What next for the CMSSM and the NUHM: improved prospects for superpartner and dark matter detection

  • Leszek Roszkowski
  • Enrico Maria SessoloEmail author
  • Andrew J. Williams
Open Access


We present an updated analysis of the CMSSM and the NUHM using the latest experimental data and numerical tools. We map out favored regions of Bayesian posterior probability in light of data from the LHC, flavor observables, the relic density and dark matter searches. We present some updated features with respect to our previous analyses: we include the effects of corrections to the light Higgs mass beyond the 2-loop order using FeynHiggs 2.10.0; we include in the likelihood the latest limits from direct searches for squarks and gluinos at ATLAS with ~ 20 fb−1; the latest constraints on the spin-independent scattering cross section of the neutralino from LUX are applied taking into account uncertainties in the nuclear form factors. We find that in the CMSSM the posterior distribution now tends to favor smaller values of M SUSY than in the previous analyses. As a consequence, the statistical weight of the A-resonance region increases to about 30% of the total probability, with interesting new prospects for the 14 TeV run at the LHC. The most favored region, on the other hand, still features multi-TeV squarks and gluinos, and ~ 1 TeV higgsino dark matter whose detection prospects by current and one-tonne detectors look very promising. The same region is predominant in the NUHM, although the A-resonance region is also present there as well as a new solution, of neutralino-stau coannihilation through the channel \( \tilde{\tau}\tilde{\tau}\ \to\ hh \) at very large μ. We derive the expected sensitivity of the future CTA experiment to ~ 1 TeV higgsino dark matter for both models and show that the prospects for probing both models are realistically good. We comment on the complementarity of this search to planned direct detection one-tonne experiments.


Supersymmetry Phenomenology 


Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits any use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.


  1. [1]
    ATLAS collaboration, Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 1 [arXiv:1207.7214] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    CMS collaboration, Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B 716 (2012) 30 [arXiv:1207.7235] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    G.L. Kane, C.F. Kolda, L. Roszkowski and J.D. Wells, Study of constrained minimal supersymmetry, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 6173 [hep-ph/9312272] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    H. Baer, V. Barger and A. Mustafayev, Implications of a 125 GeV Higgs scalar for LHC SUSY and neutralino dark matter searches, Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 075010 [arXiv:1112.3017] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    M. Kadastik, K. Kannike, A. Racioppi and M. Raidal, Implications of the 125 GeV Higgs boson for scalar dark matter and for the CMSSM phenomenology, JHEP 05 (2012) 061 [arXiv:1112.3647] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    J. Cao, Z. Heng, D. Li and J.M. Yang, Current experimental constraints on the lightest Higgs boson mass in the constrained MSSM, Phys. Lett. B 710 (2012) 665 [arXiv:1112.4391] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    J. Ellis and K.A. Olive, Revisiting the Higgs mass and dark matter in the CMSSM, Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 2005 [arXiv:1202.3262] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    H. Baer, V. Barger and A. Mustafayev, Neutralino dark matter in mSUGRA/CMSSM with a 125 GeV light Higgs scalar, JHEP 05 (2012) 091 [arXiv:1202.4038] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    P. Bechtle et al., Constrained supersymmetry after two years of LHC data: a global view with Fittino, JHEP 06 (2012) 098 [arXiv:1204.4199] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    C. Balázs, A. Buckley, D. Carter, B. Farmer and M. White, Should we still believe in constrained supersymmetry?, Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013) 2563 [arXiv:1205.1568] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    A. Fowlie et al., The CMSSM favoring new territories: the impact of new LHC limits and a 125 GeV Higgs, Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 075010 [arXiv:1206.0264] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    S. Akula, P. Nath and G. Peim, Implications of the Higgs boson discovery for mSUGRA, Phys. Lett. B 717 (2012) 188 [arXiv:1207.1839] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    O. Buchmueller et al., The CMSSM and NUHM1 in light of 7 TeV LHC, B s → μ + μ and XENON100 data, Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 2243 [arXiv:1207.7315] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    C. Strege et al., Global fits of the CMSSM and NUHM including the LHC Higgs discovery and new XENON100 constraints, JCAP 04 (2013) 013 [arXiv:1212.2636] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    M.E. Cabrera, J.A. Casas and R.R. de Austri, The health of SUSY after the Higgs discovery and the XENON100 data, JHEP 07 (2013) 182 [arXiv:1212.4821] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    K. Kowalska, L. Roszkowski and E.M. Sessolo, Two ultimate tests of constrained supersymmetry, JHEP 06 (2013) 078 [arXiv:1302.5956] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    A. Dighe, D. Ghosh, K.M. Patel and S. Raychaudhuri, Testing times for supersymmetry: looking under the lamp post, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 28 (2013) 1350134 [arXiv:1303.0721] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    T. Cohen and J.G. Wacker, Here be dragons: the unexplored continents of the CMSSM, JHEP 09 (2013) 061 [arXiv:1305.2914] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Planck collaboration, P.A.R. Ade et al., Planck 2013 results. XVI. Cosmological parameters, arXiv:1303.5076 [INSPIRE].
  20. [20]
  21. [21]
    Belle collaboration, I. Adachi et al., Evidence for \( {B}^{-}\to {\tau}^{-}{\overline{\nu}}_{\tau} \) with a hadronic tagging method using the full data sample of Belle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) 131801 [arXiv:1208.4678] [INSPIRE].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    LHCb collaboration, Measurement of the B s0 → μ + μ branching fraction and search for B 0 → μ + μ decays at the LHCb experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 101805 [arXiv:1307.5024] [INSPIRE].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    CMS collaboration, Measurement of the B s → μ + μ branching fraction and search for B 0μ + μ with the CMS experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 101804 [arXiv:1307.5025] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Muon G-2 collaboration, G.W. Bennett et al., Final report of the muon E821 anomalous magnetic moment measurement at BNL, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 072003 [hep-ex/0602035] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    J.P. Miller, E. de Rafael and B.L. Roberts, Muon (g-2): experiment and theory, Rept. Prog. Phys. 70 (2007) 795 [hep-ph/0703049] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    CMS collaboration, Inclusive search for supersymmetry using the razor variables in pp collisions at \( \sqrt{s} \) = 7 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 081802 [arXiv:1212.6961] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    CMS collaboration, Search for supersymmetry in hadronic final states with missing transverse energy using the variables α T and b-quark multiplicity in pp collisions at \( \sqrt{s} \) = 8 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013) 2568 [arXiv:1303.2985] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    S. Profumo and C.E. Yaguna, A statistical analysis of supersymmetric dark matter in the MSSM after WMAP, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 095004 [hep-ph/0407036] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    N. Arkani-Hamed, A. Delgado and G.F. Giudice, The well-tempered neutralino, Nucl. Phys. B 741 (2006) 108 [hep-ph/0601041] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    L. Roszkowski, R. Ruiz de Austri, R. Trotta, Y.-L.S. Tsai and T.A. Varley, Global fits of the non-universal Higgs model, Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 015014 [arXiv:0903.1279] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    BayesFITS Group collaboration, A. Fowlie, K. Kowalska, L. Roszkowski, E.M. Sessolo and Y.-L.S. Tsai, Dark matter and collider signatures of the MSSM, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 055012 [arXiv:1306.1567] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    A. Kaminska, G.G. Ross and K. Schmidt-Hoberg, Non-universal gaugino masses and fine tuning implications for SUSY searches in the MSSM and the GNMSSM, JHEP 11 (2013) 209 [arXiv:1308.4168] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. [33]
    K. Kowalska, L. Roszkowski, E.M. Sessolo and S. Trojanowski, Low fine tuning in the MSSM with higgsino dark matter and unification constraints, JHEP 04 (2014) 166 [arXiv:1402.1328] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. [34]
    B.S. Acharya et al., Introducing the CTA concept, Astropart. Phys. 43 (2013) 3 [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. [35]
    CTA collaboration, M. Doro et al., Dark matter and fundamental physics with the Cherenkov Telescope Array, Astropart. Phys. 43 (2013) 189 [arXiv:1208.5356] [INSPIRE].
