A brief review of SUSY at the LHC

Caltech

DM Silver Jubilee Symposium, June 20, 2012

Koji Ishiwata

Outline1. Introduction2. SUSY search at the LHC 3. 125 GeV Higgs in SUSY4. Summary

1. Introduction

SUSY is motivated by various issues- It’s a good solution for the hierarchy problem- Gauge couplings are unified at the GUT scale

And more in SUSY...Leptogenesis for baryon asymmetry, inflation, muon g-2, strong CP problem, ...

SUSY has a potential to address many of the problems in standard model (SM)

- Lightest superparticle (LSP) is dark matter (DM) candidate (one of the most promising models for UV completion)

Now the LHC is running to find the TeV-scale superparticles

To explain many of those issues, superparticle mass should be around TeV scale

- No SUSY signal has been found so far- 125 GeV SM-like Higgs signal is reported, which is fairly heavy compared to the prediction in minimal SUSY SM (MSSM)

However...

Now the LHC is running to find the TeV-scale superparticles

To explain many of those issues, superparticle mass should be around TeV scale

- No SUSY signal has been found so far- 125 GeV SM-like Higgs signal is reported, which is fairly heavy compared to the prediction in minimal SUSY SM (MSSM)

However...

@ATLAS@CMS6.15 fb−1

6.3 fb−1

8 TeV run

- Recent SUSY search at the LHC

Outline1. Introduction2. SUSY search at the LHC 3. 125 GeV Higgs in SUSY4. Summary

Today,

- 125 GeV Higgs in SUSY

- SUSY events are usually dominated by and production

2. SUSY search at the LHC

So far no large has been observed

- LSP is usually assumed to be neutral and stable with -parity, so it’s observed as large missing transverse energy ( ) �ET

(i) Squark/gluino is too heavy to be produced yet, or

�ET

(ii) SUSY particle masses are nearly degenerate or(iii) -parity is violated

[CMS webpage]

gg, gq qq

R

R

� 850 GeV� 1.5 TeV

gluino mass [GeV]600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

squark

mass

[G

eV

]

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

= 100 fbSUSY

!

= 10 fbSUSY

!

= 1 fbSUSY

!

) = 0 GeV1

0"#Squark-gluino-neutralino model, m(

=7 TeVs, -1 L dt = 4.71 fb$

Combined

PreliminaryATLAS

observed 95% C.L. limitsCL

median expected limitsCL

!1 ±Expected limit

ATLAS EPS 2011

[GeV]0m500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

[G

eV

]1

/2m

200

300

400

500

600

700

(600)g~

(800)g~

(1000)g~

(1200)g~

(600)

q~

(1000)

q ~

(1400)

q ~

(1800)

q ~

>0µ= 0, 0

= 10, A!MSUGRA/CMSSM: tan

=7 TeVs, -1 L dt = 4.71 fb"Combined

PreliminaryATLAS

Combined

observed 95% C.L. limitsCL

median expected limitsCL

ATLAS EPS 2011

LSP#$

LEP Chargino

No EWSB

Figure 7: 95% CLs exclusion limits obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitiv-

ity at each point in a simplified MSSM scenario with only strong production of gluinos and first- and

second-generation squarks, and direct decays to jets and neutralinos (left); and in the (m0 ; m1/2) plane of

MSUGRA/CMSSM for tan β = 10, A0 = 0 and µ > 0 (right). The red lines show the observed limits, the

dashed-blue lines the median expected limits, and the dotted blue lines the ±1σ variation on the expected

limits. ATLAS EPS 2011 limits are from [17] and LEP results from [59].

7 Summary

This note reports a search for new physics in final states containing high-pT jets, missing transverse

momentum and no electrons or muons, based on the full dataset (4.7 fb−1

) recorded by the ATLAS

experiment at the LHC in 2011. Good agreement is seen between the numbers of events observed in the

data and the numbers of events expected from SM processes.

