4.7 Article

Invisible decays of the heavier Higgs boson in the minimal supersymmetric standard model

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
卷 91, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.115025

关键词

-

资金

  1. Raja Ramanna Fellowship of Department of Atomic Energy
  2. Department of Science and Technology, India

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We consider the possibility that the heavier CP-even Higgs boson (H-0) in the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) decays invisibly into neutralinos in the light of the recent discovery of the 126 GeV resonance at the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC). For this purpose we consider the minimal supersymmetric standard model with universal, nonuniversal and arbitrary boundary conditions on the supersymmetry breaking gaugino mass parameters at the grand unified scale. Typically, scenarios with universal and nonuniversal gaugino masses do not allow invisible decays of the lightest Higgs boson (h(0)), which is identified with the 126 GeV resonance, into the lightest neutralinos in the MSSM. With arbitrary gaugino masses at the grand unified scale, such an invisible decay is possible. The second lightest Higgs boson can decay into various invisible final states for a considerable region of the MSSM parameter space with arbitrary gaugino masses as well as with the gaugino masses restricted by universal and nonuniversal boundary conditions at the grand unified scale. The possibility of the second lightest Higgs boson of the MSSM decaying into invisible channels is more likely for arbitrary gaugino masses at the grand unified scale. The heavier Higgs boson decay into lighter particles leads to the intriguing possibility that the entire Higgs boson spectrum of the MSSM may be visible at the LHC even if it decays invisibly, during the searches for an extended Higgs boson sector at the LHC. In such a scenario the nonobservation of the extended Higgs sector of the MSSM may carefully be used to rule out regions of the MSSM parameter space at the LHC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据