Journal of High Energy Physics

, 2012:111 | Cite as

Yukawa unification and the superpartner mass scale

  • Gilly Elor
  • Lawrence J. Hall
  • David Pinner
  • Joshua T. Ruderman
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Naturalness in supersymmetry (SUSY) is under siege by increasingly stringent LHC constraints, but natural electroweak symmetry breaking still remains the most powerful motivation for superpartner masses within experimental reach. If naturalness is the wrong criterion then what determines the mass scale of the superpartners? We motivate supersymmetry by (1) gauge coupling unification, (2) dark matter, and (3) precision b − τ Yukawa unification. We show that for an LSP that is a bino-Higgsino admixture, these three requirements lead to an upper-bound on the stop and sbottom masses in the several TeV regime because the threshold correction to the bottom mass at the superpartner scale is required to have a particular size. For tan β ≈ 50, which is needed for t−b−τ unification, the stops must be lighter than 2.8 TeV when A t has the opposite sign of the gluino mass, as is favored by renormalization group scaling. For lower values of tan β, the top and bottom squarks must be even lighter. Yukawa unification plus dark matter implies that superpartners are likely in reach of the LHC, after the upgrade to 14 (or 13) TeV, independent of any considerations of naturalness. We present a model-independent, bottom-up analysis of the SUSY parameter space that is simultaneously consistent with Yukawa unification and the hint for m h = 125 GeV. We study the flavor and dark matter phenomenology that accompanies this Yukawa unification. A large portion of the parameter space predicts that the branching fraction for B s → μ + μ − will be observed to be significantly lower than the SM value.

Keywords

Supersymmetry Phenomenology 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. [1]
    ATLAS collaboration, G. Aad et al., Combined search for the standard model Higgs boson using up to 4.9 fb −1 of pp collision data at \( \sqrt{s}=7\;TeV \) with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B 710 (2012) 49 [arXiv:1202.1408] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    CMS collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., Combined results of searches for the standard model Higgs boson in pp collisions at \( \sqrt{s}=7\;TeV \), Phys. Lett. B 710 (2012) 26 [arXiv:1202.1488] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    L.J. Hall, D. Pinner and J.T. Ruderman, A natural SUSY Higgs near 126 GeV, JHEP 04 (2012) 131 [arXiv:1112.2703] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    N. Arkani-Hamed and S. Dimopoulos, Supersymmetric unification without low energy supersymmetry and signatures for fine-tuning at the LHC, JHEP 06 (2005) 073 [hep-th/0405159] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Out of this world supersymmetry breaking, Nucl. Phys. B 557 (1999) 79 [hep-th/9810155] [INSPIRE].MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    G.F. Giudice, M.A. Luty, H. Murayama and R. Rattazzi, Gaugino mass without singlets, JHEP 12 (1998) 027 [hep-ph/9810442] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    L.J. Hall and Y. Nomura, Spread supersymmetry, JHEP 01 (2012) 082 [arXiv:1111.4519] [INSPIRE].MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    J.D. Wells, Implications of supersymmetry breaking with a little hierarchy between gauginos and scalars, hep-ph/0306127 [INSPIRE].