The results are interpreted in both a simplified model containing only squarks of the first two genera-

tions, a gluino octet and a massless neutralino, as well as in MSUGRA/CMSSM models with tan β = 10,

A0 = 0 and µ > 0. In the simplified model, gluino masses below 940 GeV and squark masses be-

low 1380 GeV are excluded at the 95% confidence level. In the MSUGRA/CMSSM models, values of

m1/2 < 300 GeV are excluded for all values of m0, and m1/2 < 680 GeV for low m0. Equal mass squarks

and gluinos are excluded below 1400 GeV in both scenarios.

References

[1] L. Evans and P. Bryant, LHC Machine, JINST 3 (2008) S08001.

[2] H. Miyazawa, Baryon Number Changing Currents, Prog. Theor. Phys. 36 (6) (1966) 1266–1276.

[3] P. Ramond, Dual Theory for Free Fermions, Phys. Rev. D3 (1971) 2415–2418.

[4] Y. A. Golfand and E. P. Likhtman, Extension of the Algebra of Poincare Group Generators and

Violation of p Invariance, JETP Lett. 13 (1971) 323–326. [Pisma

Zh.Eksp.Teor.Fiz.13:452-455,1971].

[5] A. Neveu and J. H. Schwarz, Factorizable dual model of pions, Nucl. Phys. B31 (1971) 86–112.

14

(i) Heavy squark and gluino

[ATLAS-CONF-2012-033 ’12]

Squark Gluino

0 lepton + >=(2-6) jets + Etmiss

� 1.35 TeV� 800 GeV

[CMS SUS-12-005 ’12]

Squark Gluino

20 11 Summary

pair production using the dimensionless razor variable R related to the missing transverseenergy Emiss

T , and MR, an event-by-event indicator of the heavy particle mass scale.

In a control dataset we find a simple 2D functional form that describes the distributions of therelevant SM backgrounds as a function of R2 and MR. This function is proved to model thecorrelation between R2 and MR in the region under study to a good precision in the MonteCarlo, much higher than the precision of the fit used to predict the shape of the backgroundsfrom data. Assuming the modeling of the R2 vs MR implied by the 2D function is correct, a 2Dfit of the R2 and MR distributions in control regions is used to predict the background yieldsand shapes in regions at high mass scale that could contain events from new physics.

No significant excess over the background expectations was observed and the results werepresented as a 95% CL in the (m0, m1/2) CMSSM parameter space. We exclude up to 1.35 TeVsquarks and gluinos for m(q) ∼ m(g) and for m(q) > m(g) we exclude gluinos up to 800 GeV.

These results significantly extend the current LHC limits.

[GeV]0m500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

[GeV

]1/

2m

100200

300400

500

600700

800

9001000

± l~ LEP2

± 1!" LEP2

No EWSB

= L

SP#"

Non-Convergent RGE's) = 500g~m(

) = 1000g~m(

) = 1500g~m(

) = 2000g~m(

) = 1000q~m(

) = 1500q~m(

) = 2000

q~m(

) = 2500

q~m(

Median Expected Limit$1 ±Expected Limit

Observed Limit (theory)$ 1 ±Observed

CMS Preliminary -1 L dt = 4.4 fb% = 7 TeV s

Hybrid CLs 95% C.L. LimitsRazor Inclusive

No EWSBNon-Convergent RGE's

)=10&tan( = 0 GeV0A

> 0µ = 173.2 GeVtm

= L

SP#"

Figure 10: Observed (solid curve) and median expected (dot-dashed curve) 95% CL limits inthe (m0, m1/2) CMSSM plane with tan β = 10, A0 = 0, sgn(µ) = +1 from the razor analysis.The ± one standard deviation equivalent variations in the uncertainties are shown as a bandaround the median expected limit.

is too small to be triggered as SUSY signal

�ET ∼ mq/g −mLSP

q χ

(ii) Degenerate SUSY particles

(iii) -parity violation (RPV)LSP decays, so no large �ET

SM particles

�ET

χq

SM particles

In the other cases, squark/gluino are produced but no large is observed �ET

R

In a nutshell, SUSY search at the LHC implies

(i) Squark/gluino TeV(ii) Degenerate SUSY spectrum

�

How to discriminate those scenarios?

(iii) RPV

(i) Wait for more data and 14 TeV run

(ii) DM direct detection experiment may be useful

(iii) Basically more data is needed (but an exotic decay may be observed at the LHC in some cases)

χ q

qχ

∝ 1(m2

q −M2DM)2

or1

m2q −M2

DM

g

(ii) Degenerate scenario

Cross section of DM (LSP) with nucleon is enhanced due to squark exchange

qq

χ

χ q

q

qQ

g g

g

10-47

10-46

10-45

10-44

10-43

100 1000

SI cr

oss s

ectio

n (cm

2 )

Wino mass (GeV)

!m=50 GeV

XENON100

100 GeV

200 GeV150 GeV

10-43

10-42

10-41

10-40

10-39

10-38

100SD

cros

s sec

tion

(cm2 )

Wino mass (GeV)

IC 2001-2008

!m=50 GeV100 GeV150 GeV200 GeV

1000

[Hisano,KI,Nagata ʼ11]

Highly degenerate scenario, which is difficult to be probed at the LHC, could be searched in the future

e.g., Wino DM case

spin independent spin dependent

(iii) RPV scenario

One of the interesting scenarios is gravitino LSP in RPV

- It can explain cosmic-ray (CR) positron excess

- Next-LSP is long-lived in collider and may decay at a displaced vertex from the interaction point [KI,Ito,Moroi ʼ08]

[e.g., KI,Matsumoto,Moroi ʼ07, ʼ11]

[Takayama,Yamaguchi ’00]

Counting those events, lifetime of NLSP can be determined

Various CR observations are going on, like Fermi-LAT, PAMELA and AMS-02, and may give us some implications [See Jenny’s talk tomorrow for Fermi LAT experiment]

- Gravitino can be DM - Next-LSP decays before big-bang nucleosynthesis

p p

124 and 126 GeV Higgs signal is reported at CMS and ATLAS, respectively

8 4 Results

Higgs boson mass (GeV)100 200 300 400

of S

M H

iggs

hyp

othe

sisS

CL

-310

-210

-110

1

90%95%

99%

-1L = 4.6-4.8 fb = 7 TeVsCMS, Observed

Expected (68%)Expected (95%)

ObservedExpected (68%)Expected (95%)

Higgs boson mass (GeV)110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145

of S

M H

iggs

hyp

othe

sisS

CL

-310

-210

-110

1

90%95%

99%

-1L = 4.6-4.8 fb = 7 TeVsCMS, Observed

Expected (68%)Expected (95%)

Figure 2: The CLs values for the SM Higgs boson hypothesis as a function of the Higgs boson

mass in the range 110–600 GeV (left) and 110–145 GeV (right). The observed values are shown

by the solid line. The dashed line indicates the expected median of results for the background-

only hypothesis, while the green (dark) and yellow (light) bands indicate the ranges that are

expected to contain 68% and 95% of all observed excursions from the median, respectively. The

three horizontal lines on the CLs plot show confidence levels of 90%, 95%, and 99%, defined as

(1 − CLs).

Higgs boson mass (GeV)100 200 300 400 500

SM!/

!95

% C

L lim

it on

-110

1

10 ObservedExpected (68%)Expected (95%)

ObservedExpected (68%)Expected (95%)

-1L = 4.6-4.8 fb = 7 TeVsCMS, Observed

Expected (68%)Expected (95%)

-1L = 4.6-4.8 fb = 7 TeVsCMS,

Higgs boson mass (GeV)110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145

SM!/

!95

% C

L lim

it on

-110

1

10 ObservedExpected (68%)Expected (95%)

ObservedExpected (68%)Expected (95%)

-1L = 4.6-4.8 fb = 7 TeVsCMS,

Figure 3: The 95% CL upper limits on the signal strength parameter µ = σ/σSM for the SM

Higgs boson hypothesis as a function of the Higgs boson mass in the range 110–600 GeV (left)

and 110–145 GeV (right). The observed values as a function of mass are shown by the solid line.

The dashed line indicates the expected median of results for the background-only hypothesis,

while the green (dark) and yellow (light) bands indicate the ranges that are expected to contain

68% and 95% of all observed excursions from the median, respectively.

[CMS arXiv:1202.1487 ’12]

3.1σ

3. 125 GeV Higgs in SUSY

[ATLAS-CONF-2012-019 ’12]

3.5σ

1-loop correction: , so we need

m2h = m2

Z cos2 2β + δ

δ ∝ log(mt), A2t

Higgs mass in the MSSM:

(i) Heavy stop, or

Since tree-level Higgs mass can’t exceed Z mass, large loop correction is needed for 125 GeV Higgs

(iii) Extension of the MSSM

(ii) Large , or

What does this mean in SUSY?

At

However,

- Large stop mass/ is not favored in terms of naturalness

- Consistency with other experiments, like B physics or muon g-2, should be checked in such a parameter region

- SUSY scenario to realize such a desired parameter should be addressed

(e.g., constraint from implies that large is disfavored) [KI,Yokozaki,Nagata ’11]

b→ sγ

At

At

(i) Heavy stop

Naturalness Too Bad

Muon g-2 Possible (O(100 GeV) slepton)

DM Lightest neutralino/gravitino

[Based on discussion at YITP workshop ’12 and private communication with N. Yokozaki]

(ii) Large Naturalness <1% fine-tuning

Muon g-2 Possible

DM Lightest neutralino/gravitino

However, large is constrained by , thus finding consistent parameter region is not so easy

b→ sγAt

At

W = WMSSM + λSHuHd m2

h = m(MSSM)2h + λ2v2 sin2 2β

(iii) Extension of the MSSM

- Next-to-MSSM (NMSSM)

- Extra gauge symmetry

- Extra vector-like matter

Naturalness ~10% fine-tuning

Muon g-2 Difficult (due to small )

DM Singlino-like

An extra singlet raises Higgs mass

tanβ

• MSSMFocus point [Feng,Stanford ’12]

SuperWIMP gravitino [Feng,Surujon,Yu ’12]

• NMSSM (-type)[Hall, Pinner,Ruderman ’11]MSSM vs. NMSSM

5D AdS brane world [Larsen, Nomura, Roberts’12]

• Extra vector-like matter

[Endo,Hamaguchi,Iwamoto,Yokozaki ’12; Moroi,Sato,Yanagida etc.]

[Moroi,Okada ’92; Babu,Gogoladze,Kolda ’04; Babu,Gogoladze,Rehman,Shafi ’08; Martin 10’]

[Craig,McCullough,Thaler ’12]Flavor symmetry

• Extra gauge symmetry [Craig,Dimopolous,Gherghetta ’12]1,2 and 3 gen. has different symmetry

References (discussing naturalness)

Composite [Csaki,Randall,Terning ’12]

4. Summary

LHC SUSY search implies heavy squark/gluino or degenerate SUSY spectrum or RPV

LHC Higgs search implies the MSSM needs fine-tuning or some extension

- Still various DM candidates are possible- More data from DM direct/indirect detection experiment, as well as the LHC, will give hint to SUSY

Backups

� 820 GeV

Stop search

- To avoid little hierarchy problem, stop should be light - Stop mass is very important to predict Higgs mass

[ATLAS-CONF-2012-058]

Gluino

3bjets + 0lepton + jets + Etmiss

� 1 TeV

Sbottom search

[ATLAS-CONF-2012-058]

Gluino

3bjets + 0lepton + jets + Etmiss

and excluded mχ01

� 60 GeV mb1� 390 GeV

Direct sbottom search

[ATLAS arXiv:1112.3832 ’11]

4

[GeV]CTm0 100 200 300 400

Entri

es /

25 G

eV

0

10

20

30

40

50 ATLAS

= 7 TeVs, -1L dt ~ 2.05 fb!2-jet exclusive

[GeV]missTE

100 200 300 400 5000

10

20

30

40

50 Data 2011SM Totaltop, W+hfZ+hfOthers

100 GeV10"#

300, b~

FIG. 1: Measured mCT (left) and EmissT (right) distributions

before the mCT selection compared to the SM predictions(solid line) and SM+MSSM predictions (dashed lines). Thedashed grey band represents the total systematic uncertain-ties.

