SLHA 2 Discussion Mon 26/ – Tools 06 – Annecy NMSSM FLV CPV RPV Dark Matter Theory Uncertainties Cross Sections General BSM Resonances Effective Couplings

The SLHA1 Conventions 1.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. 2.Superpotential (at scale Q (normally M GUT ) in DRbar) 3.SUSY Breaking Terms (at scale Q in DRbar) A ¹ m A M 1 2 m o

How to Generalise? MSSM 2.Superpotential (at scale Q (normally M GUT ) in DRbar) RPV CPV FLV 3.SUSY Breaking Terms (at scale Q in DRbar)

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

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? –…

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, …

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 Down squarks: PDG code d_ d_ d_ d_ d_ d_6 Up squarks: PDG Code u_ u_ u_ u_ u_ u_6 Main Issue: PDG (no-mixing limit): u_L c_L t_ u_R c_R t_ d_L s_L b_ d_R s_R b_2 (Jaume) FCHDECAY fchdecay.googlepages.com Q: also keep in limit of no FLV?

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?

FLV (Flavour Violation) Lepton mixing

RPV (R-Parity Violation) EWSB constraints  Several model parametrizations RPC MSSM: (m H1,m H2 ) or (m A,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?

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?

Cf. NMHDecay, Ellwanger, Gunion, Hugonie Superpotential (at scale Q (normally M GUT ) in DRbar) (usually with μ MSSM =0) NMSSM SUSY Breaking Terms (at scale Q in DRbar) EXTPAR: 61)lambda 62)kappa 63)A_lambda 64)A_kappa 65)mu_eff=lambda Physical Spectrum 3 H 0 (PDG: 25,35,45), 2 A 0 (PDG: 36, 46), 5χ 0 (PDG: ) Mixing: NMHMIX NMAMIX NMNMIX See also MicrOMEGAs & CalcHEP + CalcHEP/NMHDecay Interface to PYTHIA NMSSM (Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model) Present Status:

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? (m 2 SUSY = m t1 m t2 ) On-shell ? external momentum = … ? m = (m h + m H )/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?

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 …

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?

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 ) Summary of discussions available on spires (f t mc4bsm)  Proposal for definition of new state in SLHA-like block BLOCK QNUMBERS # new_guy PDG= # 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 E+02 # new_guy DECAY E+00 # new_guy width E # Br(new_guy -> gamma gamma) Or something a la definition of a particle in a CalcHEP/CompHEP model file?

Notes and Conclusions