A. Diaz, S.F. King, Phys. Lett. B349 (995) 05. [9] M. Davis, F. Summers, D. Schlegel, Nature 359 (992) 393; A. Klypin, J. Holtzman, J.R. Primack, E. Regös, Astrophys. J. 46 (993). [20] M. Drees, M.M. Nojiri, Phys. Rev. D47 (993) 376. [2] E.W. Kolb, M.S. Turner, The Early Universe (Addison-Wesley, New York, 990). [22] K. Griest, M. Kamionkowski, M.S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D4 (990) 3565. 0
[23] A. Stephan, in preparation. [24] C. Kolda, L. Roszkowski, J.D. Wells, G.L. Kane, Phys. Rev. D50 (994) 3498. [25] U. Ellwanger, M.R. de Traubenberg, C.A. Savoy, Université de Paris-Sud, Orsay preprint LPTHE-96-85, hep-ph/9625. [26] V. Barger, M.S. Berger, P. Ohmann, Phys. Rev. D49 (994) 4908. [27] W. de Boer et al., Universität Karlsruhe, preprint IEKP-KA/96-04, hep-ph/9603350. Figure Captions Fig The mass of the LSP neutralino versus the lighter selectron mass. The upper pictures are for the MSSM, the lower pictures are for the NMSSM. In the right pictures the dark matter condition is imposed. Fig 2 The mass of the lighter u-squark and the lighter stop versus the gluino mass in the NMSSM. In the right picture the dark matter condition is imposed. Fig 3 The mass of the lightest Higgs S versus the gluino mass in the NMSSM. In the right picture the dark matter condition is imposed.
~ 600 500 400 300 200 00 0 600 500 400 300 200 00 0 500 000 500 500 000 500 ~ Fig. 2
~ ~ 3500 3000 2500 2000 500 000 500 0 0 000 2000 3000 4000 0 000 2000 3000 4000 ~ Fig. 2 3
60 40 20 00 80 60 40 20 0 0 000 2000 3000 4000 0 000 2000 3000 4000 ~ Fig. 3 4