[GeV]1b~m

100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

[GeV

]10"#

m

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350 01"# b+$1b~ production, 1b~-1b~

= 7 TeVs, -1L dt = 2.05 fb!ATLAS

Reference point

forbidden

10"# b

$1b~

Observed Limit (95% C.L.)sCL Expected Limit (95% C.L.)sCL

%1 ± Expected Limit sCL NLO scale unc. % 1 ±-1CDF 2.65 fb

-1D0 5.2 fb

FIG. 2: Expected and observed exclusion limits, as well as±1! variation on the expected limit, in the b1 ! "0

1 massplane. The band around the observed limit delimited by thetwo dashed lines shows the e!ect of renormalization and fac-torization scale variation. The reference point indicated onthe plane corresponds to the MSSM scenario with sbottomand neutralino masses of 300 GeV and 100 GeV, respectively.Results are compared to previous exclusion limits from Teva-tron experiments. Results from LEP cover the region withsbottom mass below 100 GeV.

result. Figure 2 shows the observed and expected exclu-sion limits at 95% C.L. in the b1 ! !0

1 mass plane, as-suming BR(b1 " b!0

1)=100%. Systematic uncertaintiesare treated as nuisance parameters and their correlationsare taken into account. For the MSSM scenarios consid-ered, the upper limit at 95% C.L. on the sbottom massesobtained in the most conservative hypothesis, "min, is390 GeV for m!0

1

= 0. The limit becomes 405 GeV for

"nom and 420 GeV for "max. Neutralino masses of 120GeV are excluded for 275 < mb

1

< 350 GeV. The threesignal regions are used to set limits on the e!ective crosssection of new physics models, "e! , including the e!ects

of experimental acceptance and e"ciency. The observed(expected) excluded values of "e! at 95% C.L. are 13.4 fb,9.6 fb and 5.6 fb (15.2 fb, 9.2 fb and 4.7 fb), respectivelyfor mCT>100, 150, 200 GeV.

In summary, we report results of a search for sbottompair production in pp collisions at

#s = 7 TeV, based

on 2.05 fb!1 of ATLAS data. The events are selectedwith large Emiss

T and two jets consistent with originatingfrom b-quarks in the final state. The results are in agree-ment with SM predictions for backgrounds and translateinto 95% C.L. upper limits on sbottom and neutralinomasses in a given MSSM scenario for which the exclusivedecay b1 " b!0

1 is assumed. For neutralino masses below60 GeV, sbottom masses up to 390 GeV are excluded,significantly extending previous results.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank CERN for the very successful operation ofthe LHC, as well as the support sta! from our institutionswithout whom ATLAS could not be operated e"ciently.

We acknowledge the support of ANPCyT, Argentina;YerPhI, Armenia; ARC, Australia; BMWF, Austria;ANAS, Azerbaijan; SSTC, Belarus; CNPq and FAPESP,Brazil; NSERC, NRC and CFI, Canada; CERN; CON-ICYT, Chile; CAS, MOST and NSFC, China; COL-CIENCIAS, Colombia; MSMT CR, MPO CR and VSCCR, Czech Republic; DNRF, DNSRC and LundbeckFoundation, Denmark; ARTEMIS, European Union;IN2P3-CNRS, CEA-DSM/IRFU, France; GNAS, Geor-gia; BMBF, DFG, HGF, MPG and AvH Foundation,Germany; GSRT, Greece; ISF, MINERVA, GIF, DIP andBenoziyo Center, Israel; INFN, Italy; MEXT and JSPS,Japan; CNRST, Morocco; FOM and NWO, Netherlands;RCN, Norway; MNiSW, Poland; GRICES and FCT,Portugal; MERYS (MECTS), Romania; MES of Rus-sia and ROSATOM, Russian Federation; JINR; MSTD,Serbia; MSSR, Slovakia; ARRS and MVZT, Slovenia;DST/NRF, South Africa; MICINN, Spain; SRC andWallenberg Foundation, Sweden; SER, SNSF and Can-tons of Bern and Geneva, Switzerland; NSC, Taiwan;TAEK, Turkey; STFC, the Royal Society and Lever-hulme Trust, United Kingdom; DOE and NSF, UnitedStates of America.