  36. [36]
    M. Pierre, J.M. Siegal-Gaskins and P. Scott, Sensitivity of CTA to dark matter signals from the galactic center, JCAP 06 (2014) 024 [arXiv:1401.7330] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. [37]
    B.C. Allanach, SOFTSUSY: a program for calculating supersymmetric spectra, Comput. Phys. Commun. 143 (2002) 305 [hep-ph/0104145] [INSPIRE].
  38. [38]
    A. Djouadi, J.-L. Kneur and G. Moultaka, SuSpect: a fortran code for the supersymmetric and Higgs particle spectrum in the MSSM, Comput. Phys. Commun. 176 (2007) 426 [hep-ph/0211331] [INSPIRE].ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. [39]
    W. Porod, SPheno, a program for calculating supersymmetric spectra, SUSY particle decays and SUSY particle production at e + e colliders, Comput. Phys. Commun. 153 (2003) 275 [hep-ph/0301101] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. [40]
    S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik and G. Weiglein, The masses of the neutral CP-even Higgs bosons in the MSSM: accurate analysis at the two loop level, Eur. Phys. J. C 9 (1999) 343 [hep-ph/9812472] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  41. [41]
    S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik and G. Weiglein, FeynHiggs: a program for the calculation of the masses of the neutral CP even Higgs bosons in the MSSM, Comput. Phys. Commun. 124 (2000) 76 [hep-ph/9812320] [INSPIRE].ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. [42]
    G. Degrassi, S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, P. Slavich and G. Weiglein, Towards high precision predictions for the MSSM Higgs sector, Eur. Phys. J. C 28 (2003) 133 [hep-ph/0212020] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. [43]
    M. Frank et al., The Higgs boson masses and mixings of the complex MSSM in the Feynman-diagrammatic approach, JHEP 02 (2007) 047 [hep-ph/0611326] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. [44]
    S.P. Martin, Three-loop corrections to the lightest Higgs scalar boson mass in supersymmetry, Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 055005 [hep-ph/0701051] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  45. [45]
    R.V. Harlander, P. Kant, L. Mihaila and M. Steinhauser, Higgs boson mass in supersymmetry to three loops, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 191602 [Erratum ibid. 101 (2008) 039901] [arXiv:0803.0672] [INSPIRE].
  46. [46]
    P. Kant, R.V. Harlander, L. Mihaila and M. Steinhauser, Light MSSM Higgs boson mass to three-loop accuracy, JHEP 08 (2010) 104 [arXiv:1005.5709] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. [47]
    T. Hahn, S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, H. Rzehak and G. Weiglein, High-precision predictions for the light CP-even Higgs boson mass of the MSSM, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014) 141801 [arXiv:1312.4937] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. [48]
    P. Draper, G. Lee and C.E.M. Wagner, Precise estimates of the Higgs mass in heavy SUSY, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 055023 [arXiv:1312.5743] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  49. [49]
    J.L. Feng, P. Kant, S. Profumo and D. Sanford, Three-loop corrections to the Higgs boson mass and implications for supersymmetry at the LHC, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 131802 [arXiv:1306.2318] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. [50]
    O. Buchmueller et al., Implications of improved Higgs mass calculations for supersymmetric models, Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 2809 [arXiv:1312.5233] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. [51]
    O. Buchmueller et al., The CMSSM and NUHM1 after LHC run 1, arXiv:1312.5250 [INSPIRE].
  52. [52]
    LUX collaboration, D.S. Akerib et al., First results from the LUX dark matter experiment at the Sanford Underground Research Facility, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014) 091303 [arXiv:1310.8214] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. [53]
    A. Fowlie, A. Kalinowski, M. Kazana, L. Roszkowski and Y.L.S. Tsai, Bayesian implications of current LHC and XENON100 search limits for the constrained MSSM, Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 075012 [arXiv:1111.6098] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  54. [54]
    L. Roszkowski, E.M. Sessolo and Y.-L.S. Tsai, Bayesian implications of current LHC supersymmetry and dark matter detection searches for the constrained MSSM, Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 095005 [arXiv:1202.1503] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  55. [55]
    P. Bechtle, S. Heinemeyer, O. Stal, T. Stefaniak and G. Weiglein, HiggsSignals: confronting arbitrary Higgs sectors with measurements at the Tevatron and the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 2711 [arXiv:1305.1933] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. [56]
    P. Bechtle, O. Brein, S. Heinemeyer, G. Weiglein and K.E. Williams, HiggsBounds: confronting arbitrary Higgs sectors with exclusion bounds from LEP and the Tevatron, Comput. Phys. Commun. 181 (2010) 138 [arXiv:0811.4169] [INSPIRE].ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. [57]
    P. Bechtle, O. Brein, S. Heinemeyer, G. Weiglein and K.E. Williams, HiggsBounds 2.0.0: confronting neutral and charged Higgs sector predictions with exclusion bounds from LEP and the Tevatron, Comput. Phys. Commun. 182 (2011) 2605 [arXiv:1102.1898] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. [58]
    P. Bechtle et al., HiggsBounds-4: improved tests of extended Higgs sectors against exclusion bounds from LEP, the Tevatron and the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 2693 [arXiv:1311.0055] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. [59]
    M. Drees, H. Dreiner, D. Schmeier, J. Tattersall and J.S. Kim, CheckMATE: confronting your favourite new physics model with LHC data, arXiv:1312.2591 [INSPIRE].
  60. [60]
    A. Barr, C. Lester and P. Stephens, m T2 : the truth behind the glamour, J. Phys. G 29 (2003) 2343 [hep-ph/0304226] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. [61]
    H.-C. Cheng and Z. Han, Minimal kinematic constraints and m T2, JHEP 12 (2008) 063 [arXiv:0810.5178] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. [62]
    M. Cacciari and G.P. Salam, Dispelling the N 3 myth for the k t jet-finder, Phys. Lett. B 641 (2006) 57 [hep-ph/0512210] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. [63]
    M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam and G. Soyez, The anti-k t jet clustering algorithm, JHEP 04 (2008) 063 [arXiv:0802.1189] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. [64]
    M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam and G. Soyez, FastJet user manual, Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 1896 [arXiv:1111.6097] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. [65]
    DELPHES 3 collaboration, J. de Favereau et al., DELPHES 3, a modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment, JHEP 02 (2014) 057 [arXiv:1307.6346] [INSPIRE].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. [66]
    C.G. Lester and D.J. Summers, Measuring masses of semiinvisibly decaying particles pair produced at hadron colliders, Phys. Lett. B 463 (1999) 99 [hep-ph/9906349] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. [67]
    A.L. Read, Presentation of search results: the CL(s) technique, J. Phys. G 28 (2002) 2693 [INSPIRE].ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. [68]
    Particle Data Group collaboration, J. Beringer et al., Review of particle physics (RPP), Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 010001 [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  69. [69]
    K. Cheung, Y.-L.S. Tsai, P.-Y. Tseng, T.-C. Yuan and A. Zee, Global study of the simplest scalar phantom dark matter model, JCAP 10 (2012) 042 [arXiv:1207.4930] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. [70]
    XENON100 collaboration, E. Aprile et al., Dark matter results from 225 live days of XENON100 data, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 181301 [arXiv:1207.5988] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. [71]
    G. Bélanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov and A. Semenov, MicrOMEGAs3: a program for calculating dark matter observables, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185 (2014) 960 [arXiv:1305.0237] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. [72]
    J.R. Ellis, K.A. Olive and C. Savage, Hadronic uncertainties in the elastic scattering of supersymmetric dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 065026 [arXiv:0801.3656] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  73. [73]
    R.D. Young, Strange quark content of the nucleon and dark matter searches, PoS(LATTICE2012)014 [arXiv:1301.1765] [INSPIRE].
  74. [74]
    J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer and T. Stelzer, MadGraph 5: going beyond, JHEP 06 (2011) 128 [arXiv:1106.0522] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. [75]
    T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna and P.Z. Skands, A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1, Comput. Phys. Commun. 178 (2008) 852 [arXiv:0710.3820] [INSPIRE].ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. [76]
    W. Beenakker, R. Hopker, M. Spira and P.M. Zerwas, Squark and gluino production at hadron colliders, Nucl. Phys. B 492 (1997) 51 [hep-ph/9610490] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. [77]
    A. Kulesza and L. Motyka, Threshold resummation for squark-antisquark and gluino-pair production at the LHC, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 (2009) 111802 [arXiv:0807.2405] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. [78]
    A. Kulesza and L. Motyka, Soft gluon resummation for the production of gluino-gluino and squark-antisquark pairs at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 095004 [arXiv:0905.4749] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  79. [79]
    W. Beenakker et al., Soft-gluon resummation for squark and gluino hadroproduction, JHEP 12 (2009) 041 [arXiv:0909.4418] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. [80]
    W. Beenakker et al., Squark and gluino hadroproduction, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 26 (2011) 2637 [arXiv:1105.1110] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. [81]
    ATLAS collaboration, Search for squarks and gluinos with the ATLAS detector in final states with jets and missing transverse momentum and 20.3 fb−1 of \( \sqrt{s} \) = 8 TeV proton-proton collision data, ATLAS-CONF-2013-047, CERN, Geneva Switzerland (2013).
  82. [82]
    ATLAS collaboration, Search for strong production of supersymmetric particles in final states with missing transverse momentum and at least three b-jets using 20.1 fb−1 of pp collisions at \( \sqrt{s} \) = 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector, ATLAS-CONF-2013-061, CERN, Geneva Switzerland (2013).
  83. [83]
    K.N. Abazajian and J.P. Harding, Constraints on WIMP and Sommerfeld-enhanced dark matter annihilation from HESS observations of the galactic center, JCAP 01 (2012) 041 [arXiv:1110.6151] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. [84]
    Fermi-LAT collaboration, M. Ackermann et al., Dark matter constraints from observations of 25 milky way satellite galaxies with the Fermi Large Area Telescope, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 042001 [arXiv:1310.0828] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  85. [85]
    K. Bernlöhr et al., Monte Carlo design studies for the Cherenkov Telescope Array, Astropart. Phys. 43 (2013) 171 [arXiv:1210.3503] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. [86]
    BayesFITS Group collaboration, K. Kowalska et al., Constrained next-to-minimal supersymmetric Standard Model with a 126 GeV Higgs boson: a global analysis, Phys. Rev. D 87 (2013) 115010 [arXiv:1211.1693] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  87. [87]
    F. Feroz, M.P. Hobson and M. Bridges, MultiNest: an efficient and robust Bayesian inference tool for cosmology and particle physics, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 398 (2009) 1601 [arXiv:0809.3437] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. [88]
    F. Mahmoudi, SuperIso v2.3: a program for calculating flavor physics observables in supersymmetry, Comput. Phys. Commun. 180 (2009) 1579 [arXiv:0808.3144] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. [89]
    C. Bobeth et al., B s,d → ℓ + in the Standard Model with reduced theoretical uncertainty, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014) 101801 [arXiv:1311.0903] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. [90]
    ATLAS, CDF, CMS and D0 collaborations, First combination of Tevatron and LHC measurements of the top-quark mass, arXiv:1403.4427 [INSPIRE].
  91. [91]
    J.R. Ellis, T. Falk and K.A. Olive, Neutralino-stau coannihilation and the cosmological upper limit on the mass of the lightest supersymmetric particle, Phys. Lett. B 444 (1998) 367 [hep-ph/9810360] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. [92]
    M. Drees and M.M. Nojiri, The neutralino relic density in minimal N = 1 supergravity, Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 376 [hep-ph/9207234] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  93. [93]
    K.L. Chan, U. Chattopadhyay and P. Nath, Naturalness, weak scale supersymmetry and the prospect for the observation of supersymmetry at the Tevatron and at the CERN LHC, Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 096004 [hep-ph/9710473] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  94. [94]
    J.L. Feng, K.T. Matchev and T. Moroi, Multi-TeV scalars are natural in minimal supergravity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (2000) 2322 [hep-ph/9908309] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. [95]
    J.L. Feng, K.T. Matchev and T. Moroi, Focus points and naturalness in supersymmetry, Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 075005 [hep-ph/9909334] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  96. [96]
    WMAP collaboration, E. Komatsu et al., Seven-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: cosmological interpretation, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 192 (2011) 18 [arXiv:1001.4538] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. [97]
    ATLAS collaboration, Prospects for benchmark supersymmetry searches at the high luminosity LHC with the ATLAS detector, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2013-011, CERN, Geneva Switzerland (2013).
  98. [98]
    T. Cohen et al., SUSY simplified models at 14, 33 and 100 TeV proton colliders, JHEP 04 (2014) 117 [arXiv:1311.6480] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. [99]
    A. Arbey, M. Battaglia and F. Mahmoudi, Supersymmetric heavy higgs bosons at the LHC, Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 015007 [arXiv:1303.7450] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  100. [100]
    CMS collaboration, Search for MSSM neutral Higgs bosons decaying to tau pairs in pp collisions, CMS-PAS-HIG-12-050, CERN, Geneva Switzerland (2012).
  101. [101]
    M.S. Carena, S. Heinemeyer, C.E.M. Wagner and G. Weiglein, Suggestions for benchmark scenarios for MSSM Higgs boson searches at hadron colliders, Eur. Phys. J. C 26 (2003) 601 [hep-ph/0202167] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. [102]
    A. Djouadi and J. Quevillon, The MSSM Higgs sector at a high M SUSY : reopening the low tan β regime and heavy Higgs searches, JHEP 10 (2013) 028 [arXiv:1304.1787] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. [103]
    XENON1T collaboration, E. Aprile, The XENON1T dark matter search experiment, arXiv:1206.6288 [INSPIRE].
  104. [104]
    M. Wood et al., Prospects for indirect detection of dark matter with CTA, arXiv:1305.0302 [INSPIRE].
  105. [105]
    J.F. Navarro, C.S. Frenk and S.D.M. White, The structure of cold dark matter halos, Astrophys. J. 462 (1996) 563 [astro-ph/9508025] [INSPIRE].
  106. [106]
    J. Einasto, On the construction of a composite model for the galaxy and on the determination of the system of galactic parameters, Trudy Astrofiz. Inst. Alma-Ata 5 (1965) 87.ADSGoogle Scholar
  107. [107]
    B. Cabrera, L.M. Krauss and F. Wilczek, Bolometric detection of neutrinos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55 (1985) 25 [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. [108]
    J. Monroe and P. Fisher, Neutrino backgrounds to dark matter searches, Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 033007 [arXiv:0706.3019] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  109. [109]
    J. Billard, L. Strigari and E. Figueroa-Feliciano, Implication of neutrino backgrounds on the reach of next generation dark matter direct detection experiments, Phys. Rev. D 89 (2014) 023524 [arXiv:1307.5458] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leszek Roszkowski
    • 1
  • Enrico Maria Sessolo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Andrew J. Williams
    • 1
  1. 1.National Centre for Nuclear ResearchWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations