slha 2 discussion mon 26 06 2006 tools 06 annecy n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
SLHA 2 Discussion Mon 26/06 2006 – Tools 06 – Annecy PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
SLHA 2 Discussion Mon 26/06 2006 – Tools 06 – Annecy

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 17
annora

SLHA 2 Discussion Mon 26/06 2006 – Tools 06 – Annecy - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

62 Views
Download Presentation
SLHA 2 Discussion Mon 26/06 2006 – Tools 06 – Annecy
An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. SLHA 2 DiscussionMon 26/06 2006 – Tools 06 – Annecy • NMSSM • FLV • CPV • RPV • Dark Matter • Theory Uncertainties • Cross Sections • General BSM Resonances • Effective Couplings

  2. M 1 2 m A m A o ¹ The SLHA1 Conventions • Experimental boundary conditions • “SM” gauge couplings and Yukawas (measured): MSbar + pole •  “MSSM” couplings and Yukawas (not the same, since different field content  different quantum corrections): DRbar + pole + eff. • Superpotential(at scale Q (normally MGUT) in DRbar) • SUSY Breaking Terms(at scale Q in DRbar)

  3. SUSY Breaking Terms(at scale Q in DRbar) How to Generalise? MSSM • Superpotential(at scale Q (normally MGUT) in DRbar) RPV CPV FLV

  4. Dark Matter • Are there special needs for Dark Matter codes which are not addressed / insufficient in SLHA1?

  5. FLV (Flavour Violation) • Model Definition • FLV simple on/off. • No special entry for MFV etc. • Reason: mixing structure (dimensionality etc) doesn’t care how much FLV, only whether it’s there or not. • Opinions? • E.g. separate on/off for lepton and quark sectors? • …

  6. FLV (Flavour Violation) • Squark mass matrices • Hermiticity + diagonal terms already in EXTPAR •  Give only upper off-diagonal terms • (Though diagonal terms not required, codes could still be able to deal with them if present, superseding EXTPAR)? • Naming: • MSQ2, MSD2, MSU2? • MSQ2OD, MSD2OD, MSU2OD? • MSQ2OFFD, MSD2OFFD, MSU2OFFD? • … ? • CPV: • IMMSQ2, IMMSD2, …

  7. FLV (Flavour Violation) • Squark Mixing Matrices • USQMIX: 6x6 up-squark mixing in super-CKM basis • DSQMIX: 6x6 down-squark mixing in super-CKM basis • Problem: which squark is which? Enumeration of mass eigenstates. • NB: PDG are open to suggestions Q: also keep in limit of no FLV? (Jaume) FCHDECAY fchdecay.googlepages.com Main Issue: PDG (no-mixing limit): Down squarks: PDG code 1000001 d_1 1000003 d_2 1000005 d_3 2000001 d_4 2000003 d_5 2000005 d_6 Up squarks: PDG Code 1000002 u_1 1000004 u_2 1000006 u_3 2000002 u_4 2000004 u_5 2000006 u_6 1000001 d_L 1000003 s_L 1000005 b_1 2000001 d_R 2000003 s_R 2000005 b_2 1000002 u_L 1000004 c_L 1000006 t_1 2000002 u_R 2000004 c_R 2000006 t_2

  8. RPV & CPV(R-Parity and CP Violation) • Dimensionality of mixing matrices: • Q: include Goldstones explicitly or not e.g. in neutral and charged Higgs sectors • CPV: 2x2 charged and 4x4 neutral? Or 1x1 and 3x3? • RPV: 8x8 charged and 2 5x5 neutral? Or 7x7 and 4x4? • Superfluous? Can always be calculated if needed. Unnecessary possibility for confusion & inconsistency. • Doesn’t hurt? Calculations cumbersome, why not include it? • Q (from Sven) : Does anyone see an advantage to including the Goldstones?

  9. FLV (Flavour Violation) • Lepton mixing

  10. RPV(R-Parity Violation) • EWSB constraints  Several model parametrizations • RPC MSSM: (mH1,mH2) or (mA,μ) • Fine, still manageable • SLHA1 allows both (in mutually exclusive way) • RPV MSSM: RPC + 3 sneutrino vevs  5 pars • Still only 2 independent. • Solution A? Always define pars in basis where sneutrino vevs are zero (can rotate there from general case)  SLHA1 sufficient. But not very convenient? • Solution B?

  11. NMSSM(Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model) • Tentative solution implemented in NMHDecay and described in Les Houches writeup. (+ MicrOmegas, CalcHEP, Pythia) • Q: One or Many? • Specify field content  one NMSSM (e.g. dimensionality of mixing matrices always same) • Qualitatively different models w/ different superpotentials etc (?)  many NMSSM? (nMSSM, NMSSM, MNMSSM, …) • What is necessary / sufficient from calculational point of view? From convenience point of view? • Can different models be unified into one with generalised Superpotential etc? (some pars zero in some versions, others zero in others?) • Or necessary to distinguish between truly (completely) different next-to-minimal models?

  12. SUSY Breaking Terms(at scale Q in DRbar) • EXTPAR: • lambda • kappa • A_lambda • A_kappa • mu_eff=lambda<S> • Physical Spectrum • 3 H0 (PDG: 25,35,45), 2 A0 (PDG: 36, 46), 5χ0 (PDG: 1000045) • Mixing: NMHMIX NMAMIX NMNMIX See also MicrOMEGAs & CalcHEP + CalcHEP/NMHDecay Interface to PYTHIA NMSSM(Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model) Cf. NMHDecay, Ellwanger, Gunion, Hugonie Present Status: Superpotential(at scale Q (normally MGUT) in DRbar) (usually with μMSSM=0) NMSSM

  13. DRbar Mixing Matrices • In SLHA1, agreed not to agree. • Exact definition of mixing matrices was “left up to RGE program” • Read the individual manual • DRbar at some scale m? (m2SUSY = mt1mt2) • On-shell ? external momentum = … ? m = (mh + mH)/2, … • Etc … • Not a huge problem • DRbar Lagrangian parameters also given •  can always construct desired mixing structure • Still, it is possible to include option for giving DRbar mixing matrices at scale Q (e.g. SPA uses DRbar at 1 TeV): • Would this be useful? • Potential pitfalls?

  14. Theory Uncertainties • What has been done: FeynHiggs • Uncorrelated +/- uncertainties • Separate blocks DMASS, DALPHA • What has been thought about: • Similar in spirit to “error PDF’s” • Correlated uncertainties  a series of spectra • “Eigenvector” directions in uncertainty space part of input • Does anyone actually implement #2? • If not, no need for Accord now …

  15. Cross Sections • Templated in SPheno, for use with SFitter, Fittino. • At the moment, only for ILC studies? • Only “inclusive” cross sections (?) • As far as I know, template works well (?) • May be prudent (?) to hesitate with “Accord” for this until more than one or two tools exist? (unofficial solution not forbidden!) – Or at least until more experiences collected?

  16. General BSM Resonances • Many new models in recent years • Little Higgs, Extra Dimensions (ADD, RS, UED, …), Z-primes, … • Specialised tools beginning to emerge • Important to have full-fledged event generators • Qualitatively different collider phenomenologies • Model confusion • Extensive discussions at MC4BSM(FNAL, March 20-21 2006) • Summary of discussions available on spires (f t mc4bsm) •  Proposal for definition of new state in SLHA-like block BLOCK QNUMBERS 1234567 # new_guy PDG=1234567 1 0 # 3 times electric charge 2 2 # number of spin states (2S+1) 3 1 # colour rep (1: singlet, 3: triplet, 8: octet) 4 0 # Particle/Antiparticle distinction (0=own anti) BLOCK MASS # Mass Spectrum 1234567 3.1415926535E+02 # new_guy DECAY 1234567 1.000000E+00 # new_guy width 1.0000E-00 2 22 22 # Br(new_guy -> gamma gamma) • Or something a la definition of a particle in a CalcHEP/CompHEP model file?

  17. Notes and Conclusions