The crucial computing support from all WLCG part-ners is acknowledged gratefully, in particular fromCERN and the ATLAS Tier-1 facilities at TRIUMF(Canada), NDGF (Denmark, Norway, Sweden), CC-IN2P3 (France), KIT/GridKA (Germany), INFN-CNAF(Italy), NL-T1 (Netherlands), PIC (Spain), ASGC (Tai-wan), RAL (UK) and BNL (USA) and in the Tier-2 fa-cilities worldwide.

2 bjets + Etmiss

χ01 → Zψ3/2

t1 → bχ+1 , (or tχ0

1(2))

ee, µµ

Direct Stop search

[GeV]1t~ m

100 150 200 250 300 350 400

[GeV

]0 1

!"m

50

100

150

200

250

300

350stop pair in GMSB Natural model

= 7 TeVs, -1L dt = 2.05 fb#ATLAS

Reference points

+1!"m+bm <

1t~m

Zm < 01

!"m

observed limit (95% C.L.)sCL expected limit (95% C.L.)sCL

$1± limit sExpected CL

Figure 4: Expected and observed exclusion limits and ±1! varia-tion on the expected limit in the t

1-"0

1mass plane. The reference

points indicated on the plane correspond to the (t1,"0

1) scenarios of

(250,100) GeVand (250,220) GeV, respectively.

9. Conclusions

In summary, results of a search for direct scalar topquark pair production in pp collisions at

!s = 7 TeV,

based on 2.05 fb!1 of ATLAS data are reported. Scalartop quarks are searched for in events with two same flavouropposite-sign leptons (e, µ) with invariant mass consistentwith the Z boson mass, large missing transverse momen-tum and jets in the final state, where at least one of the jetsis identified as originating from a b-quark. The results arein agreement with the SM prediction and are interpreted inthe framework of R-parity conserving ‘natural’ gauge me-diated SUSY scenarios. Stop masses up to 310 GeVare ex-cluded for 115 GeV < m!0

1< 230 GeVat 95% C.L., reach-

ing an exclusion of mt1

< 330 GeVfor m!0

1= 190 GeV.

Stop masses below 240 GeV are excluded for m!0

1> mZ .

10. Acknowledgements

We thank CERN for the very successful operation ofthe LHC, as well as the support sta! from our institutionswithout whom ATLAS could not be operated e"ciently.We acknowledge the support of ANPCyT, Argentina;

YerPhI, Armenia; ARC, Australia; BMWF, Austria;ANAS, Azerbaijan; SSTC, Belarus; CNPq and FAPESP,Brazil; NSERC, NRC and CFI, Canada; CERN; CON-ICYT, Chile; CAS, MOST and NSFC, China; COL-CIENCIAS, Colombia; MSMT CR, MPO CR and VSCCR, Czech Republic; DNRF, DNSRC and LundbeckFoundation, Denmark; ARTEMIS, European Union;IN2P3-CNRS, CEA-DSM/IRFU, France; GNAS, Georgia;BMBF, DFG, HGF, MPG and AvH Foundation, Ger-many; GSRT, Greece; ISF, MINERVA, GIF, DIP andBenoziyo Center, Israel; INFN, Italy; MEXT and JSPS,Japan; CNRST, Morocco; FOM and NWO, Netherlands;RCN, Norway; MNiSW, Poland; GRICES and FCT, Por-tugal; MERYS (MECTS), Romania; MES of Russia and

ROSATOM, Russian Federation; JINR; MSTD, Serbia;MSSR, Slovakia; ARRS and MVZT, Slovenia; DST/NRF,South Africa; MICINN, Spain; SRC and WallenbergFoundation, Sweden; SER, SNSF and Cantons of Bernand Geneva, Switzerland; NSC, Taiwan; TAEK, Turkey;STFC, the Royal Society and Leverhulme Trust, UnitedKingdom; DOE and NSF, United States of America.The crucial computing support from all WLCG part-

ners is acknowledged gratefully, in particular from CERNand the ATLAS Tier-1 facilities at TRIUMF (Canada),NDGF (Denmark, Norway, Sweden), CC-IN2P3 (France),KIT/GridKA (Germany), INFN-CNAF (Italy), NL-T1(Netherlands), PIC (Spain), ASGC (Taiwan), RAL (UK)and BNL (USA) and in the Tier-2 facilities worldwide.

