Theory evaluation of LHC data for Physics beyond the Standard Model

Riccardo Rattazzi

After the Higgs and Nothing Else

Riccardo Rattazzi

Effective Quantum Field Theory ideology

✦ gauge symmetry

✦ field content

✦ local effective lagrangian

✴ renormalizability

✴ global symmetries

needn’t be fundamentalbut just accidental low energy features

The Standard Model as effective field theory

Λ2UV � 1TeVwith fundamental scale

LSM = d=4Lkin + gAµFγµF + YijFiHFj + λ(H†H)2

+bij

ΛUV

LiLjHH

+cijkl

Λ2UV

FiFjFkF� +cij

ΛUV

FiσµνFjGµν + . . . d>4

+ . . .

LSM = d=4Lkin + gAµFγµF + YijFiHFj + λ(H†H)2

+bij

ΛUV

LiLjHH

+cijkl

Λ2UV

FiFjFkF� +cij

ΛUV

FiσµνFjGµν + . . . d>4

+ . . .

LSM = d=4Lkin + gAµFγµF + YijFiHFj + λ(H†H)2

( pointlike limit ) nicely accounts for ‘what we see’ ΛUV � TeV

+bij

ΛUV

LiLjHH

+cijkl

Λ2UV

FiFjFkF� +cij

ΛUV

FiσµνFjGµν + . . . d>4

+ . . .

LSM = d=4Lkin + gAµFγµF + YijFiHFj + λ(H†H)2

( pointlike limit ) nicely accounts for ‘what we see’ ΛUV � TeV

d=4+ θ GµνGµν

+ cΛ2UV H

†H d=2

+bij

ΛUV

LiLjHH

+cijkl

Λ2UV

FiFjFkF� +cij

ΛUV

FiσµνFjGµν + . . . d>4

+ . . .

LSM = d=4Lkin + gAµFγµF + YijFiHFj + λ(H†H)2

( pointlike limit ) nicely accounts for ‘what we see’ ΛUV � TeV

d=4+ θ GµνGµν

d=0+Λ4UV

√g

the three

problems

+ cΛ2UV H

†H d=2

+bij

ΛUV

LiLjHH

+cijkl

Λ2UV

FiFjFkF� +cij

ΛUV

FiσµνFjGµν + . . . d>4

+ . . .

LSM = d=4Lkin + gAµFγµF + YijFiHFj + λ(H†H)2

( pointlike limit ) nicely accounts for ‘what we see’ ΛUV � TeV

d=4+ θ GµνGµν

yij HFiFj

1

Λ2UV

FiFjFkF� + . . .

Λ2UV H

†H

Standard Model up to some

Hierarchy see-saw

Λ2UV � 1TeV

☺☺☹

yij HFiFj

1

Λ2UV

FiFjFkF� + . . .

Λ2UV H

†H

☺☺☹

Standard Model up to some

Hierarchy see-saw

Λ2UV � 1TeV

yij HFiFj

1

Λ2UV

FiFjFkF� + . . .

Λ2UV H

†H

☺☺☹

m2H

= �Λ2UV � Λ2

UV

Tuning!

Standard Model up to some

Hierarchy see-saw

Λ2UV � 1TeV

yij HFiFj1

Λ2UV

FiFjFkF� + . . .Λ2UV H

†H

☺ ☺ ☹

Natural SM : Λ2UV

<∼ 1TeV

The two possible microphysics scenarios

• B, L and Flavor: beautifully in accord with observation

• Hierarchy remains a mystery, probably hinting that the question was not correctly posed

• anthropic principle• failure of effective field theory ideology (UV/IR connection)

I. The SM is the correct description up to

II. The SM is not the correct description already at

• In the correct theory the hierarchy problem does not even arise (naturalness)• What about B, L and Flavor? In all models not nearly as nice as in SM

ΛUV � TeV

ΛUV ∼ 1TeV

��HH

Λmν ∼ v2

ΛΛ ∼ 1014 GeV

A high scale scenarioLd=4• experimental success (some 2- 3-σ glitches here and there)

• Θ-QCD and Dark Matter ➔ high scale axion

• gauge couplings ready to unify around

fa ∼ 1012 GeV

1015 <∼ M <∼ MPlanck

• neutrino masses

• RG-evolution of SM couplings, including remarkably do not require lower scales

λh

1

αi

lnµ

107 108 109

1010

1011

101210131014

1016

120 122 124 126 128 130 132168

170

172

174

176

178

180

Higgs pole mass Mh in GeV

ToppolemassM

tinGeV

1018

1019

1,2,3 Σ

Instability

Stability

Meta�stability

the fact that the SM lives dangerously perhaps points toan anthropic selection of parameters

though it is hard to tell

living dangerously

Elias-Miro, Espinosa,Giudice, Isidori, Riotto, Strumia ’11

Elias-Miro, Espinosa,Giudice, Isidori, Riotto, Strumia ’11

but watch your eyes

Elias-Miro, Espinosa,Giudice, Isidori, Riotto, Strumia ’11

Strumia’s courtesy

102 104 106 108 1010 1012 1014 1016 1018 1020

�0.04

�0.02

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

RGE scale Μ in GeVH

iggs

quar

ticco

uplin

g��

3Σ bands inMt � 173.4 � 0.7 GeV �gray�Αs�MZ� � 0.1184 � 0.0007�red�Mh � 125.7 � 0.3 GeV �blue�

Mt � 171.4 GeV

Αs�MZ� � 0.1163

Αs�MZ� � 0.1205

Mt � 175.3 GeV

102 104 106 108 1010 1012 1014 1016 1018 1020�0.020

�0.015

�0.010

�0.005

0.000

RGE scale Μ in GeV

Bet

afu

nctio

nof

the

quar

ticΒ Λ

3Σ bands inMt � 173.4 � 0.7 GeV �gray�Αs�MZ� � 0.1184 � 0.0007�red�Mh � 125.7 � 0.3 GeV �blue�

102 104 106 108 1010 1012 1014 1016 1018 1020�0.2

�0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

RGE scale Μ in GeV

Λ�y t2

3Σ bands inMt � 173.4 � 0.7 GeV �gray�Αs�MZ� � 0.1184 � 0.0007�red�Mh � 125.7 � 0.3 GeV �blue�

102 104 106 108 1010 1012 1014 1016 1018 1020�0.4

�0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

RGE scale Μ in GeV

Β Λ�Β Λ�to

pco

ntrib

utio

n�

3Σ bands inMt � 173.4 � 0.7 GeV �gray�Αs�MZ� � 0.1184 � 0.0007�red�Mh � 125.5 � 0.3 GeV �blue�

Figure 1: Upper: RG evolution of λ and of βλ varying Mt, αs, Mh by ±3σ. Lower: Sameresults factoring out the overall reduction in the couplings, dividing by appropriate powers ofthe top Yukawa coupling, chosen as representative. In the bottom-right plot we divided βλ bythe one-loop top contribution to it, 3y4

t.

15

The two natural scenarios for electroweak symmetry breaking

Elementary Higgs exists but a symmetry

protects its mass

No elementary Higgs exists

Supersymmetric Models

Technicolor,Composite Light Higgs

(and its holograms)

Large Extra Dimensions: exciting, fantastic, great, but not very plausible without extra mass scale separation

Plus a list of not even wrong scenarios...

Flavor ?

Ld≤4 = m2ijQ

†i Qj +AijY

Dij QiDjHd + λijkUiDjDk + . . .

Supersymmetry: the existence of scalar matter fields introduces a myriad of d ≤ 4 terms violating F, B and L

Naive Composite Higgs (TC) : the Yukawa themselves are d > 4

Yij H QiLQ

jR → Yij

1

Λ2F

(ΨΨ)QiLQ

jR

mij = Yijv3FΛ2F

ΛF must be not too far above weak scale: expect unwanted FCNC

In all natural models, extra assumptions (often clever) are needed to meetflavor physics constraints

Symmetrypick a subgroup ofpick a set of spurions to break itconstruct a lagrangian using the selection rules

U(3)Q × U(3)U × U(3)D × U(3)L × U(3)E

Dynamicsmass mixing hierarchy from radiative correctionsflavor from geography in extra-dim flavor from partial compositeness holography

Approaches

In all natural models, extra assumptions (often clever) are needed to meetflavor physics constraints

Symmetrypick a subgroup ofpick a set of spurions to break itconstruct a lagrangian using the selection rules

U(3)Q × U(3)U × U(3)D × U(3)L × U(3)E

Dynamicsmass mixing hierarchy from radiative correctionsflavor from geography in extra-dim flavor from partial compositeness holography

Approaches

unfortunately disfavored

in natural theories

What naturalness demands

➤

➤

topδm2H

=

supersoft models: Higgs mass parameter fully saturated by IR physics

•dirac gauginos in supersymmetry•general composite Higgs

mh = 125GeV

tuning

soft models: Higgs mass logarithmically sensitive to UV

•MSSM and its extensions with high scale mediation

�400GeV

M

�2

∼ 3λ2t

8π2M2

m2h ∼ m2

Z ∼ m2t

mh = 125GeV

�125GeV

m

�2

tuning

SM + Higgs

Mass

SM Newδm2H

= + ∼ 0

The more natural the theory the more the Higgs rates deviate from SM

+

+ +

SM + Higgs

new states

Mass

SM Newδm2H

= + ∼ 0

The more natural the theory the more the Higgs rates deviate from SM

+

+ +

Little Higgswith T-parity

⋂minimal

O(1)

O(αt/4π)

Supersymmetry

•higgs couplings•EWPT • • ...

