4.4 Article

A SM-like Higgs near 125 GeV in low energy SUSY: a comparative study for MSSM and NMSSM

Journal

JOURNAL OF HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS
Volume -, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/JHEP03(2012)086

Keywords

Supersymmetry Phenomenology

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NNSFC) [10821504, 11135003, 10775039, 11075045]
  2. Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education [20104104110001]
  3. Chinese Academy of Sciences [KJCX2.YW.W10]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Motivated by the recent LHC hints of a Higgs boson around 125 GeV, we assume a SM-like Higgs with the mass 123-127 GeV and study its implication in low energy SUSY by comparing the MSSM and NMSSM. We consider various experimental constraints at 2 sigma level (including the muon g - 2 and the dark matter relic density) and perform a comprehensive scan over the parameter space of each model. Then in the parameter space which is allowed by current experimental constraints and also predicts a SM-like Higgs in 123-127 GeV, we examine the properties of the sensitive parameters (like the top squark mass and the trilinear coupling A(t)) and calculate the rates of the di-photon signal and the VV* (V = W, Z) signals at the LHC. Our typical findings are: (i) In the MSSM the top squark and A(t) must be large and thus incur some fine-tuning, which can be much ameliorated in the NMSSM; (ii) In the MSSM a light stau is needed to enhance the di-photon rate of the SM-like Higgs to exceed its SM prediction, while in the NMSSM the di-photon rate can be readily enhanced in several ways; (iii) In the MSSM the signal rates of pp -> h -> VV* at the LHC are never enhanced compared with their SM predictions, while in the NMSSM they may get enhanced significantly; (iv) A large part of the parameter space so far survived will be soon covered by the expected XENON100(2012) sensitivity (especially for the NMSSM).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available