References

[1] H. Miyazawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. 36 (6), 1266 (1966).[2] P. Ramond, Phys. Rev. D 3, 2415 (1971).[3] Y. A. Golfand and E. P. Likhtman, JETP Lett. 13, 323 (1971),

[Pisma Zh.Eksp.Teor.Fiz.13:452-455,1971].[4] A. Neveu and J. H. Schwarz, Nucl. Phys. B 31, 86 (1971).[5] A. Neveu and J. H. Schwarz, Phys. Rev. D 4, 1109 (1971).[6] J. Gervais and B. Sakita, Nucl. Phys. B 34, 632 (1971).[7] D. V. Volkov and V. P. Akulov, Phys. Lett. B 46, 109 (1973).[8] J. Wess and B. Zumino, Phys. Lett. B 49, 52 (1974).[9] J. Wess and B. Zumino, Nucl. Phys. B 70, 39 (1974).

[10] P. Fayet, Phys. Lett. B 64, 159 (1976).[11] P. Fayet, Phys. Lett. B 69, 489 (1977).[12] G. R. Farrar and P. Fayet, Phys. Lett. B 76, 575 (1978).[13] P. Fayet, Phys. Lett. B 84, 416 (1979).[14] S. Dimopoulos and H. Georgi, Nucl. Phys. B 193, 150 (1981).[15] R. Kitano and Y. Nomura, Phys. Rev. D 73, 095004 (2006).[16] M. Dine and W. Fischler, Phys. Lett. B 110, 227 (1982).[17] L. Alvarez-Gaume et al., Nucl. Phys. B 207, 96 (1982).[18] C. R. Nappi and B. A. Ovrut, Phys. Lett. B 113, 175 (1982).[19] M. Dine and A. E. Nelson, Phys. Rev. D 48, 1277 (1993).[20] M. Dine et al., Phys. Rev. D 51, 1362 (1995).[21] M. Dine et al., Phys. Rev. D 53, 2658 (1996).[22] M. Asano et al., JHEP 12, 019 (2010).[23] S. Dimopoulos et al., Nucl. Phys. B 488, 39 (1997).[24] ATLAS Collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1630 (2011).[25] ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2011-116 (2011),

https://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1376384.[26] ATLAS Collaboration, JINST 3, S08003 (2008).[27] M. Bahr et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 58, 639 (2008).[28] F. E. Paige et al., arXiv:hep-ph/0312045 (2003).[29] W. Beenakker et al., Nucl. Phys. B 515, 3 (1998).[30] W. Beenakker et al., JHEP 08, 098 (2010).[31] D. Stump et al., JHEP 10, 046 (2003).[32] A. Martin et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 63, 189 (2009).[33] M. Botje et al., arXiv:1101.0538 [hep-ex] (2011).[34] S. Frixione and B. R. Webber, arXiv:hep-ph/0601192 (2006).[35] P. Nadolsky et al., Phys. Rev. D 78, 013004 (2008).[36] S. Frixione et al., JHEP 11, 070 (2007).[37] B. Kersevan and E. Richter-Was, arXiv:hep-ph/0405247 (2004).[38] M. Mangano et al., JHEP 07, 001 (2003).[39] J. Pumplin et al., JHEP 07, 012 (2002).[40] G. Corcella et al., JHEP 01, 010 (2001).[41] J. M. Butterworth et al., Z. Phys. C 72, 637 (1996).[42] J. Alwall et al., JHEP 06, 128 (2011).[43] T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands, JHEP 05, 026 (2006).[44] ATLAS Collaboration, Submitted to Phys. Rev. D,

arXiv:1203.6193 [hep-ex] (2012).[45] ATLAS Collaboration, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-008 (2011),

https://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1345343.[46] ATLAS Collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. C 70, 823 (2010).

6

b-jet + ( )

The analysis is assuming gauge mediation

m2h = m2

Z cos2 2β +3m4

t

4π2v2

�log

�M2S

m2t

�+

X2t

M2S

�1− X2

t

12M2S

��

Xt ≡ At − µ cot β

Ms ≡ (mt1mt2)1/2

Higgs mass in the MSSM