  9. [9]
    J.D. Wells, PeV-scale supersymmetry, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 015013 [hep-ph/0411041] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    M. Binger, Higgs boson mass in split supersymmetry at two-loops, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 095001 [hep-ph/0408240] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    G.F. Giudice and A. Strumia, Probing high-scale and split supersymmetry with Higgs mass measurements, Nucl. Phys. B 858 (2012) 63 [arXiv:1108.6077] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    L.J. Hall and Y. Nomura, A finely-predicted Higgs boson mass from a finely-tuned weak scale, JHEP 03 (2010) 076 [arXiv:0910.2235] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    H. Georgi and S. Glashow, Unity of all elementary particle forces, Phys. Rev. Lett. 32 (1974) 438 [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    M.S. Chanowitz, J.R. Ellis and M.K. Gaillard, The price of natural flavor conservation in neutral weak interactions, Nucl. Phys. B 128 (1977) 506 [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    A. Buras, J.R. Ellis, M. Gaillard and D.V. Nanopoulos, Aspects of the grand unification of strong, weak and electromagnetic interactions, Nucl. Phys. B 135 (1978) 66 [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    B. Ananthanarayan, G. Lazarides and Q. Shafi, Top mass prediction from supersymmetric guts, Phys. Rev. D 44 (1991) 1613 [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    L.J. Hall, R. Rattazzi and U. Sarid, The top quark mass in supersymmetric SO(10) unification, Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 7048 [hep-ph/9306309] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    S.P. Martin and M.T. Vaughn, Two loop renormalization group equations for soft supersymmetry breaking couplings, Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 2282 [Erratum ibid. D 78 (2008) 039903] [hep-ph/9311340] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Z.-z. Xing, H. Zhang and S. Zhou, Impacts of the Higgs mass on vacuum stability, running fermion masses and two-body Higgs decays, Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 013013 [arXiv:1112.3112] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    H. Georgi and C. Jarlskog, A new lepton-quark mass relation in a unified theory, Phys. Lett. 86 (1979) 297 [INSPIRE].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    R. Rattazzi and U. Sarid, The unified minimal supersymmetric model with large Yukawa couplings, Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 1553 [hep-ph/9505428] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    H. Baer et al., Yukawa unified supersymmetric SO(10) model: cosmology, rare decays and collider searches, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2000) 015007 [hep-ph/0005027] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    T. Blazek, R. Dermisek and S. Raby, Predictions for Higgs and supersymmetry spectra from SO(10) Yukawa unification with mu greater than 0, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 111804 [hep-ph/0107097] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    T. Blazek, R. Dermisek and S. Raby, Yukawa unification in SO(10), Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 115004 [hep-ph/0201081] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    K. Tobe and J.D. Wells, Revisiting top bottom tau Yukawa unification in supersymmetric grand unified theories, Nucl. Phys. B 663 (2003) 123 [hep-ph/0301015] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    G. Giudice and A. Romanino, Split supersymmetry, Nucl. Phys. B 699 (2004) 65 [Erratum ibid. B 706 (2005) 65-89] [hep-ph/0406088] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    N. Arkani-Hamed, A. Delgado and G. Giudice, The well-tempered neutralino, Nucl. Phys. B 741 (2006)108 [hep-ph/0601041] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    J. Giedt, A.W. Thomas and R.D. Young, Dark matter, the CMSSM and lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (2009) 201802 [arXiv:0907.4177] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    Particle Data Group collaboration, J. Beringer et al., Review of particle physics, Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 010001 [INSPIRE], see http://pdg.lbl.gov.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    H. Baer, J. Ferrandis, K. Melnikov and X. Tata, Relating bottom quark mass in DR-BAR and MS-BAR regularization schemes, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 074007 [hep-ph/0207126] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    L. Avdeev and M.Y. Kalmykov, Pole masses of quarks in dimensional reduction, Nucl. Phys. B 502 (1997) 419 [hep-ph/9701308] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. [32]
    S. Bethke, The 2009 world average of αs, Eur. Phys. J. C 64 (2009) 689 [arXiv:0908.1135] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. [33]
    D.M. Pierce, J.A. Bagger, K.T. Matchev and R.-j. Zhang, Precision corrections in the minimal supersymmetric standard model, Nucl. Phys. B 491 (1997) 3 [hep-ph/9606211] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. [34]
    S. Barr and I. Dorsner, Atmospheric neutrino mixing and b-τ unification, Phys. Lett. B 556 (2003) 185 [hep-ph/0211346] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. [35]
    L.J. Hall and Y. Nomura, A complete theory of grand unification in five-dimensions, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 075004 [hep-ph/0205067] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  36. [36]
    P.Z. Skands et al., SUSY Les Houches accord: interfacing SUSY spectrum calculators, decay packages and event generators, JHEP 07 (2004) 036 [hep-ph/0311123] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. [37]
    B. Allanach et al., SUSY Les Houches accord 2, Comput. Phys. Commun. 180 (2009) 8 [arXiv:0801.0045] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. [38]
    N. Bernal, A. Djouadi and P. Slavich, The MSSM with heavy scalars, JHEP 07 (2007) 016 [arXiv:0705.1496] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. [39]
    Tevatron Electroweak Working Group, CDF and D0 collaboration, Combination of CDF and D0 results on the mass of the top quark using up to 5.8 fb −1 of data, arXiv:1107.5255 [INSPIRE].
  40. [40]
    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].ADSCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. [41]
    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
  42. [42]
    M. Claudson, L.J. Hall and I. Hinchliffe, Low-energy supergravity: false vacua and vacuous predictions, Nucl. Phys. B 228 (1983) 501 [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. [43]
    J. Casas, A. Lleyda and C. Muñoz, Strong constraints on the parameter space of the MSSM from charge and color breaking minima, Nucl. Phys. B 471 (1996) 3 [hep-ph/9507294] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. [44]
    A. Kusenko, P. Langacker and G. Segre, Phase transitions and vacuum tunneling into charge and color breaking minima in the MSSM, Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 5824 [hep-ph/9602414] [INSPIRE].ADSGoogle Scholar
  45. [45]
    J. Hisano, S. Matsumoto, M. Nagai, O. Saito and M. Senami, Non-perturbative effect on thermal relic abundance of dark matter, Phys. Lett. B 646 (2007) 34 [hep-ph/0610249] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. [46]
    M. Cirelli, A. Strumia and M. Tamburini, Cosmology and astrophysics of minimal dark matter, Nucl. Phys. B 787 (2007) 152 [arXiv:0706.4071] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. [47]
    T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna and P.Z. Skands, PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual, JHEP 05 (2006) 026 [hep-ph/0603175] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. [48]
    ATLAS collaboration, Search for squarks and gluinos using final states with jets and missing transverse momentum with the ATLAS detector in \( \sqrt{s}=7\;TeV \) proton-proton collisions, ATLAS-CONF-2012-033 (2012).Google Scholar
  49. [49]
    R.S. Chivukula and H. Georgi, Composite technicolor standard model, Phys. Lett. B 188 (1987) 99 [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. [50]
    L. Hall and L. Randall, Weak scale effective supersymmetry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65 (1990) 2939 [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. [51]
    G. D’Ambrosio, G. Giudice, G. Isidori and A. Strumia, Minimal flavor violation: an effective field theory approach, Nucl. Phys. B 645 (2002) 155 [hep-ph/0207036] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. [52]
    A. Pomarol and D. Tommasini, Horizontal symmetries for the supersymmetric flavor problem, Nucl. Phys. B 466 (1996) 3 [hep-ph/9507462] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. [53]
    R. Barbieri, G. Dvali and L.J. Hall, Predictions from a U(2) flavor symmetry in supersymmetric theories, Phys. Lett. B 377 (1996) 76 [hep-ph/9512388] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. [54]
    R. Barbieri, L.J. Hall and A. Romanino, Consequences of a U(2) flavor symmetry, Phys. Lett. B 401 (1997) 47 [hep-ph/9702315] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. [55]
    R. Barbieri, G. Isidori, J. Jones-Perez, P. Lodone and D.M. Straub, U(2) and minimal flavour violation in supersymmetry, Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1725 [arXiv:1105.2296] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. [56]
    W. Altmannshofer and D.M. Straub, Viability of MSSM scenarios at very large tan β, JHEP 09 (2010) 078 [arXiv:1004.1993] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. [57]
    W. Altmannshofer, D. Guadagnoli, S. Raby and D.M. Straub, SUSY GUTs with Yukawa unification: a go/no-go study using FCNC processes, Phys. Lett. B 668 (2008) 385 [arXiv:0801.4363] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. [58]
    Y. Nir and N. Seiberg, Should squarks be degenerate?, Phys. Lett. B 309 (1993) 337 [hep-ph/9304307] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. [59]
    Heavy Flavor Averaging Group collaboration, D. Asner et al., Averages of b-hadron, c-hadron and τ -lepton properties, arXiv:1010.1589 [INSPIRE].
