1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{graphicx,cite,epsfig}
3: \topmargin -0.2in
4: \textheight 9.4in
5: \textwidth 6.5in
6: \oddsidemargin -0.4in
7: \def\baselinestretch{1.5}
8: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{array}}
9: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{array}}
10: \newcommand{\bd}{\begin{displaymath}}
11: \newcommand{\ed}{\end{displaymath}}
12: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
13: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
14: \def\bt{\begin{table}}
15: \def\et{\end{table}}
16: \def\bi{\begin{itemize}}
17: \def\ei{\end{itemize}}
18: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
19: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
20: \def\hr{\hookrightarrow}
21: \def\hl{\stackrel{\lambda}{\hookrightarrow}}
22: \def\tl{\stackrel{\lambda}{\rightarrow}}
23: \def\l{\lambda}
24: \def\e{\ell}
25: \def\N0{\widetilde{\chi}^0}
26: \def\Cp{\widetilde{\chi}^+}
27: \def\Cm{\widetilde{\chi}^-}
28: \def\Cpm{\widetilde{\chi}^\pm}
29: \def\Cmp{\widetilde{\chi}^\mp}
30: % Bra-Kets:
31: \def\bra{\langle}
32: \def\ket{\rangle}
33: % Greek letters:
34: \def\a{\alpha}
35: \def\as {\alpha_s}
36: \def\b{\beta}
37: \def\g{\gamma}
38: \def\d{\delta}
39: \def\e{\epsilon}
40: \def\ve{\varepsilon}
41: \def\m{\mu}
42: \def\n{\nu}
43: \def\G{\Gamma}
44: \def\D{\Delta}
45: \def\L{\Lambda}
46: \def\s{\sigma}
47: \def\p{\pi}
48: \def\mzs {M_Z^2}
49: \def\mws {M_W^2}
50: \def\q2 {q^2}
51: \def\pa {\partial}
52: \def\r {\rightarrow}
53: \def\t {\times }
54: \def\slash {\!\!\!\!/}
55: \def\neu{\Tilde\chi^0}
56: \def\mneu {m_{\neu_1}}
57: \def\tanb {\tan \beta}
58: \def\qt {\lambda_t}
59: \def\wt{\lambda_W}
60: \def\xt{\lambda_{\chi_+}}
61: %
62: \catcode`@=11 % This allows us to modify PLAIN macros.
63: \def \gsim{\mathrel{\mathpalette\@versim>}}
64: \def \lsim{\mathrel{\mathpalette\@versim<}}
65: \def \@versim#1#2{\lower0.4ex\vbox{\baselineskip\z@skip\lineskip\z@skip
66: \lineskiplimit\z@\ialign{$\m@th#1\hfil##\hfil$%
67: \crcr#2\crcr\sim\crcr}}}
68: \catcode`@=12 % at signs are no longer letters
69: %
70: \begin{document}
71: \setcounter{page}{0}
72: \thispagestyle{empty}
73:
74: % --------------------------------------------------------------------------
75: % Title And Abstract Page
76: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
77: \begin{flushright}
78: HRI-P-05-10-001\\
79: \end{flushright}
80: \begin{center}
81: {\Large\sc Distinguishing split supersymmetry in Higgs signals at the
82: Large Hadron Collider }\\[20mm]
83: Sudhir Kumar Gupta\footnote{E-mail: guptask@mri.ernet.in},
84: Biswarup Mukhopadhyaya\footnote{E-mail: biswarup@mri.ernet.in} and
85: Santosh Kumar Rai\footnote{E-mail: skrai@mri.ernet.in}\\
86: {\em Harish-Chandra Research Institute,\\
87: Chhatnag Road, Jhusi, Allahabad - 211 019, India}
88: \end{center}
89: \vskip 20 mm
90:
91: \begin{abstract}
92: We examine the possibility of detecting signals of
93: split supersymmetry in the loop-induced decay $h\longrightarrow
94: \gamma\gamma$ of the Higgs boson at the Large Hadron Collider, where
95: charginos, as surviving light fermions of the supersymmetric spectrum,
96: can contribute in the loop. We perform a detailed study of
97: uncertainties in various parameters involved in the analysis, and thus
98: the net uncertainty in the standard model prediction of the rate. After
99: a thorough scan of the parameter space, taking all constraints into
100: account, we conclude that it will be very difficult to infer about
101: split supersymmetry from Higgs signals alone.
102: \end{abstract}
103:
104: %\vskip 0.5 true cm
105:
106: %\newpage
107: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
108: \def\baselinestretch{1.8}
109: %\begin{quotation} \noindent \sl
110: %\end{quotation} \rm\normalsize
111: \vfill
112:
113:
114: \newpage
115: % --------------------------------------------------------------------------
116: % Body of the paper
117: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
118: \section{Introduction}
119: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------
120: The idea of a supersymmetric nature, with supersymmetry (SUSY) broken
121: in a phenomenologically consistent manner, is several decades old now.
122: It is expected that the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will reveal its
123: trace if the scale of SUSY breaking is within a TeV or so. In
124: addition, signals for the Higgs boson(s) at the LHC are also likely to
125: yield useful information about SUSY. For example, in the minimal SUSY
126: standard model (MSSM) and most of its extensions, the lightest neutral
127: Higgs has a mass within about 135 GeV. Furthermore, its couplings with
128: the standard model particles differ from the standard model values, and
129: such departure can be tested at the LHC and more precisely at a linear
130: collider, giving us an indication about a supersymmetric world from the
131: Higgs signals themselves.
132:
133: The situation is somewhat different in split SUSY, a recently proposed
134: scenario where all supersymmetric scalars are very heavy while the
135: gauginos and Higgsinos can be within the TeV scale
136: \cite{nima1,romanino}. Such a scenario is motivated by the fact that an
137: inadmissibly large cosmological constant is difficult to avoid in a
138: broken SUSY model, unless one fine-tunes parameters to a high degree.
139: Therefore, it has been argued, it may not be out of place to stabilize
140: the electroweak (EW) scale, too, via fine tuning. Nonetheless, SUSY as
141: an artifact of theories such as superstring may still be around, albeit
142: with a large breaking scale.
143:
144: Since it does not claim to solve the hierarchy problem, split SUSY can
145: have the scalar masses (and the SUSY breaking scale) as high as
146: $10^{13}$ GeV or so. It avoids the problems with flavor changing
147: neutral current plaguing the usual SUSY models, still provides a dark
148: matter candidate, and even offers to retain gauge coupling through
149: TeV-scale thresholds consisting of incomplete representations of the
150: Grand Unification group \cite{romanino}. Thus, although the very
151: philosophy underlying split SUSY may be questioned, it is important to
152: explore its observable consequences. In particular, one would always
153: like to see if the Higgs sector still contains information on new
154: physics. The problem is that in the split SUSY scenario, the low-energy
155: spectrum contains only one neutral Higgs, its interaction strength with
156: all standard model particles being exactly as in the standard model
157: itself. This makes it difficult to distinguish split SUSY from signals
158: of the Higgs boson, at least in tree-level processes, since such
159: processes are unlikely to produce SUSY particles from decays of the
160: Higgs.
161:
162:
163: It has been suggested earlier \cite{spshiggs} that it may be possible
164: to recognize a Higgs in such a case through its loop-induced decays.
165: In particular, the decay channel $h\longrightarrow \gamma\gamma$ gets
166: additional contributions from chargino loops. If these contributions
167: are substantial, then it may be possible, it has been argued, to seek
168: the signature of split SUSY in the two-photon decay channel of the
169: Higgs boson, even before the accessible part of the SUSY spectrum
170: reveals itself.
171:
172:
173: However, the difference made by charginos in the loop-induced effects
174: needs to be analyzed with the full process of Higgs production and its
175: subsequent decay in mind. The authors themselves noted in passing in
176: reference \cite{spshiggs}, that the error in measurements might be
177: substantial at the LHC. Nonetheless, it requires a thorough analysis of
178: the various parameters involved, in order to ascertain whether split
179: SUSY could leave its mark on Higgs decay in the most energetic high
180: energy collider approved till now. In this paper we carry out such an
181: analysis, taking into account all uncertainties in experimental
182: measurements as well as theoretical predictions. Thereafter we make a
183: thorough scan of the split SUSY parameter space, looking for regions
184: where the chargino contributions in the loop could stand out against
185: other uncertainties in the observed event rates. Our conclusion is that
186: it may be difficult to be sure of any split SUSY contributions over
187: most of the parameter space of one's interest.
188:
189:
190: In section 2 we outline the relevant features of split SUSY. In section
191: 3 we take up signals for the Higgs boson, where the diphoton decay mode
192: and the relevant procedure for predicting it are discussed. The various
193: uncertainties in the standard model prediction, relevant for our study,
194: are listed in section 4, while section 5 contains the results of a
195: numerical scan of the parameter space. We summarise and conclude in
196: section 6.
197:
198:
199:
200: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
201: \section{The split SUSY spectrum}
202: As has been mentioned in the previous section, this scenario introduces
203: a splitting between scalars and the fermions. This means, all the
204: squarks and sleptons as well as all physical states in the electroweak
205: symmetry breaking sector excepting one are ultra-heavy, while gauginos,
206: Higgsinos and one (finely-tuned) neutral Higgs boson remain light.
207:
208: %========================================
209: The low-energy spectrum of split SUSY can be obtained by writing the
210: most general renormalizable Lagrangian \cite{romanino} where the heavy
211: scalars have been integrated out and only one Higgs doublet $(H)$ is
212: retained:
213: \bea
214: {\cal L}&=&m^2 H^\dagger H-\frac{\lambda}{2}\left( H^\dagger H\right)^2
215: -\left[ h^u_{ij} {\bar q}_j u_i\epsilon H^* +h^d_{ij} {\bar q}_j d_iH
216: +h^e_{ij} {\bar \ell}_j e_iH \right. \nonumber \\
217: &&+\frac{M_3}{2} {\tilde g}^A {\tilde g}^A +\frac{M_2}{2}
218: {\tilde W}^a {\tilde W}^a +\frac{M_1}{2} {\tilde B} {\tilde B}
219: +\mu {\tilde H}_u^T\epsilon {\tilde H}_d \nonumber \\
220: &&\left. +\frac{H^\dagger}{\sqrt{2}}\left({\tilde g}_u \sigma^a {\tilde W}^a
221: +{\tilde g}_u^\prime {\tilde B} \right) {\tilde H}_u
222: +\frac{H^T\epsilon}{\sqrt{2}}\left(
223: -{\tilde g}_d \sigma^a {\tilde W}^a
224: +{\tilde g}_d^\prime {\tilde B} \right) {\tilde H}_d +{\rm h.c.}\right] ,
225: \label{lagr}
226: \eea
227: where $\epsilon =i\sigma_2$ and ${\tilde H}_{u,d}$ (Higgsinos), $\tilde
228: g$ (gluino), $\tilde W$ (W-ino), $\tilde B$ (B-ino) are the gauginos.
229:
230: The coupling strengths of the effective theory at the scale ${m_S}$,
231: where ${m_S}$ is the scale of SUSY breaking, are
232: obtained by matching the Lagrangian in equation~\ref{lagr}. with the
233: interaction terms of the supersymmetric Higgs doublets $H_u$ and $H_d$:
234: \bea
235: {\cal L}_{\rm susy}&=&
236: -\frac{g^2}{8}\left( H_u^\dagger \sigma^a H_u + H_d^\dagger \sigma^a
237: H_d \right)^2
238: -\frac{g^{\prime 2}}{8}\left( H_u^\dagger H_u - H_d^\dagger H_d
239: \right)^2 \nonumber \\
240: &&+Y^u_{ij}H_u^T\epsilon {\bar u}_i q_j
241: -Y^d_{ij}H_d^T\epsilon {\bar d}_i q_j
242: -Y^e_{ij}H_e^T\epsilon {\bar e}_i \ell_j
243: \nonumber \\
244: &&-\frac{H_u^\dagger}{\sqrt{2}}\left( g \sigma^a {\tilde W}^a
245: +g^\prime {\tilde B} \right) {\tilde H}_u
246: -\frac{H_d^\dagger}{\sqrt{2}}\left(
247: g \sigma^a {\tilde W}^a
248: -g^\prime {\tilde B} \right) {\tilde H}_d +{\rm h.c.}
249: \label{lagrs}
250: \eea
251: The combination $H=-\cos\beta \epsilon H_d^*+\sin\beta H_u$
252: is then fine-tuned to have a small mass term. The matching conditions
253: for the coupling constants in equation~\ref{lagr}. at the scale ${m_S}$ are
254: obtained by replacing $H_u\to \sin\beta H$, $H_d\to \cos\beta \epsilon
255: H^*$ in equation~\ref{lagrs}.:
256: \bea
257: \lambda(m_S)& =& \frac{\left[ g^2(m_S)+g^{\prime 2}(m_S)
258: \right]}{4} \cos^22\beta,
259: \label{condh}\\
260: h^u_{ij}(m_S)= Y^{u*}_{ij}(m_S)\sin\beta , &&
261: h^{d,e}_{ij}(m_S)= Y^{d,e*}_{ij}(m_S)\cos\beta ,\\
262: {\tilde g}_u (m_S)= g (m_S)\sin\beta ,&&
263: {\tilde g}_d (m_S)= g (m_S)\cos\beta ,\\
264: {\tilde g}_u^\prime (m_S)= g^\prime (m_S) \sin\beta ,&&
265: {\tilde g}_d^\prime (m_S)= g^\prime (m_S)\cos\beta ,
266: \label{condg}
267: \eea
268: %========================================
269: \noindent
270: where $\lambda$ is the scalar self-coupling of a theory with a single
271: Higgs doublet, $g$, $g^\prime$ are gauge couplings, and $Y$'s are the
272: Yukawa couplings of the two doublets at the scale $m_S$. The Yukawa
273: interactions of the surviving Higgs doublet below $m_S$ is obtained
274: from the matching conditions and are denoted by $h^{(u,d,e)}$.
275:
276:
277: The low energy effective Lagrangian, as already stated, contains only
278: the neutral CP-even Higgs, a physical state which is henceforth denoted
279: by $h$. Its relevant coupling is obtained by setting $\b - \a~ =~ \pi
280: /2$ in the two-Higgs doublet Lagrangian, which is equivalent to the
281: decoupling limit. Gauge and Yukawa couplings at low energy are exactly
282: as in the standard model, though these can be obtained from the
283: original Lagrangian in the said limit, through evolution from the scale
284: $m_S$ using the matching conditions mentioned before.
285:
286: Similarly, the Higgs mass at EW scale is governed by
287: the quartic coupling and the vev $v$:
288: \bea
289: m_h \sim \sqrt{\lambda} v
290: \eea
291: where the low-energy Higgs quartic coupling is controlled by the
292: logarithmically enhanced contribution given by the evolution of
293: $\lambda$ from the high scale $m_S$, for which the boundary value is
294: given by equation~\ref{condh}. In this scenario, one can make the Higgs
295: heavier than the lightest neutral supersymmetric Higgs boson
296: \cite{nima1,romanino,sphmass}. Thus, by taking the maximum value of
297: $m_S$ to be about $10^{13}$ GeV (for which the justification is given
298: below), it is possible to have a Higgs of mass upto about 170 GeV
299: \cite{sphmass}, making the scenario phenomenologically less restrictive
300: from the viewpoint of Higgs searches.
301:
302:
303: Theoretically, the fermions can be visualized as being protected by an
304: R-symmetry or a Peccei-Quinn symmetry \cite{nima1,romanino}. In order
305: to make one physical Higgs state light, one has to fine-tune in the
306: Higgsino mass parameter $\mu$, the bilinear soft parameter $\mu B$ and
307: the two soft SUSY breaking mass terms for the two doublets, although
308: the viability of such tuning has sometimes been questioned
309: \cite{drees}. In general, a number of theoretical proposals have been
310: made concerning the origin of a split spectrum and some of its
311: consequences \cite{nima2,spspectrum}.
312:
313:
314: A number of phenomenological consequences of a split spectrum have been
315: studied in the literature \cite{sppheno,spgluino,sprare,spfermion}.
316: For example, gluinos can be long-lived since their decays are mediated
317: by the squarks whose masses are at the SUSY breaking scale. The
318: collider implications of such long-lived gluinos as well as of heavy
319: sleptons vis-a-vis light charginos and neutralinos have been already
320: reported \cite{spgluino,sprare,spfermion}. Also, an upper limit of
321: about $10^{13}$ GeV on the SUSY breaking scale has been suggested from
322: the consideration that gluino lifetime has to be shorter than the age
323: of the universe \cite{nima1}. Also, various constraints on the
324: scenario ensue from potentially long-lived `R-hadrons' containing
325: gluinos in a split SUSY scenario \cite{nima1}. In models based on
326: supergravity, implications on the gravitino mass and dark matter have
327: been discussed as well \cite{darkmatter}. The possible enhancement of
328: fermion electric dipole moments has also been reported
329: \cite{spedm}. In addition, it has been seen that R-parity violation
330: in split SUSY can lead to extremely interesting situations where either
331: the lightest neutralino can still be a dark matter candidate through its
332: long lifetime, or it can appear invisible in collider experiments while
333: not contributing to the relic density of the universe \cite{gkm}.
334:
335:
336: In addition to the gaugino and Higgsino mass parameters,
337: the trilinear soft-breaking term $A$ etc. which are all within a TeV, the
338: split SUSY spectrum depends on the SUSY breaking scale, in the sense
339: that boundary conditions for parameters affecting low-energy physics
340: are set at that scale. For example, the quantity $\tan\beta$ can no more
341: be interpreted as the ratio of vacuum expectation values (vev) of the two
342: scalar doublets, simply because one of the doublets is integrated out
343: when electroweak symmetry breaking takes place. It is instead more
344: sensible to treat the angle $\beta$ as a parameter specifying the linear
345: combination of the two doublets that survive till the EW scale.
346: The relevant parameters (such as $\tilde{g_u}/g,\tilde{g_d}/g$ etc.)
347: which enter the chargino mass matrix at low-energy are obtained via
348: evolution from the scale $m_S$ (where they are related to the angle
349: $\beta$). This evolution has to be taken into account whenever a reference
350: to physics at the scale $m_S$ has to be made.
351:
352: \section{Higgs signals and the diphoton mode}
353:
354: If the Higgs exists in the mass range expected in split SUSY, we
355: will be able to see it during an early phase of the LHC.
356: The question that arises is whether it can be distinguished from
357: the standard model Higgs. If that is possible, then it will be
358: an indication of new physics in Higgs signal itself, even if
359: the detection of the new particles in the spectrum are delayed,
360: due, for example, to their high mass.
361:
362:
363: As we have seen above, all tree-level interactions revealing the Higgs
364: at the LHC are exactly as in the standard model. Therefore, we must
365: examine loop induced Higgs decay processes where virtual SUSY particles
366: may contribute. The most suggestive channel in this context is the
367: standard production of the Higgs followed by its decay into the
368: diphotons. In this mode, the (partial) decay width $\Gamma(h \r \g
369: \g)$, gets additional contributions from chargino loops. Recently, it
370: has been suggested \cite{spshiggs} that in some regions of the
371: parameter space these loop contributions may alter the Higgs decay
372: widths by a few per cents, thus making it distinguishable from the
373: standard model Higgs boson.
374:
375: It has to be remembered, however, that the above decay width is not a
376: directly measurable quantity at the LHC. This is because the width is
377: of the order of keV in the relevant Higgs mass range, which is smaller
378: than the resolution of the electromagnetic calorimeters to be used
379: \cite{atlas,cms}. Therefore, it is not clear {\it prima facie} how well
380: the signature of split SUSY can be extracted in this channel, given the
381: rather sizable theoretical as well as experimental uncertainties in the
382: various relevant parameters.
383:
384: We, therefore, have chosen to do a calculation involving the full
385: process $(p p \r h X \r \g \g)$, that is to say, the production of the
386: Higgs followed by its decay into the diphoton final state. Taking all
387: uncertainties into account, we have tried to find the significance
388: level at which the chargino-induced contributions can be differentiated
389: in different regions of the parameter space. We have confined ourselves
390: to the production of Higgs via gluon fusion. The other important
391: channel, namely gauge boson fusion, has been left out of this study,
392: partly because it is plagued with uncertainties arising, for example,
393: from diffractive production, which may be too large for the small
394: effects under consideration here.
395:
396: In the standard model, the decay rate of the Higgs boson to a photon
397: pair is driven by loop-induced contributions from all charged particles
398: as shown in figure 1. Dominant among them are the loops driven by the
399: W boson and the top quark, although contributions from the bottom and
400: charm quarks as well as the $\tau$-lepton cannot be ignored in a
401: precision analysis. The contributions from such loops, including QCD as
402: well as further electroweak corrections, are well-documented in the
403: literature \cite{qcdcorr,2lewc}.
404:
405: The additional contributions from charginos depend on interactions that
406: can be extracted from the split SUSY effective Lagrangian:
407: \be
408: L \supset - \frac{H^\dagger}{\sqrt 2}({\tilde g_u} \s^a {\tilde W^a}
409: +{\tilde g_u^\prime} {\tilde B}) {{\tilde H}_u}
410: -\frac{H^T}{\sqrt 2} {i \s_2}(-{\tilde g_d} \s^a {\tilde W}^a
411: +{{\tilde g_d}^\prime} {\tilde B}) {\tilde H_d} + h.c.
412: \ee
413: Representative Feynman graph relevant for the process is shown in
414: figure 2.
415:
416: Using the above Lagrangian, one obtains the following
417: contribution to the above decay rate, as a sum of the standard and
418: chargino-induced diagrams:
419: %%%%%%
420: \bea \Gamma(h \to \gamma\gamma) = \frac{G_F}{128\sqrt{2}}
421: \frac{\alpha^2 m_h^3}{\pi^3}\left|\sum_{i} A_i\right|^2 \eea
422: %%%%%%
423: where $i$ stands for different particles in the loop. The
424: amplitudes $A_i$ are
425: %%%%%%
426: \bea
427: A_W &=& C_W F_1(\l_W) \nonumber \\
428: A_f &=& N_c^f Q_f^2 C_f F_{1/2}(\l_f) \nonumber \\
429: A_{\Cpm} &=& C_{\Cpm} \frac{m_W}{m_{\Cpm}} F_{1/2}(\l_{\Cpm})
430: \label{amp}
431: \eea
432: %%%%%%
433: where $\l_i = \frac{4 m_i^2}{m_h^2}$, $m_i$ being the mass of the
434: particle inside the loop. The functions $F_1,~F_{1/2}$ are
435: given by
436: %%%%%%
437: \bea
438: F_1(\l) &=& 3\l + 2 + 3\l(2 - \l)f(\l) \nonumber \\
439: F_{1/2}(\l)&=& -2\l\left[1 + (1 -\l)f(\l)\right]
440: \eea
441: %%%%%%
442: The function $f(\l)$ depends on the value of $\l$ and takes the form:
443: \bea
444: f(\l) = \left[\sin^{-1}\sqrt{\frac{1}{\l}}\right]^2 ~~{\rm for}~~\l\ge 1
445: \nonumber \\
446: f(\l) = -\frac{1}{4}\left[\log\left(\frac{1+\sqrt{1-\l}}{1-\sqrt{1-\l}}\right) -
447: i\pi \right]^2 ~~ {\rm for}~~\l < 1
448: \label{absorptive}
449: \eea
450: \begin{figure}
451: \begin{center}
452: \epsfig{file=fd1.eps
453: ,width=7.5in,height=1.3in}
454: \caption{\it{Standard model Feynman graphs contributing to
455: the process $h\to \gamma\gamma$ at the lowest order.}}
456: \label{smfg}
457: \end{center}
458: \end{figure}
459: \begin{figure}
460: \begin{center}
461: \epsfig{file=fd2.eps
462: ,width=7.5in,height=1.3in}
463: \caption{\it{Additional contribution to
464: $h\to \gamma \gamma$ due to the chargino loops in split SUSY.}}
465: \label{spsfg}
466: \end{center}
467: \end{figure}
468: The colour factor $N_c^f$ equals 3 for quarks and 1
469: for leptons. One has $C_W = C_f = 1$, while the chargino coupling is
470: given by,
471: $$C_{\Cpm} = 2~( S_{ii}~\tilde{g_u}/g + Q_{ii}~\tilde{g_d}/g)$$
472: with $S_{ij} = U_{i1}V_{j2}/\sqrt{2}$ and $Q_{ij} = U_{i2}V_{j1}/\sqrt{2}$.
473: The matrices $\bf{U}$ and $\bf{V}$ diagonalize the chargino mass
474: matrix. In our case $i=1$ and 2 yield the two physical charginos in the
475: loops.
476:
477: One has to remember that the seed parameters corresponding to split
478: SUSY and MSSM are fixed at the SUSY breaking scale $m_S$ and that those
479: featuring in the above expressions are the results of evolution down to
480: the EW scale ($m_W$) through renormalization group (RG)
481: equations \cite{nima1,romanino}. However, their low-energy values
482: themselves can be used in the present analysis, without any further
483: reference. We have also assumed gaugino unification, having the
484: low-energy SU(2) gaugino mass $M_2$ as an independent parameter. Thus
485: the basic parameters for us are (in addition to those of the standard
486: model) the Higgs mass $m_h$ and the SUSY parameters $M_2$, $\mu$ (the
487: Higgsino mass) and $tan\b$ . The latter, not having anything to do
488: with low-energy couplings of the Higgs, can easily evade the bound of
489: $\simeq 2$ obtained from on the measurements of Higgs mass at the Large
490: Electron-Positron (LEP) collider \cite{LEP2}. However, since
491: $\tan\beta$ governs the high-scale Lagrangian and therefore the
492: boundary conditions for the spectrum at the scale $m_S$, bounds of the
493: order of 0.5 on its value have been derived from considerations such as
494: the infrared fixed point for the top quark mass \cite{romanino,irfix}.
495: It may be noted that a similar lower bound of about 1.2 can be given on
496: $\tan\beta$ in the MSSM, but it is overridden by the experimental
497: limit. The remaining split SUSY parameters have also been restricted by
498: the lower bound of about 103.5 GeV on the chargino mass
499: \cite{chargino}.
500:
501: The rate for the inclusive process $$ p p \r h ~+~ X \longrightarrow \g
502: \g$$ (where Higgs production takes place via gluon fusion) can be
503: expressed in the leading order as
504: \begin{equation}
505: R~=~ \frac{\pi^2}{8 m_h s} \frac{\G_{h \r 2g} \G_{h \r 2\g}}{\G_{tot}}\int^{1}_{\tau} {d\zeta
506: \frac{1}{\zeta} g\left(\zeta,m^2_h\right)~g\left(\frac{\tau}{\zeta},m^2_h\right)}
507: \end{equation}
508: where~ $\tau =\frac{m^2_h}{S}$ and $g\left(\zeta,m^2_h\right)$ is the
509: gluon distribution function evaluated at $Q^2~=~m^2_h$ and parton
510: momentum fraction $\zeta$. $ \G_{h \r 2\g}$ and $\G_{tot}$ stand
511: respectively for the diphoton and total decay widths of the Higgs. The
512: lowest order estimate given above is further multiplied by the
513: appropriate K-factors to obtain the next-to-next leading order (NNLO)
514: predictions in QCD. While the computation of the rate is
515: straightforward, we realise that the various quantities used are beset
516: with theoretical as well as experimental uncertainties \cite{zepnew}.
517: We undertake an analysis of these uncertainties in the next section.
518:
519: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
520: \section{Numerical estimate: uncertainties}
521: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------
522:
523: As has already been stated in the previous section,
524: the rate for diphoton production through real Higgs at LHC is given by
525: \bea
526: R~=~ \s(p p \r h) \times B~=~\s(p p \r h)
527: {\frac {\Gamma(h\r\gamma\gamma)}{\Gamma_{tot}}}
528: \eea
529:
530:
531: We have performed a parton-level Monte Carlo calculation for the
532: production cross-section, using the MRS \cite{mrst} parton distribution
533: functions and multiplied the results with the corresponding NNLO
534: K-factors \cite{kfactor,hocorrs}. It may be noted that NNLO K-factors
535: are not yet available for most other parameterizations. In estimating
536: the statistical uncertainties in the experimental value \cite{expnos},
537: MRS (at leading order) distributions have been used by the CMS group
538: while ATLAS uses CTEQ distributions. We have obtained the aforesaid
539: uncertainty by taking the estimate based on MRS and multiplying the
540: corresponding event rate by the NNLO K-factor for MRS. It may also be
541: mentioned that the difference between the NLO estimates of Higgs
542: production using the MRS and CTEQ parameterizations is rather small
543: ($\lsim 2\%$), according to recent studies \cite{kfactor}. Therefore,
544: it is expected that the NNLO estimate of uncertainties (where there is
545: scope of further evolution in any case) used by us will ultimately
546: converge to even better agreement with other parameterizations and will
547: not introduce any serious inaccuracy in our conclusions. The programme
548: HDECAY3.0 \cite{hdecay}, including $\mathcal{O}(\as^2)$ contributions,
549: has been used for Higgs decay computations .
550:
551:
552: The number of two-photon events seen is given by $\cal{L} R$ where
553: $\cal{L}$ is the integrated luminosity. $\cal{L}$ is expected to be
554: known at the LHC to within 2 \%. We include this uncertainty in our
555: calculation, although it has a rather small effect on our conclusions.
556:
557: In order to estimate the total uncertainty in $R$, one has to first
558: obtain the spread in theoretically predicted value in the standard
559: model due to the uncertainty in the various parameters used. In
560: addition, however, there is an uncertainty in the experimental values;
561: although the actual level of this will be known only after the LHC run
562: begins, the anticipated statistical spread in the measured value can be
563: estimated through simulations. These two uncertainties, combined in
564: quadrature, are indicative of the difference with central value of the
565: standard model prediction which is required to establish any
566: non-standard effect at any given confidence level. We have performed
567: such an exercise, taking the standard model calculation and that with
568: standard model + chargino contributions.
569: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
570: \bt
571: \begin{center}
572: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
573: \hline\hline
574: {\bf{Parameter}}& {\bf{Central Value}} &{\bf{Present
575: Uncertainty}}&{\bf{LHC Uncertainty}}(projected)\\ \hline
576: $m_h$&$120 - 150 $&$-$&$0.2$ \\\hline
577: $m_W$&$80.425$&$.034$&$.015$ \\\hline
578: $m_t$&$172.7 $&$ 2.9$&$1.5$ \\\hline
579: $m_b$&$4.62$&$.15$&$-$ \\\hline
580: $m_c$&$1.42 $&$ .1 $&$-$ \\\hline
581: $m_\tau$&$1.777 $&$.0003$&$-$\\\hline
582: $\alpha_s$&$0.1187 $&$0.002$&$-$ \\\hline\hline
583: \end{tabular}
584: \caption {\it{Current and projected uncertainties (at LHC) in
585: the values of various parameters. All the masses are given in $GeV$.
586: The values are extracted from refs \cite{pdg,topmass,param}}}
587: \label{param.tbl}
588: \end{center}
589: \et
590: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
591:
592: Thus the total uncertainty in $R$ can be expressed as
593: \bea
594: {\left(\frac{\d R}{R}\right)}^2 ~=~ {\left(\frac{\d R}{R}\right)}_{\it th}^2
595: ~+~ {\left(\frac{\d R}{R}\right)}_{\it exp}^2
596: \eea
597: where the theoretical component can be further broken up as
598: \bea
599: {\left(\frac{\d R}{R}\right)}_{\it th}^2 ~=~ \frac{1}{R^2}\sum_{i}{\s^2_{R_i}}
600: \eea
601: where $\s_{R_i}$ stands for the spread in the prediction of R due to
602: uncertainty in the i$^{th}$ parameter relevant for the calculation.
603: The sum runs over $m_h$, $m_W$, $m_t$, $m_b$, $m_{\tau}$ and $m_c$, in
604: addition to the uncertainty in the strong coupling $\alpha_s$. The
605: spread in the predicted value is predicted in each case by random
606: generation of values for each parameter (taken to vary one at a time)
607: within the allowed range. Thus we obtain $\frac{1}{R^2}{\s^2_{R_i}}$
608: corresponding to each parameter. One has to further include QCD
609: uncertainties arising via parameterization dependence of the parton
610: distribution functions (PDF) and the renormalisation scale. Although
611: NNLO calculation reduced such uncertainties, the net spread in the
612: prediction due to them could be as large as $\sim 15$ \%
613: \cite{kfactor,hocorrs,Belyaev,scalevarn} in the Higgs mass range $120
614: -150$ GeV. The levels of uncertainties in the various parameters, are
615: presented in Table \ref{param.tbl}. In that table we have given the
616: uncertainties, wherever they are available, from recent and current
617: experiments like the LEP and the Tevatron. In addition, whatever
618: improved measurement, leading to smaller errors (in, say, $m_t$ or
619: $m_W$) are expected after the initial run of the LHC are also
620: separately incorporated in the table . We have used the estimates
621: corresponding to LHC wherever they are available. In our calculation,
622: we have used two values of the combined uncertainty from PDF and
623: scale-dependence, namely, 15\% and 10\%, the latter with a view to
624: likely improvement using data at the LHC. This uncertainty is over and
625: above the uncertainty in $\alpha_s$ due to the error in measurement of
626: its boundary value at $m_Z$. Table 2 contains the finally predicted
627: values of ${\left(\frac{\d R}{R}\right)}$, for the two values of the
628: Higgs boson mass.
629:
630: $R_{\it exp}$ includes statistical uncertainties, as estimated in
631: detector simulations with a luminosity of 100 $fb^{-1}$ \cite{expnos}.
632: As has been already mentioned, we have obtained benchmark values of
633: this quantity using the results for CMS presented in ref~\cite{expnos}
634: for MRS distributions at the lowest order, and appropriately improving
635: them with the NNLO K-factors available in the literature. The resulting
636: predictions for statistical error are $8.1\%$ for $m_{h}=130$ GeV, $8.6\%$
637: for $m_{h}=140$ GeV and $11.3\%$ for $m_{h}=150$ GeV.
638:
639: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
640: \bt
641: \begin{center}
642: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
643: \hline\hline
644: \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{\bf{Total Uncertainty in Standard Model Rate}}\\
645: \hline
646: {\bf{Higgs mass~(GeV)}}&{\bf{PDF + Scale Uncertainty$=15\%$}}&{\bf{PDF + Scale
647: Uncertainty$=10\%$}}
648: \\\hline
649: $130$&$18.5\%$&$14.7\%$\\
650: \hline
651: $140$&$18.3\%$&$14.4\%$\\
652: \hline
653: $150$&$19.4\%$&$15.8\%$\\\hline\hline
654: \end{tabular}
655: \caption{\it{Expected total uncertainties in standard model rate at LHC.
656: Entries in the second (third) column corresponds to total uncertainty
657: from parton distributions and renormalization scale being equal to
658: $15\%$ ($10\%$).}
659: \label{total.tbl}}
660: \end{center}
661: \et
662: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
663:
664: Thus one is able to obtain the net ($1 \s$ level) uncertainties in the
665: standard model. Next, the split SUSY contributions via chargino-induced
666: diagrams are calculated and added to the standard model amplitude. The
667: observable decay rate obtained therefrom is compared with that
668: predicted in the standard model taking the uncertainty into account at
669: various confidence levels. Thus one is able to decide whether the
670: chargino contributions to the diphoton rate are discernible from the
671: standard model contributions at a given confidence level for a
672: particular combination of split SUSY parameters.
673: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
674: \bt
675: \begin{center}
676: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
677: \hline\hline
678: {\bf{$m_h$ ~(GeV)}}&{\bf{$tan\b$}}&{\bf{$m_S$ ~(GeV)}}\\
679: \hline
680: $130$&$1.0$&$1\times10^5 - 1\times10^6$\\\cline{2-3}
681: $$&$1.5$&$0.7\times10^5 - 5\times10^5$\\\hline
682: $140$&$1.0$&$3\times10^7 - 6\times10^8$\\\cline{2-3}
683: $$&$1.5$&$2\times10^6 -4\times10^7$\\\hline
684: $150$&$1.2$&$7\times10^{12} - 9\times10^{12}$\\\cline{2-3}
685: $$&$1.5$&$0.9\times10^{12} -2\times10^{12}$\\\hline
686: \hline
687: \end{tabular}
688: \caption{\it{Allowed ranges of $m_S$,
689: corresponding to the three low-scale Higgs masses used here.}}
690: \label{total.tan}
691: \end{center}
692: \et
693: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
694: The realistic estimate requires subjecting the predictions to some
695: experimental cuts aimed at maximizing the signal-to-background ratio as
696: well as focusing on kinematic regions of optimal observability. We
697: incorporate the effects of such cuts with the help of an efficiency
698: factor which, on explicit calculation in representative cases, turns
699: out to be approximately 50\%. The only assumptions required are that
700: the percentage error due to various parameters are the same for uncut
701: rates as those calculated with cuts, and that the standard and split
702: SUSY contributions suffer the same reduction due to cuts. We have
703: checked that this holds true so long as the kinematic region is not
704: drastically curtailed by the cuts.
705:
706: Before we end this section, it should be noted that the various
707: uncertainties quoted above are only benchmark values. The precise
708: levels of these uncertainties will be known after the LHC comes into
709: operation.
710:
711:
712: \section{Numerical estimate: discussions}
713:
714: Our purpose is to see at what confidence levels one can distinguish the
715: split SUSY effects on $h \longrightarrow \gamma\gamma$.
716: With this in view, we have presented, in figures 3 - 8, sets of contour
717: plots in the $M_2$-$\m$ plane with different values of $\tan\beta$, for
718: $m_h=130$ GeV, $140$ GeV and $150$ GeV.
719:
720: Since the low-scale parameters in this scenario originate in specific
721: boundary conditions at the SUSY breaking scale $(m_S)$, one needs to
722: emphasize that not all such parameters are consistent. In general, the
723: value of $m_h$ is determined (modulo the uncertainties due to parameters
724: such as $\alpha_s$ and top quark mass) once $tan\beta$ and $m_S$ are fixed.
725: In this study, we are essentially interested in the low energy parameters
726: which can make a difference from the standard model estimate. Therefore,
727: for each $tan\beta$ used, we have found the scale $(m_S)$, so as to
728: reproduce the Higgs mass used in the corresponding case. Such allowed
729: ranges of $m_S$ are presented in the Table 3. In obtaining these values,
730: the procedure adopted is as follows. Using a given value of $tan\beta$ as
731: boundary conditions at $m_S$, and values of gauge couplings at the
732: EW scale, one solves the renormalisation group equations, going through an
733: iterative process till convergence is achieved. Then the quartic coupling
734: $\lambda$ is evolved down to the EW scale, using $tan\beta$ as well as the
735: gauge couplings at $m_S$
736: to determine its boundary value (see equation 3), whereby the Higgs mass
737: $(m_h)$ is obtained. For each value of $m_h$ used in our numerical study, we
738: have the value of $m_S$ which achieves that particluar $m_h$, for a given
739: $tan\beta$. In this way we find that $m_h = 130 -150$ GeV is a 'reasonable'
740: range, for which, with the given value of $tan\beta$, $m_S$ can be
741: $\lsim 10^{13}$ GeV and at the same time not too close to the TeV scale. We
742: have deliberately avoided imposing further constraints on $m_S$ in this
743: phenomenological study. For $m_h =120$ GeV or less, $m_S$ tend to violate
744: the aforesaid condition; therefore, we have started from $m_h = 130$ GeV.
745:
746:
747: The quantities
748: ${\tilde{g_u}}/{\tilde{g_d}}$ and ${\tilde{g'_u}}/{\tilde{g'_d}}$ are
749: both equal to $tan\b$ at the scale $m_S$, and thus their values at low
750: scale are obtained through running. Such values are used in the chargino
751: mass matrix and Higgs-chargino coupling.
752:
753:
754: In the first three graphs, the total uncertainty arising from PDF as well
755: as the renormalisation scale has been taken to be 15\%. The results
756: where this uncertainty is 10\%, corresponding to a projected
757: convergence of different PDF parameterizations as well as improvement
758: over the current NNLO results, are shown in figures 6 - 8. The allowed
759: regions represented by the contours are also subjected to the
760: restriction that the mass of the lighter chargino be above the current
761: experimental limit of 103.5 GeV.
762:
763:
764: The results in all the above cases show that the distinguishability
765: with the standard model effect is maximum for such values of $\mu$ and
766: $M_2$ which leads to the lowest possible chargino masses contributing
767: in the loops. For negative $\mu$, lower values of $|\mu|$ are allowed
768: by the above constraints; hence an asymmetry about $\mu=0$ is seen.
769: The dependence on $\tan\beta$ is also substantial. The maximum departure
770: from the standard model contribution occurs for $\tan\beta = 1$. This is
771: because the Higgs-chargino-chargino coupling is maximum when the
772: charginos have equal admixture of the Wino and Higgsino components.
773: When no CP - violating phase in the mixing is assumed, there is also a
774: symmetry of the coupling under $\tan\beta \rightarrow \cot\beta$.
775:
776:
777: It is clear from the contours that the general level of expected
778: distinguishability of the split SUSY contributions is quite low. This
779: is primarily due to the uncertainty of ``PDF + renormalisation scale".
780: However, even if this uncertainty is brought down from 15\% to 10\%,
781: one notices that one is barely allowed a small area of the parameter
782: space for $\tan\beta ~\simeq~1$, where predicted effects are about
783: $2\sigma$; otherwise the results are even less optimistic.
784: The distinguishability goes down considerably for high values of $\tan\beta$.
785: The other important source of uncertainty is in the b-quark mass
786: (calculated at the scale $m_h$, with the boundary condition that the pole
787: mass is $4.62$ GeV) which affects the total width for $h\longrightarrow
788: b\bar{b}$. The results look even less optimistic if one remembers that
789: searches in, for example, the trilepton channel at the LHC are likely
790: to raise the experimental lower limit of the chargino mass, unless the
791: lighter chargino lies just beyond the LEP limit. Under such
792: circumstances, the confidence level for distinguishing the chargino
793: effects in the diphoton signal will be further diminished, and the
794: $2\sigma$ region will be obliterated in all likelihood.
795:
796: \section{Summary and conclusions}
797:
798: We have undertaken a thorough analysis of the split SUSY parameter
799: space to see if the channel $h\longrightarrow\gamma\gamma$ can allow
800: one to isolate the contributions from chargino-induced loops. In the
801: case of split SUSY, this is supposedly the only channel where the sole
802: surviving Higgs at the electroweak symmetry breaking scale can reveal
803: any difference with respect to its counterpart in the standard model.
804: Although the chargino contribution has been already calculated, our
805: analysis, with all uncertainties duly incorporated in the production as
806: well as decay level, confirms that the measurable effects are very
807: small in all over the allowed parameter space. It is going to be very
808: difficult to achieve a $2\sigma$ difference with respect to the
809: standard model predictions, and that too for the value of $\tan\beta$
810: in the neighbourhood of 1. Thus it appears to us that the only way to
811: uncover split SUSY is to carry out an exhaustive search for the entire
812: superparticle spectrum at the LHC, unless some other ingenious method
813: can be devised to see the difference in Higgs couplings with the SUSY
814: fermions.
815:
816: % ----------------------------------------------------------------------
817: {\bf{Acknowledgment:}}
818: \nonumber
819: We thank Anindya Datta, Aseshkrishna Datta, G.F. Giudice, A. Romanino,
820: V. Ravindran and Sourov Roy for useful comments.
821: %-------------------------------------------------------------
822:
823: \vskip 5pt
824: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
825: % References
826: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
827: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
828: %\cite{nima1}
829: \bibitem{nima1}
830: N.~Arkani-Hamed and S.~Dimopoulos,
831: %
832: JHEP {\bf 0506}, 073 (2005)
833: [arXiv:hep-th/0405159].
834: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0405159;%%
835:
836: %\cite{romanino}
837: \bibitem{romanino}
838: G.~F.~Giudice and A.~Romanino,
839: %
840: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 699}, 65 (2004)
841: [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 706}, 65 (2005)]
842: [arXiv:hep-ph/0406088].
843: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406088;%%
844:
845: \bibitem{spshiggs}
846: M.~A.~Diaz and P.~F.~Perez,
847: %``Can we distinguish between h(SM) and h(0) in split supersymmetry?,''
848: J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 31}, 563 (2005)
849: [arXiv:hep-ph/0412066].
850: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0412066;%%
851:
852: \bibitem{sphmass}
853: A.~Arvanitaki, C.~Davis, P.~W.~Graham and J.~G.~Wacker,
854: %``One loop predictions of the finely tuned SSM,''
855: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 117703 (2004)
856: [arXiv:hep-ph/0406034];
857: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406034;%%
858: R.~Mahbubani,
859: %``Bounds on the Higgs mass in variations of Split Supersymmetry,''
860: [arXiv:hep-ph/0408096].
861: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408096;%%
862:
863: \bibitem{drees}
864: M.~Drees,
865: %``Some comments on 'split' supersymmetry,''
866: [arXiv:hep-ph/0501106].
867: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0501106;%%
868:
869: \bibitem{nima2}
870: %\ArkaniHamedYI
871: N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos, G.~F.~Giudice and A.~Romanino,
872: %``Aspects of split supersymmetry,''
873: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 709}, 3 (2005)
874: [arXiv:hep-ph/0409232].
875: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0409232;%%
876:
877: \bibitem{spspectrum}
878: C.~Kokorelis,
879: %``Standard models and split supersymmetry from intersecting brane
880: %orbifolds,''
881: [arXiv:hep-th/0406258];
882: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0406258;%%
883: B.~Mukhopadhyaya and S.~SenGupta,
884: %``Sparticle spectrum and phenomenology in split supersymmetry: Some
885: %possibilities,''
886: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 035004 (2005)
887: [arXiv:hep-th/0407225];
888: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0407225;%%
889: U.~Sarkar,
890: %``Split supersymmetry in an orbifold GUT,''
891: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 035002 (2005)
892: [arXiv:hep-ph/0410104];
893: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0410104;%%
894: I.~Antoniadis and S.~Dimopoulos,
895: %``Splitting supersymmetry in string theory,''
896: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 715}, 120 (2005)
897: [arXiv:hep-th/0411032];
898: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0411032;%%
899: J.~D.~Wells,
900: %``PeV-scale supersymmetry,''
901: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 015013 (2005)
902: [arXiv:hep-ph/0411041];
903: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0411041;%%
904: B.~Bajc and G.~Senjanovic,
905: %``Radiative seesaw: A case for split supersymmetry,''
906: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 610}, 80 (2005)
907: [arXiv:hep-ph/0411193];
908: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0411193;%%
909: B.~Kors and P.~Nath,
910: %``Hierarchically split supersymmetry with Fayet-Iliopoulos D-terms
911: %in string
912: %theory,''
913: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 711}, 112 (2005)
914: [arXiv:hep-th/0411201];
915: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0411201;%%
916: K.~S.~Babu, T.~Enkhbat and B.~Mukhopadhyaya,
917: %``Split supersymmetry from anomalous U(1),''
918: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 720}, 47 (2005)
919: [arXiv:hep-ph/0501079];
920: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0501079;%%
921: K.~Cheung and C.~W.~Chiang,
922: %``Splitting the split supersymmetry,''
923: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 095003 (2005)
924: [arXiv:hep-ph/0501265];
925: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0501265;%%
926: N.~Haba and N.~Okada,
927: %``Structure of split supersymmetry and simple models,''
928: [arXiv:hep-ph/0502213];
929: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0502213;%%
930: B.~Dutta and Y.~Mimura,
931: %``Split supersymmetry in unified models,''
932: [arXiv:hep-ph/0503052];
933: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0503052;%%
934: B.~Mukhopadhyaya and S.~SenGupta,
935: %``Split supersymmetry and the role of a light fermion in a general
936: %supergravity theory,''
937: [arXiv:hep-ph/0503167];
938: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0503167;%%
939: I.~Antoniadis, A.~Delgado, K.~Benakli, M.~Quiros and M.~Tuckmantel,
940: %``Splitting extended supersymmetry,''
941: [arXiv:hep-ph/0507192].
942: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0507192;%%
943:
944: \bibitem{sppheno}
945: W.~Kilian, T.~Plehn, P.~Richardson and E.~Schmidt,
946: %``Split supersymmetry at colliders,''
947: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 39}, 229 (2005)
948: [arXiv:hep-ph/0408088];
949: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408088;%%
950: D.~A.~Demir,
951: %``Effects of flavor violation on split supersymmetry,''
952: [arXiv:hep-ph/0410056];
953: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0410056;%%
954: R.~Allahverdi, A.~Jokinen and A.~Mazumdar,
955: %``Gravitino production from reheating in split supersymmetry,''
956: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 043505 (2005)
957: [arXiv:hep-ph/0410169];
958: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0410169;%%
959: E.~J.~Chun and S.~C.~Park,
960: %``Neutrino mass from R-parity violation in split supersymmetry,''
961: JHEP {\bf 0501}, 009 (2005)
962: [arXiv:hep-ph/0410242];
963: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0410242;%%
964: M.~Beccaria, F.~M.~Renard and C.~Verzegnassi,
965: %``Split supersymmetry at the logarithmic test of future colliders,''
966: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 093008 (2005)
967: [arXiv:hep-ph/0412257];
968: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0412257;%%
969: J.~Cao and J.~M.~Yang,
970: %``Lightest Higgs boson mass in supersymmetric see-saw model,''
971: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 111701 (2005)
972: [arXiv:hep-ph/0412315];
973: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0412315;%%
974: S.~Kasuya and F.~Takahashi,
975: %``Smallness of baryon asymmetry from split supersymmetry,''
976: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 121303 (2005)
977: [arXiv:hep-ph/0501240];
978: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0501240;%%
979: N.~G.~Deshpande and J.~Jiang,
980: %``Signals for CP violation in split supersymmetry,''
981: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 615}, 111 (2005)
982: [arXiv:hep-ph/0503116];
983: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0503116;%%
984: A.~Ibarra,
985: %``Tachyonic squarks in split supersymmetry,''
986: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 620}, 164 (2005)
987: [arXiv:hep-ph/0503160].
988: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0503160;%%
989: J.~Guasch and S.~Penaranda,
990: %``M(W) and sin**2(theta(eff)) in split SUSY: Present and future
991: %expectations,''
992: [arXiv:hep-ph/0508241].
993: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0508241;%%
994:
995: \bibitem{spgluino}
996: J.~L.~Hewett, B.~Lillie, M.~Masip and T.~G.~Rizzo,
997: %``Signatures of long-lived gluinos in split supersymmetry,''
998: JHEP {\bf 0409}, 070 (2004)
999: [arXiv:hep-ph/0408248];
1000: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408248;%%
1001: K.~Cheung and W.~Y.~Keung,
1002: %``Split supersymmetry, stable gluino, and gluinonium,''
1003: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 015015 (2005)
1004: [arXiv:hep-ph/0408335];
1005: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408335;%%
1006: M.~Toharia and J.~D.~Wells,
1007: %``Gluino decays with heavier scalar superpartners,''
1008: [arXiv:hep-ph/0503175];
1009: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0503175;%%
1010: A.~Arvanitaki, C.~Davis, P.~W.~Graham, A.~Pierce and J.~G.~Wacker,
1011: %``Limits on split supersymmetry from gluino cosmology,''
1012: [arXiv:hep-ph/0504210];
1013: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0504210;%%
1014: J.~G.~Gonzalez, S.~Reucroft and J.~Swain,
1015: %``Gluino air showers as a signal of split supersymmetry,''
1016: [arXiv:hep-ph/0504260];
1017: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0504260;%%
1018: P.~Gambino, G.~F.~Giudice and P.~Slavich,
1019: %``Gluino decays in split supersymmetry,''
1020: [arXiv:hep-ph/0506214];
1021: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0506214;%%
1022: A.~Arvanitaki, S.~Dimopoulos, A.~Pierce, S.~Rajendran and J.~Wacker,
1023: % ``Stopping gluinos,''
1024: [arXiv:hep-ph/0506242];
1025: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0506242;%%
1026: F.~Wang, W.~Wang and J.~M.~Yang,
1027: %``Dark matter from gluino late decay in split supersymmetry,''
1028: [arXiv:hep-ph/0507172].
1029: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0507172;%%
1030:
1031: \bibitem{sprare}
1032: C.~H.~Chen and C.~Q.~Geng,
1033: %Dilepton decays and oscillation of B/s in sps with R-parity violation,''
1034: [arXiv:hep-ph/0501001];
1035: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0501001;%%
1036: C.~H.~Chen and C.~Q.~Geng,
1037: %``Probe the effects of split SUSY in rare B decays,''
1038: [arXiv:hep-ph/0502246].
1039: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0502246;%%
1040:
1041: \bibitem{spfermion}
1042: S.~h.~Zhu,
1043: %``Chargino pair production at linear collider and split supersymmetry,''
1044: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 604}, 207 (2004)
1045: [arXiv:hep-ph/0407072];
1046: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0407072;%%
1047: S.~P.~Martin, K.~Tobe and J.~D.~Wells,
1048: %Virtual effects of light gauginos and higgsinos: A precision electroweak
1049: %analysis of split supersymmetry,
1050: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 073014 (2005)
1051: [arXiv:hep-ph/0412424];
1052: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0412424;%%
1053: K.~Cheung and J.~Song,
1054: %``Hadronic production and decays of charginos and neutralinos in split
1055: %supersymmetry,''
1056: [arXiv:hep-ph/0507113].
1057: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0507113;%%
1058:
1059: \bibitem{darkmatter}
1060: A.~Pierce,
1061: %``Dark matter in the finely tuned minimal supersymmetric standard
1062: %model,''
1063: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D70}, 075006 (2004)
1064: [arXiv:hep-ph/0406144];
1065: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406144;%%
1066: L.~Anchordoqui, H.~Goldberg and C.~Nunez,
1067: %``Probing split supersymmetry with cosmic rays,''
1068: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 065014 (2005)
1069: [arXiv:hep-ph/0408284];
1070: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408284;%%
1071: A.~Arvanitaki and P.~W.~Graham,
1072: %``Indirect signals from dark matter in split supersymmetry,''
1073: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 055010 (2005)
1074: [arXiv:hep-ph/0411376];
1075: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0411376;%%
1076: A.~Masiero, S.~Profumo and P.~Ullio,
1077: %``Neutralino dark matter detection in split supersymmetry
1078: %scenarios,''
1079: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 712}, 86 (2005)
1080: [arXiv:hep-ph/0412058].
1081: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0412058;%%
1082:
1083: \bibitem{spedm}
1084: D.~Chang, W.~F.~Chang and W.~Y.~Keung,
1085: %``Electric dipole moment in the split supersymmetry models,''
1086: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 076006 (2005)
1087: [arXiv:hep-ph/0503055];
1088: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0503055;%%
1089: G.~F.~Giudice and A.~Romanino,
1090: %``Electric Dipole Moments in Split Supersymmetry,''
1091: [arXiv:hep-ph/0510197].
1092: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0510197;%%
1093:
1094: \bibitem{gkm}
1095: S.~K.~Gupta, P.~Konar and B.~Mukhopadhyaya,
1096: %``R-parity violation in split supersymmetry and neutralino dark matter:To
1097: %be or not to be,''
1098: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 606}, 384 (2005)
1099: [arXiv:hep-ph/0408296].
1100: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408296;%%
1101:
1102: \bibitem{atlas}
1103: ATLAS Collaboration,
1104: ATLAS Detector and Physics Performance Technical Design Report,
1105: report CERN-LHCC-99-15 (1999).
1106:
1107: \bibitem{cms}
1108: CMS Collaboration,
1109: CMS, the Compact Muon Solenoid: Technical proposal,
1110: report CERN-LHCC-94-38 (1994).
1111:
1112: \bibitem{qcdcorr}
1113: H.~Zheng and D.~Wu,
1114: %First Order QCD Corrections To The Decay Of The Higgs Boson Into
1115: %Two Photons,''
1116: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 42}, 3760 (1990);
1117: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D42,3760;%%
1118: A.~Djouadi, M.~Spira, J.~J.~van der Bij and P.~M.~Zerwas,
1119: %QCD Corrections To Gamma Gamma Decays Of Higgs Particles In The
1120: %Intermediate Mass Range,''
1121: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 257}, 187 (1991);
1122: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B257,187;%%
1123: S.~Dawson and R.~P.~Kauffman,
1124: %QCD corrections to H $\to$ gamma gamma,''
1125: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 47}, 1264 (1993);
1126: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D47,1264;%%
1127: K.~Melnikov and O.~I.~Yakovlev,
1128: %Higgs $\to$ two photon decay: QCD radiative correction,''
1129: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 312}, 179 (1993)
1130: [arXiv:hep-ph/9302281];
1131: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9302281;%%
1132: A.~Djouadi, M.~Spira and P.~M.~Zerwas,
1133: %Two photon decay widths of Higgs particles,''
1134: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 311}, 255 (1993)
1135: [arXiv:hep-ph/9305335];
1136: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9305335;%%
1137: M.~Inoue, R.~Najima, T.~Oka and J.~Saito,
1138: %QCD corrections to two photon decay of the Higgs boson and its
1139: %reverse process,''
1140: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 9}, 1189 (1994);
1141: %%CITATION = MPLAE,A9,1189;%%
1142: Y.~Liao and X.~y.~Li,
1143: %``O(alpha**2 G(F) m(t)**2) contributions to H $\to$ gamma gamma,''
1144: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 396}, 225 (1997)
1145: [arXiv:hep-ph/9605310];
1146: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9605310;%%
1147: M.~Steinhauser,
1148: %Corrections of O(alpha(s)**2) to the decay of an
1149: %intermediate-mass Higgs boson into two photons,''
1150: [arXiv:hep-ph/9612395];
1151: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9612395;%%
1152: A.~Djouadi, P.~Gambino and B.~A.~Kniehl,
1153: %``Two-loop electroweak heavy-fermion corrections to Higgs-boson
1154: %production
1155: %and decay,''
1156: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 523}, 17 (1998)
1157: [arXiv:hep-ph/9712330];
1158: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9712330;%%
1159: J.~Fleischer, O.~V.~Tarasov and V.~O.~Tarasov,
1160: %``Analytical result for the two-loop QCD correction to the decay H
1161: %$\to$ 2gamma,''
1162: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 584}, 294 (2004)
1163: [arXiv:hep-ph/0401090].
1164: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0401090;%%
1165:
1166: \bibitem{2lewc}
1167: U.~Aglietti, R.~Bonciani, G.~Degrassi and A.~Vicini,
1168: %``Two-loop light fermion contribution to Higgs production and
1169: %decays,''
1170: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 595}, 432 (2004)
1171: [arXiv:hep-ph/0404071];
1172: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0404071;%%
1173: G.~Degrassi and F.~Maltoni,
1174: %``Two-loop electroweak corrections to the Higgs-boson decay
1175: % H $\to$ gamma gamma,''
1176: [arXiv:hep-ph/0504137].
1177: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0504137;%%
1178:
1179: \bibitem{LEP2}
1180: The ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL Colaborations,
1181: and the LEP Higgs Working Group, "Search for
1182: the Standard Model Higgs Boson at LEP'' , LEP
1183: Higgs WG Note 2001-03, July 2001.
1184:
1185: \bibitem{irfix}
1186: K.~Huitu, J.~Laamanen, P.~Roy and S.~Roy,
1187: %``Infrared fixed point of the top Yukawa coupling in split
1188: %supersymmetry,''
1189: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 055002 (2005)
1190: [arXiv:hep-ph/0502052];
1191: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0502052;%%
1192:
1193:
1194: \bibitem{chargino}
1195: ALEPH Collaboration (A Heiser et al.)
1196: Phys. Lett. B533 (2002) 223.
1197:
1198: \bibitem{zepnew}
1199: M.~Duhrssen, S.~Heinemeyer, H.~Logan, D.~Rainwater, G.~Weiglein and
1200: D.~Zeppenfeld,
1201: %``Extracting Higgs boson couplings from LHC data,''
1202: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 113009 (2004)
1203: [arXiv:hep-ph/0406323].
1204: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406323;%%
1205:
1206: \bibitem{mrst}
1207: A.~D.~Martin, R.~G.~Roberts, W.~J.~Stirling and R.~S.~Thorne,
1208: %``NNLO global parton analysis,''
1209: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 531}, 216 (2002)
1210: [arXiv:hep-ph/0201127].
1211: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201127;%%
1212:
1213: \bibitem{kfactor}
1214: V.~Ravindran, J.~Smith and W.~L.~van Neerven,
1215: %``NNLO corrections to the total cross section for Higgs boson production in
1216: %hadron hadron collisions,''
1217: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 665}, 325 (2003)
1218: [arXiv:hep-ph/0302135].
1219:
1220: \bibitem{hocorrs}
1221: C.~Anastasiou and K.~Melnikov,
1222: %``Higgs boson production at hadron colliders in NNLO QCD,''
1223: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 646}, 220 (2002)
1224: [arXiv:hep-ph/0207004];
1225: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207004;%%
1226: R.~V.~Harlander and W.~B.~Kilgore,
1227: %``Next-to-next-to-leading order Higgs production at hadron
1228: %colliders,''
1229: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 88}, 201801 (2002)
1230: [arXiv:hep-ph/0201206].
1231: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201206;%%
1232:
1233: \bibitem{expnos}
1234: D.~Zeppenfeld, R.~Kinnunen, A.~Nikitenko and E.~Richter-Was,
1235: %``Measuring Higgs boson couplings at the LHC,''
1236: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 013009 (2000)
1237: [arXiv:hep-ph/0002036].
1238: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002036;%%
1239: %CMS Collaboration, ~``The electromagnetic calorimeter project,"
1240: %Technical Design Report, CERN/LHCC 97-33, CMS TDR 4, 1997;
1241: %Katri~Lassila-Perini, ~``Discovery Potential of the Standard Model
1242: %Higgs in CMS at the LHC," Diss. ETH N.12961.
1243:
1244: \bibitem{hdecay}
1245: A.~Djouadi, J.~Kalinowski and M.~Spira,
1246: %``HDECAY: A program for Higgs boson decays in the standard model and
1247: %its
1248: %supersymmetric extension,''
1249: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 108}, 56 (1998)
1250: [arXiv:hep-ph/9704448].
1251: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9704448;%%
1252:
1253: \bibitem{Belyaev}
1254: A.~Belyaev, J.~Pumplin, W.~K.~Tung and C.~P.~Yuan,
1255: %``Uncertainties of the inclusive Higgs production cross section at
1256: %the
1257: %Tevatron and the LHC,''
1258: [arXiv:hep-ph/0508222].
1259: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0508222;%%
1260:
1261: \bibitem{scalevarn}
1262: A.~Cafarella, C.~Coriano', M.~Guzzi and J.~Smith,
1263: %``On the scale variation of the total cross section for Higgs
1264: %production at
1265: %the LHC and at the Tevatron,''
1266: [arXiv:hep-ph/0510179].
1267: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0510179;%%
1268:
1269: \bibitem{pdg}
1270: S.~Eidelman {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group],
1271: % ``Review of particle physics,''
1272: %
1273: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 592}, 1 (2004).
1274: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B592,1;%%
1275:
1276: \bibitem{topmass}
1277: [CDF Collaboration],
1278: %``Combination of CDF and D0 results on the top-quark mass,''
1279: [arXiv:hep-ex/0507091].
1280: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0507091;%%
1281:
1282: \bibitem{param}
1283: S.~Heinemeyer, W.~Hollik and G.~Weiglein,
1284: %``Electroweak precision observables in the minimal
1285: % supersymmetric standard model,''
1286: [arXiv:hep-ph/0412214].
1287: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0412214;%%
1288: \end{thebibliography}
1289: \newpage
1290: %------------- Contour Plots----------------------------------
1291: %------------15 Percent-- and M_h=130 GeV---------------------
1292: \begin{figure}
1293: \begin{center}
1294: \epsfig{file=31510.eps,width=3in,height=3in}
1295: \epsfig{file=31515.eps,width=3in,height=3in}
1296: \caption{\it{Contour plots for $m_h = 130$ GeV
1297: assuming PDF + scale uncertainty $=15\%$.}}
1298: \label{15per130}
1299: \end{center}
1300: \end{figure}
1301: %------------15 Percent-- and M_h=140 GeV---------------------
1302: \begin{figure}
1303: \begin{center}
1304: \epsfig{file=41510.eps,width=3in,height=3in}
1305: \epsfig{file=41515.eps,width=3in,height=3in}
1306: \caption{\it{Contour plots for $m_h = 140$ GeV
1307: assuming PDF + scale uncertainty $=15\%$.}}
1308: \label{15per140}
1309: \end{center}
1310: \end{figure}
1311: %------------15 Percent-- and M_h=150 GeV---------------------
1312: \begin{figure}
1313: \begin{center}
1314: \epsfig{file=51512.eps,width=3in,height=3in}
1315: \epsfig{file=51515.eps,width=3in,height=3in}
1316: \caption{\it{Contour plots for $m_h = 150$ GeV
1317: assuming PDF + scale uncertainty $=15\%$.}}
1318: \label{15per150}
1319: \end{center}
1320: \end{figure}
1321: %------------10 Percent-- and M_h=130 GeV---------------------
1322: \begin{figure}
1323: \begin{center}
1324: \epsfig{file=31010.eps,width=3in,height=3in}
1325: \epsfig{file=31015.eps,width=3in,height=3in}
1326: \caption{\it{Contour plots for $m_h = 130$ GeV
1327: assuming PDF + scale uncertainty $=10\%$.}}
1328: \label{10per130}
1329: \end{center}
1330: \end{figure}
1331: %------------10 Percent-- and M_h=140 GeV---------------------
1332: \begin{figure}
1333: \begin{center}
1334: \epsfig{file=41010.eps,width=3in,height=3in}
1335: \epsfig{file=41015.eps,width=3in,height=3in}
1336: \caption{\it{Contour plots for $m_h = 140$ GeV
1337: assuming PDF + scale uncertainty $=10\%$.}}
1338: \label{10per140}
1339: \end{center}
1340: \end{figure}
1341: %------------10 Percent-- and M_h=150 GeV---------------------
1342: \begin{figure}
1343: \begin{center}
1344: \epsfig{file=51012.eps,width=3in,height=3in}
1345: \epsfig{file=51015.eps,width=3in,height=3in}
1346: \caption{\it{Contour plots for $m_h = 150$ GeV
1347: assuming PDF + scale uncertainty $=10\%$.}}
1348: \label{10per150}
1349: \end{center}
1350: \end{figure}
1351: %------------end---------------------------------------------
1352: \end{document}
1353: