Barbara Mele Sezione di Roma Roma, 12 ottobre 2005 Physics : ILC vs LHC ….after Snowmass 2005 Barbara Mele Sezione di Roma

Advances in Physics at Snowmass Higgs Supersymmetry Beyond the Standard Model Top / Quantum Chromodynamics LHC/ILC Connections Cosmological Connections Radiative Corrections (Loopfest)

The Charge for the Physics Working Groups 1. What are the most important measurements that the ILC should perform in the subject area of your working group? 2. What are the key measurements by which the ILC will add to what is already known from the LHC? 3. What are the processes and measurements new to the community in the past few years that further motivate the case for the ILC? 4. For each of these measurements, what criteria for the detectors are necessary to allow measurements to the appropriate precision? 5. Are there detector capabilities that are not strongly challenged by the list of processes in #1 and #2? Is this acceptable, or are there additional measurements that should be added to the list against which detectors will be evaluated?

485 pages ! started in Spring 2002 ~ 120 authors . . .

Precision Higgs physics at the ILC model-independent observation mass absolute branching ratios total width (mod.indep.) spin, CP top Yukawa coupling self coupling most measurements at the percent level! Garcia-Abia et al

Supersymmetry Two methods to obtain absolute sparticle masses: in the continuum: at the kinematic threshold: (polarized beams) Freitas Martyn mass precision 0/00 – 0/0 many more observables than just masses: angular distributions, FB-asymmetries - cross sections - LR-asymmetries - ratios of branching ratios possibility to determine SUSY parameters without many model assumptions

LHC: Mass determination for 300fb-1 (thus 2014) LHC: Toy MC from edges, thresholds to masses Polesello et al: use of χ1 from ILC (high precision) in LHC analyses improves the mass determination D. Zerwas, Snowmass talk Allanach et al

MSSM parameter determination

SUSY W-group conclusions

The Cosmic Connection SUSY provides excellent candidate for dark matter (LSP) Other models also provide TeV-scale WIMPs How well can the properties of the DM-candidates (to be found at accelerators) be compared to the properties of the real DM (inferred from astrophysical measurements) ? ALCPG study/prel. DM/DM main sensitivity bulk 3.5% focus 1.9% co-ann. 6.5% funnel 3.1% matches precision of future CMB exp.

Dark Matter : is it the Susy LSP ?

Difficult at LHC

No elementary Higgs? Cross section for vector boson scattering violates unitarity at ~1.2 TeV, if forces remain weak and no new resonances appear ILC sensitivity deep into multi-TeV region from VB final states eff. Lagrangian parameters of strong EWSB: Higgsless model: new resonance in WZWZ Coupling structure from ILC if resonance seen by LHC Birkedal et al. Krstonosic et al.

Effective 4-fermion contact interactions

What if “unexpected” New Physics ?

Top it’s there for sure! Threshold scan provides excellent mass measurement Theory (NNLL) controls mt(MS) to 100 MeV precise mtop vital for improved SM fits - MSSM (mh prediction) - DM-density in mSugra - . . . . Heinemeyer et al Hoang et al

EW precision measurements :

Phisics Benchmarks for the ILC detectors