# Presentation: 901725

## SLHA 2 DiscussionMon 26/06 2006 – Tools 06 – Annecy

- NMSSM
- FLV
- CPV
- RPV
- Dark Matter
- Theory Uncertainties
- Cross Sections
- General BSM Resonances
- Effective Couplings

## The SLHA1 Conventions

_**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.

_**Superpotential**_** ****(at scale Q (normally M****GUT****) in DRbar)**

_**SUSY Breaking Terms**_** ****(at scale Q in DRbar)**

## How to Generalise? MSSM

_**Superpotential**_** ****(at scale Q (normally M****GUT****) in DRbar)**

**RPV**
**CPV**
**FLV**

## 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
- 1000001 d_1
- 1000003 d_2
- 1000005 d_3
- 2000001 d_4
- 2000003 d_5
- 2000005 d_6

- Up squarks:
- PDG Code
- 1000002 u_1
- 1000004 u_2
- 1000006 u_3
- 2000002 u_4
- 2000004 u_5
- 2000006 u_6

**Main Issue:**
- PDG (no-mixing limit):

- 1000002	u_L
- 1000004	c_L
- 1000006	t_1
- 2000002	u_R
- 2000004	c_R
- 2000006	t_2

- 1000001	d_L
- 1000003	s_L
- 1000005	b_1
- 2000001	d_R
- 2000003	s_R
- 2000005	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: (mH1,mH2) _or_ (mA,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?

## NMSSM(Next-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model)

- Ellwanger, Gunion, Hugonie

_**Superpotential**_** ****(at scale Q (normally M****GUT****) in DRbar)**
**	****	****	****	****	****	****(usually with ****μ****MSSM****=0)**

**NMSSM**

- 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? (m2SUSY = mt1mt2)
- On-shell ? external momentum = ... ? m = (mh + mH)/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 20-21 2006)
- Summary of discussions available on spires (f t mc4bsm)
-  Proposal for definition of new state in SLHA-like block

- BLOCK QNUMBERS 1234567 # new_guy PDG=1234567
-          1 0  # 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
-    1234567  3.1415926535E+02  # new_guy
- DECAY   1234567   1.000000E+00 # new_guy width
-    1.0000E-00 2        22        22 # Br(new_guy -> gamma gamma)

-  Or something a la definition of a particle in a CalcHEP/CompHEP model file?

## Notes and Conclusions