Search for New Physics in the Light of Collider

Experiments

1 Introduction

The Standard Model (SM) of particle physics has been extensively and rigorously tested by many
different experiments since its inception. With the discovery of the Higgs like spin-0 boson at
the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)[1] at CERN in the year 2012 the direct signatures of all the
constituents of this model have been detected. But unanswered questions still remain. The
feature like existence of tiny neutrino mass revealed by neutrino oscillation experiments[2, 3]
challenges the SM with massless neutrinos. Moreover, no viable candidate from the SM can
play the role of a stable weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP) as a Dark Matter (DM) [4]
candidate to satisfy the WMAP data[5, 6]. In addition to these, there are a number of theoretical
issues to be resolved like naturalness problem[7] etc.. These unresolved issues lead to the opening
of many Beyond Standard Model (BSM) scenarios which can address the above inconsistencies
at least partially.

Supersymmetry (SUSY) [8] - a symmetry connecting fermions and bosons, give rise to various
models which can predict new particles and new mass scales in addition to the SM ones. The
models of SUSY are considered to be one of the most popular and attractive BSM scenarios,
although, there are models of extra dimensions [9, 10] etc.. Hence, the searches for new physics
at the LHC are among the top priority programmes[11] for particle physics community. The
experiments are complemented by phenomenological analyses which propose new models, assess
the prospect of discovering them through simulations and tests them when sufficient new data is
available. Research in this area especially draws attention to the community in view of the fact
that the LHC has started a new run at 13 TeV from June 2015.

The experiments during LHC Run I at 7 and 8 TeV were concluded in 2012. No signal of new

1
physics has yet been observed. However, important constraints on various new physics models
have been obtained [12]. The models of supersymmetry received special attention of both the
experimentalists[13] and phenomenologists [14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20] because of its robustness
and richness in phenomenological perspective.

After a shutdown the LHC RUN II experiments have resumed and important new physics search
results based on 36 f b−1 data have already been announced [21, 22, 23]. If any departure from
the predictions of the SM is found, unveiling the underlying new physics among many candidate
models will be an interesting study to pursue. If, on the other hand, no signal is seen during the
LHC Run II, updating the limits from Run I and early Run II will be a major task.

2 Objectives :

The aim of this project is :

• To scrutinize different well motivated extensions of the SM of particle physics in the light
of 13 TeV data from the ongoing LHC Run II experiment.

• To apply the direct constraints from LHC Run I and Run II experiments as well as the
indirect constraints from flavour physics, the discrepancy between the accurately measured
anomalous magnetic moment of the muon and the prediction of the SM, the observed dark
matter relic density of the universe, direct DM search data etc.

• To improve the existing strategies for new physics search as well as to develop new search
strategies for the upcoming LHC experiments by using Monte Carlo (MC) simulations.

3 Methodology

In this project different well motivated BSM scenarios of SUSY models which have not been
analyzed so far will be constrained using LHC RUN II data and the techniques developed in Ref.
[15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25]. The main goal will be to scrutinize different phenomenological
minimal sypersymmetric standard model (pMSSM) under simplified conditions along with other
BSM models. If any signal from LHC Run II disagrees with the SM prediction at a high level of
confidence, identifying the underlying SUSY scenario from the data will indeed be challenging.

2
On the other hand if no such signal is reported one can strengthen the constraints on new
physics from LHC Run II. Predicting new signatures and formulating novel search strategies for
the upcoming experiments via simulations is another important goal.

A generic event at the LHC comprises of n-leptons + m-jets + 6 ET , where n and m are
integers and 6 ET is the missing transverse energy for the event. A signal characterized by specific
choice of n and m is searched for subject to a set of selection criteria designed to minimize the
corresponding SM background. If the observed number of events turns out to be consistent with
the SM prediction then a model independent upper bound on the number of similar BSM events
(NBSM ) at a certain level of confidence is obtained [26, 27]. To constrain any new physics model
one simulates this signal and constraints the model parameters using the above upper bound.

SUSY is a novel symmetry relating bosons and fermions [8]. SUSY models are attractive exten-
sions of the SM where every fermion (boson) in the SM has a bosonic (fermionic) counterpart
known as a superpartner or a sparticle which have been searched for at the LHC. Moreover, in the
R-parity conserving supersymmetry the lightest supersymmetric particle is a stable WIMP and an
excellent dark matter candidate.

We now briefly review the methodology for constraining SUSY models. The ignorance about
SUSY breaking mechanism lead to an unmanageably large number of unknown free parameters
in SUSY models. The common practice is to reduce the number of parameters by imposing some
theoretical or phenomenological assumptions. The LHC collaborations often interpreted their data
in terms of a few simplified models of SUSY [26, 27]. Each simplified model is defined on the
basis of a minimal set of sparticles which can explain the characteristics of a specific signal. All
other sparticles are set to be heavy and decoupled. The LHC collaborations have constrained the
sparticle masses in a limited number of simplified SUSY models by using the model independent
bounds on NBSM .

The simplified models, though important for understanding certain aspects of LHC signatures,
cannot take care of the facts like the compatibility of SUSY with the indirect constraints like
the observed DM relic density of the universe[5, 6] or the possibility of relaxing the difference of
magnitude of the accurately measured anomalous magnetic moment of the muon [29, 30] and the
theoretical predicted value[31]. We have elevated the analyses to realistic models closely related
to the simplified models by including a minimal set of parameters so that the consequences of the
indirect constraints can be readily studied. In Ref.[15, 16] it has been shown that a narrow slice
of parameter space would survive if both direct and indirect constraints are taken into account.
Our main conclusion is that only narrow slices of the parameter space survive if both direct and

3
indirect constraints are taken into account.

Similar methodology can be successfully employed to put new constraints on different BSM
models for LHC RUN II data. Of course the discovery of any new physics signal at Run II will
demand the identification of the underlying model. Given the large number of candidate models
this will indeed be a much difficult task. By comparing the relative rates of signals in different
channels for different models one can discriminate among various new physics models.

Improvements/upgradation of the existing SUSY search strategies and proposals for novel search
techniques at 13 TeV techniques based on MC methods will also be important components of
the project. Modifying improvising the strategies for new physics searches during Run II will be
useful for further upgradation of LHC.

In the context of simplified SUSY models search strategies on heavier electroweakinos have
been proposed at LHC[24, 25] in the context of RUN I data. In Ref.[24], it has been pointed out
that in non-decoupled scenario heavier electroweakinos can lead to multilepton signals. In Fig.1
of Ref.[24], the exclusion contour for heavier chargino with respect to LSP have been displayed.
Also cuts have been proposed for various multilepton signatures in the context of LHC RUN II.
Other constraints like WMAP data and muon (g-2) data were also used.

These type of analyses in the context of available LHC RUN II data would be worth studying
in constraining the lighter as well as heavier electroweakino masses in various simplified pMSSM
models. In this project we can extend these analyses for various simplified models and also we
can study the method of discrimination of such models.

Many simulation packages like CalcHEP[32], PYTHIA[33], SuSpect[?],SUSYHIT[?], micrOMREGAs[?],

Madgraph[28] etc. will be useful for this purpose. A significant amount of time will be needed
for the research scholar to become familiar with such packages. Emphasis should be given for
analyzing new physics models in view of LHC RUN II data for discriminating such models.

New bounds on masses and mass scales and interactions characterizing various extensions of
the SM , discovery of new physics of BSM motivated by new signals at the LHC might be expected
outcome of this work. Moreover, strategies enhancing search prospects of BSM scenarios at the
LHC might be predicted from the outcomes of this project.

4
4 Bibliography

References

[1] G. Aad et. al. [ATLAS Collaborations]Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1 ; S. Chatrchyan et. al.
[CMS Collaborations] Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30 .

[2] B. T. Cleveland et. al., Astrophysical. Jour. 496 (1998) 505 ; M. Apollonio et. al. [CHOOZ
Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 466 (1999) 415 Eur. Phys. J. C 27 (2003) 331 ; Q. R. Ahmad
et. al. [SNO Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 071301 , Phys. Rev. Lett. 89
(2002) 011301 , Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 011302 ; S. Fukuda et. al. [Super-Kamiokande
Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 539 (2002) 179 ; ibid, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 011301
; K. Eguchi et. al.[KamLAND Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 021802 ; M.H.
Ahn, [K2K Collaboration] Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 041801 . F. P. An et. al.,[DAYA Bay
Collaboration ] Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (12) 171803 .

[3] For reviews see, e.g., T. Kajita, Nobel Lecture 2015,

www.nobelprize.org/nobel prizes/physics/laureates/2015/kajita-lecture.html; B. MacDon-
ald, Nobel Lecture 2015,www.nobelprize.org/nobel prizes/physics/laureates/2015/mcdonald-
lecture.html.

[4] L. Roszkowski, Pramana 62, 389 (2004) K. Olive, [arXiv:astro-ph/0503065]; H. Baer and
X. Tata, [arXiv:0805.1905], in Physics at the Large Hadron Collider, Indian National
Science Academy, A Platinum Jubilee Special Issue (Eds. A. Datta, B. Mukhopadhyaya
and A. Raychaudhuri; Springer, 2009). M. Drees, [arXiv:1204.2373]; S. Arrenberg et al.,
[arXiv:1310.8621].

[5] G. Hinshaw et al., [WMAP Collaboration], Astrophys. J. Suppl. 208, 19, 2013.

[6] P. A. R. Ade, et al., [Planck Collaboration], Astron.Astrophys. 571,A16, 2014.

[7] L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D 20 (1979) 2619 ; G. ’t Hooft in Recent Developments in Gauge
Theories, Proceedings of the Cargèse Summer Institute, Cargèse, France, eds. G. ’t Hooft
et al. ; M. Veltman, Acta. Phys. Pol. 12 (1981) 437 .

[8] For reviews on Supersymmetry, see, e.g. , H. P. Nilles, Phys. Rep. 1 ( 1984) 110 ; H. E.
Haber and G. Kane, Phys. Rep. 117 ( 1985) 75 ; J. Wess and J. Bagger, Supersymmetry

5
 and Supergravity, 2nd ed., (Princeton, 1991); M. Drees, P. Roy and R. M. Godbole, Theory
and Phenomenology of Sparticles, (World Scientific, Singapore, 2005).

[9] I. Antoniadis, Phys. Lett. B 246 (1990) 377; N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulous and
G. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B 429 (1998) 263; I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopou-
los and G. R. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B 436 (1998) 257.

[10] L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 3370; ibid 83 (1999) 4690;
T. Appelquist, H. C. Cheng and B. A. Dobrescu, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 035002; H. C.
Cheng, K. T. Matchev and M. Schmaltz, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 056006 . (2002)

[11] For a review see, e.g., Physics at the Large Hadron Collider, Indian National Science
Academy, A Platinum Jubilee Special Issue (Eds. A. Datta, B. Mukhopadhyaya and A.
Raychaudhuri; Springer, 2009)

[12] See the web: https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/AtlasPublic and

https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/CMSPublic/PhysicsResults

[13] https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/AtlasPublic/SupersymmetryPublicResults
https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/CMSPublic/PhysicsResultsSUS

[14] N.Bhattacharyya, Amitava Datta (A. Datta) and S. Poddar, Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010)
035003 ; N.Bhattacharyya, A. Choudhury and A. Datta, Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 115025 ;
N.Bhattacharyya, A. Choudhury and A. Datta, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 095006 ; A. Choud-
hury and A. Datta,

[15] M. Chakraborti, U. Chattopadhyay, A. Choudhury, A. Datta and S. Poddar, J. High Energy

Phys. 1407 (2014) 019 .

[16] M. Chakraborti, U. Chattopadhyay, A. Choudhury, A. Datta and S. Poddar, J. High Energy

Phys. 1511 (2015) 050

[17] N. Bhattacharyya, A. Datta, M. Guchait, M. Maity and S. Poddar, Phys. Rev. D 82 (2010)
035022 .

[18] See, e.g., K. de Vries et al., arXiv:1504.03260 [hep-ph]; M. Cahill-Rowley, Phys. Rev. D
90 (2014) 095017 ; M. Carena et al., Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 075025 ; A. Arbey, M.
Battaglia and F. Mahmoudi; Eur. Phys. J. C72 (2012); S. Sekmen et al.,J. High Energy
Phys. 02 (2012) 075 ; B. C. Allanach et al., J. High Energy Phys. 1107 (2011) 104 ; S. S.
AbdusSalam et al., Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 095012 .

6
[19] A. Chaterjee, A. Choudhury, A. Datta and B. Mukhopadhyaya, J. High Energy Phys. 1501
(2015) 054 ; J. Dutta, P.Konar, S. Mondal, B. Mukhopadhyaya and S.K. Rai, J. High Energy
Phys. 01 (2016) 051 ; G. Belanger, D. Ghosh, R. Godbole and S. Kulkarni, J. High Energy
Phys. 1509 (2015) 214 ; G. Belanger, D. Ghosh, R. Godbole M. Guchait and D. Sengupta,
Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 015003 ; B. Bhattacharjee, M. Chakraborty, U. Chattopadhyay and
D. K. Ghosh, arXiv:1511.08461[hep-ph].

[20] For a review see, e.g., J.A.Evans et. al., J. High Energy Phys. 1407 (2014) 101

[21] ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2015-062, ATLAS-CONF-2015- 076, ATLAS-CONF-

2015-067.

[22] G. Aad et. al.[ATLAS Collaboration], arXiv:1512.05910[hep-ex]; arXiv:1512.01530[hep-ex].

[23] CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-SUS-15-002, CMS-PAS-SUS-15-008, CMS-PAS-SUS-011;

CMS-PAS-EXO-15-002, CMS-PAS-EXO-15-009.

[24] A. Datta, N. Ganguly and S. Poddar, Phys. Lett. B 763 (2016) 213

[25] M. Chakraborti, A. Datta, N. Ganguly and S. Poddar, J. High Energy Phys. 1711 (2017)
117

[26] G.Aad et. al., [ATLAS Collaboration], J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2015) 134 ; J. High Energy
Phys. 10 (2015) 054 ; Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 510 ; arXiv:1509.07152[hep-ex].

[27] S.Chatrchyan et. al., [CMS Collaboration], J. High Energy Phys. 1406 (2014) 055 ;V.
Khachatryan et. al., [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 736 (2014) 371 ; Eur. Phys. J. C
74 (2014) 3036 .

[28] J. Alwall et. al., J. High Energy Phys. 07 ( Phys. Rev. D73 (2006) )

[29] Muon G-2 Collaboration 072003; B. L. Roberts, Chin. Phys. C34 (2010) 741.

[30] K. Hagiwara, R. Liao, A. D. Martin, D. Nomura and T. Teubner, J. Phys. G G38 (2011)
085003

[31] F. Jegerlehner and A. Nyffeler, Phys. Rep. 477 (2009) 1

[32] A.Belyaev, N.Christensen and A.Pukhov, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 1729 (2013)

[33] T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna and P. Z. Skands, J. High Energy Phys. 0605 (2006) 026 [hep-
ph/0603175]

7
Scanned by CamScanner