  60. [60]
    M. Misiak et al., Estimate of \( B\left( {\bar{B}\to X(s)\gamma } \right) \) at \( O\left( {\alpha_s^2} \right) \), Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) 022002 [hep-ph/0609232] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. [61]
    W. Altmannshofer, A.J. Buras, S. Gori, P. Paradisi and D.M. Straub, Anatomy and phenomenology of FCNC and CPV effects in SUSY theories, Nucl. Phys. B 830 (2010) 17 [arXiv:0909.1333] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. [62]
    W. Altmannshofer, P. Paradisi and D.M. Straub, Model-independent constraints on new physics in b → s transitions, JHEP 04 (2012) 008 [arXiv:1111.1257] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. [63]
    A.J. Buras, M.V. Carlucci, S. Gori and G. Isidori, Higgs-mediated FCNCs: natural flavour conservation vs. minimal flavour violation, JHEP 10 (2010) 009 [arXiv:1005.5310] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. [64]
    LHCb collaboration, R. Aaij et al., Strong constraints on the rare decays B s → μ + μ − and B 0 → μ + μ −, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 231801 [arXiv:1203.4493] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. [65]
    CMS collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., Search for \( B_s^0to{\mu^{+}}{\mu^{-}} \) and B 0 toμ + μ − decays, JHEP 04 (2012) 033 [arXiv:1203.3976] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. [66]
    K. Babu and C.F. Kolda, Higgs mediated B 0 → μ + μ − in minimal supersymmetry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (2000) 228 [hep-ph/9909476] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. [67]
    CMS collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., Search for neutral Higgs bosons decaying to τ pairs in pp collisions at \( \sqrt{s}=7\;TeV \), Phys. Lett. B 713 (2012) 68 [arXiv:1202.4083] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. [68]
    A. Masiero, S. Vempati and O. Vives, Flavour physics and grand unification, arXiv:0711.2903 [INSPIRE].
  69. [69]
    G. Bélanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov and A. Semenov, MicrOMEGAs 2.0: a program to calculate the relic density of dark matter in a generic model, Comput. Phys. Commun. 176 (2007) 367 [hep-ph/0607059] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  70. [70]
    G. Bélanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov and A. Semenov, Dark matter direct detection rate in a generic model with MicrOMEGAs 2.2, Comput. Phys. Commun. 180 (2009) 747 [arXiv:0803.2360] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  71. [71]
    P. Scovell, XENON100, talk at UCLA Dark Matter 2012, February 22-24, Marina del Rey, U.S.A. (2012).Google Scholar
  72. [72]
    M. Cirelli, N. Fornengo and A. Strumia, Minimal dark matter, Nucl. Phys. B 753 (2006) 178 [hep-ph/0512090] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. [73]
    R. Essig, Direct detection of non-chiral dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 015004 [arXiv:0710.1668] [INSPIRE].ADSMATHGoogle Scholar
  74. [74]
    J. Hisano, K. Ishiwata, N. Nagata and T. Takesako, Direct detection of electroweak-interacting dark matter, JHEP 07 (2011) 005 [arXiv:1104.0228] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. [75]
    R.J. Hill and M.P. Solon, Universal behavior in the scattering of heavy, weakly interacting dark matter on nuclear targets, Phys. Lett. B 707 (2012) 539 [arXiv:1111.0016] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. [76]
    M. Farina et al., Implications of XENON100 and LHC results for Dark Matter models, Nucl. Phys. B 853 (2011) 607 [arXiv:1104.3572] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. [77]
    XENON100 collaboration, E. Aprile et al., Dark matter results from 100 live days of XENON100 data, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (2011) 131302 [arXiv:1104.2549] [INSPIRE].ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SISSA, Trieste, Italy 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gilly Elor
    • 1
  • Lawrence J. Hall
    • 1
  • David Pinner
    • 1
  • Joshua T. Ruderman
    • 1
  1. 1.Berkeley Center for Theoretical Physics, Department of Physics, and Theoretical Physics Group, Lawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyU.S.A

Personalised recommendations