1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% LATEX FILE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %\documentclass[a4paper]{article}
3: \documentclass[11pt]{JHEP}
4: %Note JHEP class documentation found in http://jhep.sissa.it/JOURNAL/JHEP.ps
5:
6: \usepackage{epsfig}
7: %\usepackage{draftcopy}
8:
9: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% MACROS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
10: \input{defs}
11:
12: \preprint{DAMTP-1999-86 \\ Cavendish-HEP-00/06 \\ CERN-TH/2000-149}
13: \title{Measuring sparticle masses in non-universal string inspired models at the LHC}
14: %(1) Stringy \susy\ searches at the LHC\\or\\
15: %(2)String-inspired sparticle searches at the Large Hadron Collider\\or\\
16: %(3) Measuring supersymmetry in non-universal frameworks at the Large Hadron
17: %Collider\\or\\
18: %(4) Measuring sparticle masses in non-universal string inspired models at the LHC \\or\\
19: %(5)Indirect string searches via sparticle mass measurements at the Large
20: %Hadron Collider
21: \author{B.C.~Allanach$^*$, C.G.~Lester$^\dag$,
22: M.A.~Parker$^\dag$ and B.R.~Webber$^{\dag,\ddag}$\\
23: $^*$DAMTP, University of Cambridge, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge, CB3\nolinebreak\ \nolinebreak{0WA,} UK\\
24: $^\dag$Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3\nolinebreak\ \nolinebreak{0HE,} UK\\
25: $^\ddag$Theory Division, CERN, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland}
26:
27: \abstract{We demonstrate that some of the suggested five supergravity
28: points for study at the LHC could be approximately derived from
29: perturbative string theories or M-theory, but that charge and colour
30: breaking minima would result. As a pilot study, we then analyse a
31: perturbative string model with non-universal soft masses that are
32: optimised in order to avoid global charge and colour breaking minima.
33: By combining measurements of up to six kinematic edges from squark
34: decay chains with data from a new kinematic variable, designed to
35: improve slepton mass measurements, we demonstrate that a typical LHC
36: experiment will be able to determine squark, slepton and neutralino
37: masses with an accuracy sufficient to permit an optimised model to be
38: distinguished from a similar standard SUGRA point. The technique thus
39: generalizes \susy\ searches at the LHC.}
40:
41: \keywords{Supersymmetry Breaking, Beyond Standard Model, Supersymmetric Standard Model, Hadronic Colliders}
42:
43: \begin{document}
44: \bibliographystyle{JHEP}
45:
46: \section{Introduction}
47: The purpose of this work is to extend the discussion of LHC
48: supersymmetry (SUSY) searches to include string models. We begin by
49: discussing whether string models can be used to motivate previous work
50: on LHC SUSY searches, and then suggest a well-motivated non-universal
51: string model for a new pilot study. We go on to examine how the SUSY
52: particles can be detected and how the model can be distinguished from
53: a similar well studied supergravity (SUGRA) model. We reconstruct
54: sparticle masses by looking for kinematic edges in $ \squark_L
55: \rightarrow \ntlinoTwo q \rightarrow \slepton_R^\pm l^{\mp} q
56: \rightarrow \ntlinoOne l^{\pm} l^{\mp} q $ and $ \squark_L \rightarrow
57: \ntlinoTwo q \rightarrow \ntlinoOne X q \rightarrow \ntlinoOne l^{\pm}
58: l^{\mp} q $ decay chains, and in doing so generalize the method of
59: \cite{modelIndependentSusyStuffPhysicsTDR} by unifying the treatment
60: of light and heavy sleptons. Additionally, with a novel method based
61: on \cite{pubstransversemass}, we further constrain the $\ntlinoOne$
62: and $\slepton_R$ masses by studying the kinematics of events
63: containing pair produced sleptons: $ ( g g / q \bar{q}) \rightarrow
64: \slepton_R^{+} \slepton_R^{-} \rightarrow l^{+} \ntlinoOne l^{-}
65: \ntlinoOne $. In particular, this allows the mass difference between
66: the $\ntlinoOne$ and $\slepton_R$ to be determined with sufficient
67: accuracy to permit discrimination between the string model and the
68: most similar standard SUGRA model. We suggest that our analysis is
69: likely to be applicable, not just to string motivated non-universal
70: models, but to other non-universal models as well.
71:
72: \input{theory.tex}
73:
74: \clearpage
75:
76: \input{expt.tex}
77:
78: \clearpage
79:
80: \section{Conclusions}
81: Some of the five standard LHC SUGRA points are compatible with
82: universal perturbative string and M-theory, but dangerous CCB/UFB
83: breaking minima are present in each example. We therefore studied a
84: perturbative string model which is optimized to ameliorate the CCB/UFB
85: problems present in the other models. The optimized model is
86: non-universal because the squarks and sleptons are split in mass at
87: the string scale. We identify the SUGRA point with the most similar
88: spectrum and hard SUSY production cross sections (\sFive) to compare the
89: optimized model with. The main difference is that the sleptons are
90: heavier and therefore have lower production cross-sections.
91: We have demonstrated the existence of a method by which an LHC
92: experiment will be able to measure the masses of the (lighter)
93: sleptons and the two neutralinos at \oOne\ in a largely model
94: independent way. In a specific comparison of \sFive\ and \oOne\ we
95: have shown that this method will be able to distinguish a SUGRA model
96: from an optimised string model with very similar properties.
97:
98: \par More importantly, we expect that the techniques developed here
99: are general enough to be used to discriminate between other pairings
100: of optimised and non-optimised models with similar characteristics.
101: The optimized model analysis applies to a more general class of models than
102: the string model itself. We could apply it to models with non-universal SUSY
103: breaking terms at $M_{GUT}$ in which the squarks and sleptons are explicitly
104: split in mass. These constitute a superset of the particular string model
105: considered here.
106:
107: \section*{Acknowledgements}
108: This work was partially supported by the U.K.~Particle Physics and
109: Astronomy Research Council. We thank D.J.~Summers for helpful discussions.
110: CGL also wishes to thank A.J.~Barr, L.M.~Drage, J.P.J.~H{\bf e}therington and
111: C.~Jones for their help on numerous occasions.
112:
113: \bibliography{bib}
114: \end{document}
115:
116:
117:
118:
119:
120:
121: