1. LHC / ILC / Cosmology Interplay Sabine Kraml (CERN) WHEPP-9, Bhubaneswar, India 3-14 Jan 2006

2. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar2 S. Kraml Outline Introduction Relic density of WIMPs SUSY case as illustrative example  Neutralino dark matter  Requirements for collider tests  Implications of CP violation Conclusions

3. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar3 S. Kraml What is the Universe made of? Cosmological data:  4% ±0.4% baryonic matter  23% ±4% dark matter  73% ±4% dark energy Particle physics:  SM is incomplete; expect new physics at TeV scale  NP should provide the DM  Discovery at LHC, precision measurements at ILC ?

4. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar4 S. Kraml Dark matter candidates Neutralino, gravitino, axion, axino, lightest KK particle, T-odd little Higgs, branons, Q-balls, etc., etc... New Physics

5. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar5 S. Kraml WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles) DM must be stable, electrically neutral, weakly and gravitationally interacting WIMPs are predicted by most BSM theories Stable as result of discrete symmetries Produced as thermal relic of the Big Bang Testable at colliders! Neutralino, gravitino, axion, axino, LKP, T-odd Little Higgs, branons, Q-balls, etc.,...

6. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar6 S. Kraml Relic density of WIMPs (1) Early Universe dense and hot; WIMPs in thermal equilibrium (2) Universe expands and cools; WIMP density is reduced through pair annihilation; Boltzmann suppression: n~e -m/T (3) Temperature and density too low for WIMP annihilation to keep up with expansion rate → freeze out Final dark matter density:  h 2 ~ 1/ Thermally avaraged cross section of all annihilation channels WMAP: 0.094 <  h 2 < 0.129 @ 2 

7. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar7 S. Kraml Collider tests of WIMPs Generic WIMP signature at LHC: jets (+leptons) + E T miss Great for discovery; resolving the nature of the WIMP however not obvious Need precision measurements of masses, couplings, quantum numbers,.... → ILC WMAP LHC ILC

8. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar8 S. Kraml Neutralino-LSP in the MSSM

9. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar9 S. Kraml Minimal supersymmetric model SUSY = Symmetry between fermions and bosons If R-parity is conserved the lightest SUSY particle (LSP) is stable → LSP as cold dark matter candidate SM particles spin Superpartners spin quarks 1/2 squarks 0 leptons 1/2 sleptons 0 gauge bosons 1 gauginos 1/2 Higgs bosons 0 higgsinos 1/2 mix to 2 charginos + 4 neutralinos

10. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar10 S. Kraml Neutralino system Neutralino mass eigenstates Gauginos Higgsinos → LSP

11. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar11 S. Kraml Neutralino relic density Specific mechanisms to get relic density in agreement with WMAP 0.094 <  h 2 < 0.129 puts strong bounds on the parameter space

12. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar12 S. Kraml mSUGRA parameter space GUT-scale boundary conditions: m 0, m 1/2, A 0 [plus tan , sgn(  )] 4 regions with right  h 2  bulk (excl. by m h from LEP)  co-annihilation  Higgs funnel (tan  ~ 50)  focus point (higgsino scenario)

13. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar13 S. Kraml Prediction of from colliders: What do we need to measure? LSP mass and decomposition bino, wino, higgsino admixture Sfermion masses (bulk, coannhilation) or at least lower limits on them Higgs masses and widths: h,H,A tan  With which precision?

14. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar14 S. Kraml What do we need to measure with which precision: Coannihilation with staus,  M<10 GeV  M(stau-LSP) to 1 GeV Precise sparticle mixings Difficult at LHC; soft tau´s! Achievable at ILC:  Stau mass at threshold Bambade et al, hep-ph/040601  Stau and Slepton masses Martyn, hep-ph/0408226  Stau-neutralino mass difference Khotilovitch et al, hep-ph/0503165 Beam polarization essential! [Allanach et al, hep-ph/0410091] ~

15. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar15 S. Kraml Golden decay chain at LHC Stau coannihilation region: leptons will mostly be taus Small stau-LSP mass difference  M ≤ 10 GeV leads to soft  ´s Difficult to measure m  kinematic endpoint for mass determination

16. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar16 S. Kraml Determination of slepton and LSP masses at the ILC [Martyn, hep-ph/0408226]

17. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar17 S. Kraml Determination of the neutralino system LHC+ILC case study for SPS1a: light -inos at ILC; neutralino4 at LHC [Desch et al., hep-ph/0312069]

18. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar18 S. Kraml What do we need to measure with which precision: Higgsino LSP,  ~ M 1,2 Annihilation into WW and ZZ via t-channel  ± or   Rate determined by higgsino fraction f H =N 13 2 +N 14 2 1% precision on M 1 and  All neutralinos/charginos; mixing via pol. e + e - Xsections LHC: discovery via 3-body gluino decays / Drell-Yang [Allanach et al, hep-ph/0410091] Fractional accuracies needed

19. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar19 S. Kraml [J.L. Feng et al., ALCPG] Scan of focus point scenario, LCC2 m 0 = 3280 GeV, m 1/2 = 300 GeV, A 0 = 0, tanb = 10

20. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar20 S. Kraml What do we need to measure with which precision: Annihilation through Higgs Mainly  → A → bb CP even H exchange is P-wave suppressed m   and  m A  to 2%-2‰ (m A -2m  ) and  to 5% A width to 10% g(A  )~N 13 2 -N 14 2, g(Abb)~h b,.... Fractional accuracies needed [Allanach et al, hep-ph/0410091]

21. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar21 S. Kraml Influence of m A on evaluation of  h 2 → large uncertainty if lower limit on m A is not >> 2 m LSP [Birkedal et al, hep-ph/0507214]

22. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar22 S. Kraml e + e _ → H A [Heinemeyer et al., hep-ph/0511332] A not produced in Higgs-Strahlung, need e + e _ → HA H,A masses to ~1 GeV; limitation by kinematics! Widths only to 20%-30% Production in  mode can help a lot

23. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar23 S. Kraml Heavy Higgses at LHC H/A in cascade decays

24. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar24 S. Kraml For a precise prediction of  h 2 compatible with WMAP acurracy we need precision measurements of most of the SUSY spectrum → LHC/ILC synergy

25. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar25 S. Kraml So far considered CP conserving MSSM What if CP is violated? [we actually need new sources of CP violation beyond the SM for baryogenesis]

26. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar26 S. Kraml CP violation In the general MSSM, gaugino and higgsino mass parameters and trilinear couplings can be complex: Important influence on sparticle production and decay rates → Expect similar influence on NB1: M 2 can also be complex, but its phase can be rotated away. NB2: CPV phases are strongly constrained by dipole moments; we set   =0 and assume very heavy 1st+2nd generation sfermions

27. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar27 S. Kraml CP violation: Higgs sector Non-zero phases induce CP violation in the Higgs sector through loops → mixing of h,H,A: Couplings to neutralinos:

28. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar28 S. Kraml Previous studies of neutralino relic density with CP violation

29. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar29 S. Kraml CPV analysis with micrOMEGAs M 1 = 150, M 2 = 300, A t = 1200 GeV, tan  = 5 masses of 3rd gen: 500 GeV, 1st+2nd gen: 10 TeV bino-like LSP, m ~ 150 GeV  h 2 < 0.129 needs annihilation through Higgs Scenario 1:  = 500 GeV → small mixing in Higgs sector Scenario 2:  = 1 TeV → large mixing in Higgs sector Higgs mixing ~ Im(A t  ) [Belanger, Boudjema, SK, Pukhov, Semenov, in: LesHouches‘05]

30. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar30 S. Kraml CPV with micrOMEGAs

31. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar31 S. Kraml Scenario 2 Key parameter is distance from pole

32. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar32 S. Kraml Recall Higgs funnels in mSUGRA mA=mA=

33. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar33 S. Kraml Higgs funnel with large Higgs CP-mixing Green bands: 0.094 <  h 2 < 0.129 dmi = m hi - 2m LSP, i=2,3 h3h3 h3h3 h3h3 h2h2

34. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar34 S. Kraml Higgs funnel with large Higgs CP-mixing Green bands: 0.094 <  h 2 < 0.129 h3h3 h3h3 h3h3 h2h2

35. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar35 S. Kraml Higgs funnel with large Higgs CP-mixing Green bands: 0.094 <  h 2 < 0.129 dmi = m hi - 2m LSP, i=2,3 h3h3

36. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar36 S. Kraml CP violation  is a very interesting option  can have order-of-magnitude effect on  h 2  needs to be tested precisely However: computation of annihilation cross sections at only at tree level; radiative corrections may be sizeable!

37. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar37 S. Kraml Assume we have found SUSY with a neutralino LSP and made very precise measurements of all relevant parameters: What if the inferred  h 2 is too high?

38. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar38 S. Kraml Solution 1: Dark matter is superWIMP e.g. gravitino or axino

39. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar39 S. Kraml Solution 2: R-parity is violated after all RPV on long time scales Late decays of neutralino LSP reduce the number density; actual CDM is something else Very hard to test at colliders Astrophysics constraints?

40. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar40 S. Kraml Our picture of dark matter as a thermal relic from the big bang may be to simple The early Universe may have evolved differently.... Solution 3: Cosmological assumptions are wrong

41. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar41 S. Kraml Conclusions: We expect new physics beyond the SM  to show up at the TeV energy scale  to provide the dark matter of the Universe Using the example of neutralino dark matter I have shown that precison measurements at both LHC+ILC are necessary to pin down the nature and properties of the dark matter  h 2 ~ 1/ from LHC/ILC ↔ WMAP acurracy Direct detection in addition to pin down DM

42. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar42 S. Kraml WMAP LHC ILC Accuracies of determining the LSP mass and its relic density [Alexander et al., hep-ph/0507214]

43. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar43 S. Kraml What if only part of the spectrum is accessible? Part of the spectrum may escape detection  Too heavy sparticles, only limits on masses  Not enough sensitivity, e.g. H,A  Only LHC data available,.... Model assumptions, fits of specific models, etc, to obtain testable predicions [or to test models] Famous example: Fit of mSUGRA to LHC data at SPS1a Need precise predictions within models of SUSY breaking

44. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar44 S. Kraml Comparison of SUSY spectrum codes Computation of SUSY spectrum with 4 state-of-the-art SUSY codes: Isjet, Softsusy, Spheno, Suspect 2loop RGEs + 1loop threshold corrections, 1loop corr. to Yukawa couplings,... Computation of relic desity with micrOMEGAs Mapped mSUGRA parameter space for  differences in predictions of  h 2  differences in WMAP exclusions due to spectrum uncertainties [Belanger, SK, Pukhov, hep-ph/0502079]

45. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar45 S. Kraml [Belanger, SK, Pukhov, hep-ph/0502079] Stau-LSP mass difference!  M) ~ 1 GeV →   ~ 10% Uncertainties from sparticle mass predictions O(1%) moderate parameters, stau coannihilation Contours of  h 2 =0.129

46. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar46 S. Kraml [Belanger, SK, Pukhov, hep-ph/0502079] Uncertainties from sparticle mass predictions: large tan  and the Higgs funnel

47. WHEPP-9 Bhubaneswar47 S. Kraml There is need to improve computations and tools in order to match acurracies required by WMAP/Planck Improvements in spectrum computations are discussed in [Baer, Ferrandis, SK, Porod, hep-ph/0511123]