4.5 Article

Prospects for Heavy Neutral SUSY HIGGS Scalars in the hMSSM and Natural SUSY at LHC Upgrades

期刊

SYMMETRY-BASEL
卷 14, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/sym14102061

关键词

Higgs bosons; LHC; supersymmetry; naturalness

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of high Energy Physics [DE-SC-0009956, DE-SC-0017647]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines the production and decay of heavy neutral SUSY Higgs bosons in different supersymmetry scenarios, utilizing a combination of back-to-back and acollinear mass peak techniques for signal channels. The evaluation includes exclusion and discovery limits at the LHC, compared to results from a statistical analysis of the string landscape.
We examine production and decay of heavy neutral SUSY Higgs bosons pp -> H, A -> tau(tau) over bar within the hMSSM and compare against a perhaps more plausible natural supersymmetry scenario dubbed M-h(125) (nat) which allows for a natural explanation for M-weak similar or equal to M-W,M-Z,M-h similar to 100 GeV while maintaining m h 125 GeV. We evaluate signal against various Standard Model backgrounds from gamma, Z -> tau(tau) over bar, t (t) over bar and vector boson pair production VV. We combine the transverse mass method for back-to-back (BtB) taus along with the ditau mass peak m(tau tau) method for acollinear taus as our signal channels. This technique ultimately gives a boost to the signal significance over the standard technique of using just the BtB signal channel. We evaluate both the 95% CL exclusion and 5 sigma discovery reach in the m(A) vs. tan beta plane for present LHC with 139 fb (-1), Run 3 with 300 fb(-1) and high luminosity LHC (HL-LHC) with 3000 fb(-1 )of integrated luminosity. For tan beta = 10, the exclusion limits range up to m(A) similar to 1, 1.1 and 1.4 TeV, respectively. These may be compared to the range of m(A) values gleaned from a statistical analysis of the string landscape wherein m(A) can range up to similar to 8 TeV.

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

4.5
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