(�1, �2, �3)

b → sγ

super-soft

⋂δO

OSM∼ m2

weak

m2

softO(1)

O(αt/4π)

Compositeness δO

OSM∼ v2

f2

•EWPT • • direct searches (susy)

(�1, �2, �3)

b → sγ

δO

OSM< 1 (10%)imply

in most cases, O(1) deviations in Higgs rates were already disfavored

Perspective on Supersymmetrybefore and after LHC 7/8

t

g

χ+ χ0

Z

once upon a time, expectation in the less clever models was

�

LEP/Tevatronml, mχ+ >∼ 100GeV

mq, mg >∼ 300GeV

t

g

χ+

χ0

Z

mh > 114.4GeV MSSM

1TeV

Z

t

g

χ0

Giudice, Rattazzi ‘06

LEP/Tevatronml, mχ+ >∼ 100GeV

mq, mg >∼ 300GeV

t

g

χ+

χ0

Z

mh > 114.4GeV MSSM

1TeV

NMSSM

t

Z

Z

t

g, q, �

1TeV

Before LHC: natural and simple spectrum possible within NMSSM

• situation only slightly worse with • GUT perturbativity borderline, but needn’t worry too much

see Barbieri et al 2013

mh � 125GeV Hall, Pinner, Ruderman ’11

• direct searches have however eliminated the natural region of the most straighforward NMSSM scenario (in particular flavor universal sfermion

masses)

After LHC

Z

1TeV

tg, q, �χ0

• situation only slightly worse with • GUT perturbativity borderline, but needn’t worry too much

see Barbieri et al 2013

mh � 125GeV Hall, Pinner, Ruderman ’11

• direct searches have however eliminated the natural region of the most straighforward NMSSM scenario (in particular flavor universal sfermion

masses)

After LHC

Z

1TeVtg, q, �

χ0

simplest scenarios were under pressure already before LHC

What about more ‘structured’ models, those that stick tonaturalness like a mussel to her reef?

MSSM:

NMSSM: simplest scenarios came under pressure with LHC

Natural SUSYnot-so-un-

TeV

mt<∼ 500GeV some other physics ( ex NMSSM) takes care of mh

consider all possible ways to suppress the signal:

Dirac gluino, RPV, compressed spectrum,...

Natural SUSYnot-so-un-

TeV

Dirac gluino

mt<∼ 500GeV some other physics ( ex NMSSM) takes care of mh

consider all possible ways to suppress the signal:

Dirac gluino, RPV, compressed spectrum,...

?

notice Br(4t) < 0.25 in relevant scenario: 15-20% reduction of bound Barbieri, Pappadopulo ‘09

1

1

0.1

0.25

0.5

2

5

400 600 800 1000 1200 14000

200

400

600

800

1000

Gluino mass � GeV �

LSPmass�Ge

V�

g0� g� 0 production, g0

���t t � 0

CMS 1� lep � n jets �6� 19.4 fb � 1Contours of Σ � Σ lim

Mahbubani ‘13

however the other channels (tttb, ttbb) add to same signalexpect compensation, in the end bound should not change much

what about some help from baryonic RPV?

some relaxation but not much

forget about majorana gluino and go to dirac: supersoft stop masseszoom on stops and higgsinos

impressive but significant natural regions with squashed spectra remain

probably these regions can already be more significantly constrained bydifferent analysis of present data

also addition of , , production should be considered bLtLtR

Kribs, Martin, Menon ‘13

Delgado, Giudice, Isidori, Pierini, Strumia ‘13

what about RPV decaying , , ? bLtLtR

b

s

t

g

h01,2 h

±

600GeV

t

mh +mt > mt

CMS 7 TeV data below 250 Gev

wait for upcoming 8 TeV

bs

c bs

u, c

t

g

b, d, s

ATLAS, 7 TeV 4.6 &-1

mg > 666GeV

what about topless gluino decays?

0.01pb0.03pb

0.1pb

0.32pb1pb

400 600 800 1000400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

mu�Rin GeV

mg�inGeV

pp�p��u�Ru�R,u�R�u�R��,...� � 8TeV LHC

CMS 5 fb�1�7 TeV

CDF 6.6 fb�1

but bound relaxed if binoenters decays chain

gg → 10jets

Pappadopulo ‘13

bs

c bs

u, c

t

g

b, d, s

ATLAS, 7 TeV 4.6 &-1

mg > 666GeV

what about topless gluino decays?

0.01pb0.03pb

0.1pb

0.32pb1pb

400 600 800 1000400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

mu�Rin GeV

mg�inGeV

pp�p��u�Ru�R,u�R�u�R��,...� � 8TeV LHC

CMS 5 fb�1�7 TeV

CDF 6.6 fb�1

but bound relaxed if binoenters decays chain

gg → 10jets

Pappadopulo ‘13

ATLAS & CMS are hunting down Supersymmetry in nooks and cranniesLooking forward to next run and to even more clever analyses

Too early tough to fully overthrow naturalness in favorof scenarios like, for instance, mini-split SUSY

but pressure is clearly building up

anyway, wait to hear Nima

Compositeness

Flavor: only option is partial compositeness

without any additional symmetrym∗ >∼ 10− 20TeV

m∗ >∼ 40TeV

m∗ >∼ 150TeV

FCNC

edms

µ → eγ

with combination of SU(2)’s and SU(3) can bring scale down to ∼TeV

H

f f

Redi ’12Babrbieri, Buttazzo, Sala, Straub, Tesi ’12

tL

T

V (H) =top

expectations from naturalness

partners(B−1/3, T2/3, X5/3, Ξ8/3, . . . )

V ≡ V (H/f)

v2

f2= O(1)

�400GeV

mT

�2

= O(1)

mh � 125GeVgeneric

Electroweak Precision Tests

W, Zh

∆�S, ∆ �T

pessimist

optimist

W, Z V∆�S ∼ m2

W

m2V

m2V

>∼ 2− 3TeV

EWPT already imply some tuning

technical naturalness demands structural complexity

v2

f2<∼ 0.05 (0.2)

(mV � mT )

from EWPT

Higgs couplings

δg

gSM

∼ v2

f2<∼ 0.2

wait for more integrated luminosity to break new grounds

λ = 3

λ = 0.3

ξ ≡ v2

f2= 0.2

c1

M5/3

this is a very significant direct ‘test’ of naturalnessbut result not fully unexpected in view of LEP/etc...

CMSlatest

De Simone, Matsedonkyi, Rattazzi , Wulzer ’12

λ = 3

λ = 0.3

ξ ≡ v2

f2= 0.2

c1

M5/3

this is a very significant direct ‘test’ of naturalnessbut result not fully unexpected in view of LEP/etc...

CMSlatest

De Simone, Matsedonkyi, Rattazzi , Wulzer ’12

λ = 3

λ = 0.3

ξ ≡ v2

f2= 0.2

c1

M5/3

this is a very significant direct ‘test’ of naturalnessbut result not fully unexpected in view of LEP/etc...

CMSlatest

De Simone, Matsedonkyi, Rattazzi , Wulzer ’12

?

Vector Resonances

q

qWL

WL

• resonances couple ‘superweakly’ to light fermions

• significantly different from weakly coupled W’ and Z’

• LHC bound still below 2 TeV for gV >3

• wait for LHC13 to break new ground

=g2WgV

� gW= gV

V V

σ ∼ 10 fb

�3

gV

�2 �2TeV

mV

�6

upcoming ‘theorists analysis’ : Contino, Grojean, Pappadopulo, Thamm, Torre, Wulzer

Higgzoology

SM + Higgsnew states

Mass

Can use effective lagrangian to describe deviations from SM

= simple parametrization encompassing a large class of models

SM + Higgs

new states

Mass

Can use effective lagrangian to describe deviations from SM

= simple parametrization encompassing a large class of models

ci × mi

vcV × 2m2V

v

cγcg

cV > 1 only if ∃ scalar of electric charge 2

cb > 1, ct < 1

cb < 1, ct > 1

cV , cf < 1 cg, cγ ∼ 0

MSSM

NMSSM dominated quartic

Composite Higgs

No clear trend of deviation from SMCompatible with SM within 30%

Higgs comin’ !!

Welcome Higgs !!

The precision frontier

singleHiggs

physicsmeasures fine tuning

HL-LHC ILC-LEPpone

5% 1%

precision Higgs physics breaks ground in the test of naturalnessthough it can only give us indirect clues

EWPT10%

semidirectclues at CLIC sensitive to tuning of ~1%

g2NPv2

M2NP

<∼

MNP

tuning

�0.4TeV

MNP

�2

5 10 15 20 25 30

10�4

0.001

0.01

0.1

�mh

MNP

�2

The energy frontier

LHC14 HE-LHC

Summary• discovery of Higgs boson with rates in agreement with SM within

the present precision of 30% is far from unexpected: it is basically a corollary of results of LEP/Tevatron/B-factories

• direct searches are directly pushing several scenarios (especially in SUSY) into 1% tuning grounds, though that is basically were the simplest (and maybe nicest) models were already expected by indirect reasoning (ex, MSSM with flavor universal soft terms)

• LHC searches are now also putting significant pressure on cleverly natural models, though regions with moderate tuning are not ruled out yet

• Refined analyses & LHC13 can break grounds on those regions and perform a comprehensive test of naturalness

•HL-LHC will break grounds in EW physics by testing Higgs rates at, so it seems, 5%