TheoryNo Access

${(g - 2)}_{μ}$ ${(g - 2)}_{μ}$ and SUSY^∗

Astrocent, Nicolaus Copernicus Astronomical Center of the Polish Academy of Sciences, ul. Rektorska, 4, 00-614 Warsaw, Poland

Search for more papers by this author

Sven Heinemeyer

IFT (UAM/CSIC), Universidad Autónoma de Madrid Cantoblanco, E-28048, Spain

Campus of International Excellence UAM+CSIC, Cantoblanco, E-28049 Madrid, Spain

Instituto de Física de Cantabria (CSIC-UC), E-39005 Santander, Spain

E-mail Address: Sven.Heinemeyer@cern.ch

Search for more papers by this author

, and

Ipsita Saha

Kavli IPMU (WPI), UTIAS, University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8583, Japan

Search for more papers by this author

https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X22460101Cited by:4 (Source: Crossref)

This article is part of the issue:

Special Issue: The Future of High Energy Physics - Some Aspects (VII)
Guest Editors: L. R. Flores Castillo, K. Prokofiev and Y. Tu

Abstract

The persistent $3 - 4 σ$ $3 - 4 σ$ discrepancy between the experimental result from Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) for the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon, ${(g - 2)}_{μ}$ ${(g - 2)}_{μ}$ , and its Standard Model (SM) prediction, was confirmed recently by the “MUON G-2” result from Fermilab. The combination of the two measurements yields a deviation of $4.2 σ$ $4.2 σ$ from the SM value. Here, we review an analysis of the parameter space of the electroweak (EW) sector of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM), which can provide a suitable explanation of the anomaly while being in full agreement with other latest experimental data like the direct searches for EW particles at the LHC and dark matter (DM) relic density and direct detection constraints. Taking the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) (the lightest neutralino in our case) to be the DM candidate, we discuss the case of a mixed bino/wino LSP, which can account for the full DM relic density of the universe and that of wino and higgsino DM, where we take the relic density only as an upper bound. We observe that an upper limit of $\sim 600 GeV$ $\sim 600 GeV$ can be obtained for the LSP and next-to (N)LSP masses establishing clear search targets for the future HL-LHC EW searches, but in particular for future high-energy $e^{+} e^{-}$ $e^{+} e^{-}$ colliders such as the ILC or CLIC.

^∗Talk presented at the IAS Program on High-Energy Physics (HEP) 2021.

Keywords:

You currently do not have access to the full text article.
Recommend the journal to your library today!

References

1. T. Aoyama et al., Phys. Rep. 887, 1 (2020). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
2. M. Chakraborti, S. Heinemeyer and I. Saha , Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 1114 (2021). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
3. G. W. Bennett et al., Phys. Rev. D 73, 072003 (2006). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
4. J. Grange et al., Muon (g−2) technical design report (2015). Google Scholar
5. B. Abi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 141801 (2021). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
6. H. P. Nilles , Phys. Rep. 110, 1 (1984). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
7. H. E. Haber and G. L. Kane , Phys. Rep. 117, 75 (1985). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
8. H. Goldberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1419 (1983); [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 099905 (2009)]. Google Scholar
9. D. Zieminska and R. H. Dalitz , Nucl. Phys. A 238, 453 (1975). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
10. M. Chakraborti, S. Heinemeyer and I. Saha , Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 984 (2020). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
11. M. Chakraborti, S. Heinemeyer and I. Saha , Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 1069 (2021). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
12. M. Chakraborti, S. Heinemeyer, I. Saha and C. Schappacher , Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 483 (2022). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
13. M. Drees, H. Dreiner, D. Schmeier, J. Tattersall and J. S. Kim , Comput. Phys. Commun. 187, 227 (2015). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
14. J. S. Kim, D. Schmeier, J. Tattersall and K. Rolbiecki , Comput. Phys. Commun. 196, 535 (2015). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
15. D. Dercks, N. Desai, J. S. Kim, K. Rolbiecki, J. Tattersall and T. Weber , Comput. Phys. Commun. 221, 383 (2017). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
16. H. Baer, The international linear collider technical design report —Volume 2: Physics (2013), arXiv:1306.6352. Google Scholar
17. A. Arbey et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 371 (2015). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
18. Physics and detectors at CLIC: CLIC conceptual design report (2012), arXiv:1202.5940. Google Scholar
19. H. Abramowicz et al., Physics at the CLIC $e^{+} e^{-}$ $e^{+} e^{-}$ linear collider — Input to the snowmass process 2013, in Community Summer Study 2013: Snowmass on the Mississippi (2013). Google Scholar
20. T. K. Charles et al., The compact linear collider (CLIC) — 2018 summary report (2018), arXiv:1812.06018. Google Scholar
21. E. Bagnaschi et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 256 (2018). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
22. P. Slavich et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 450 (2021). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
23. M. Carena, J. Osborne, N. R. Shah and C. E. M. Wagner , Phys. Rev. D 98, 115010 (2018). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
24. S. Borsanyi et al., Nature 593, 51 (2021). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
25. C. Lehner and A. S. Meyer , Phys. Rev. D 101, 074515 (2020). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
26. A. Crivellin, M. Hoferichter, C. A. Manzari and M. Montull , Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 091801 (2020). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
27. A. Keshavarzi, W. J. Marciano, M. Passera and A. Sirlin , Phys. Rev. D 102, 033002 (2020). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
28. P. Athron, M. Bach, H. G. Fargnoli, C. Gnendiger, R. Greifenhagen, J.-H. Park, S. Paßehr, D. Stöckinger, H. Stöckinger-Kim and A. Voigt , Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 62 (2016). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
29. P. von Weitershausen, M. Schafer, H. Stockinger-Kim and D. Stockinger , Phys. Rev. D 81, 093004 (2010). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
30. H. Fargnoli, C. Gnendiger, S. Paßehr, D. Stöckinger and H. Stöckinger-Kim , J. High Energy Phys. 2, 70 (2014). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
31. M. Bach, J.-H. Park, D. Stöckinger and H. Stöckinger-Kim , J. High Energy Phys. 10, 026 (2015). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
32. S. Heinemeyer, D. Stockinger and G. Weiglein , Nucl. Phys. B 690, 62 (2004). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
33. S. Heinemeyer, D. Stockinger and G. Weiglein , Nucl. Phys. B 699, 103 (2004). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
34. W. G. Hollik, G. Weiglein and J. Wittbrodt , J. High Energy Phys. 3, 109 (2019). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
35. T. Robens, T. Stefaniak and J. Wittbrodt , Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 151 (2020). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
36. M. Aaboud et al., J. High Energy Phys. 6, 22 (2018). ADS, Google Scholar
37. A. M. Sirunyan et al., Phys. Lett. B 806, 135502 (2020). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
38. N. Aghanim et al., Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020); [Erratum: Astron. Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]. Google Scholar
39. G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov and A. Semenov , Comput. Phys. Commun. 149, 103 (2002). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
40. G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov and A. Semenov , Comput. Phys. Commun. 176, 367 (2007). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
41. G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov and A. Semenov , Comput. Phys. Commun. 177, 894 (2007). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
42. G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov and A. Semenov , Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 960 (2014). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
43. E. Aprile et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 111302 (2018). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
44. A. Djouadi, J.-L. Kneur and G. Moultaka , Comput. Phys. Commun. 176, 426 (2007). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
45. M. Muhlleitner, A. Djouadi and Y. Mambrini , Comput. Phys. Commun. 168, 46 (2005). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
46. G. Aad et al., Phys. Rev. D 101, 052005 (2020). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
47. G. Aad et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 123 (2020). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
48. S. Heinemeyer and C. Schappacher , Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 649 (2017). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
49. S. Heinemeyer and C. Schappacher , Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 536 (2018). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
50. T. Fritzsche, T. Hahn, S. Heinemeyer, F. von der Pahlen, H. Rzehak and C. Schappacher , Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 1529 (2014). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
51. M. Berggren , Simplified SUSY at the ILC, in Community Summer Study 2013: Snowmass on the Mississippi (2013), arXiv:1308.1461. Google Scholar
52. M. T. N. Pardo de Vera, M. Berggren and J. List , Chargino production at the ILC, in Int. Workshop on Future Linear Colliders (2020), arXiv:2002.01239. Google Scholar
53. M. Berggren , What $p p$ $p p$ SUSY limits mean for future $e^{+} e^{-}$ $e^{+} e^{-}$ colliders, in Int. Workshop on Future Linear Colliders (2020), arXiv:2003.12391. Google Scholar
54. H. Baer, M. Berggren, K. Fujii, J. List, S.-L. Lehtinen, T. Tanabe and J. Yan , Phys. Rev. D 101, 095026 (2020). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
55. T. Barklow, J. Brau, K. Fujii, J. Gao, J. List, N. Walker and K. Yokoya , ILC operating scenarios (2015), arXiv:1506.07830. Crossref, Google Scholar
56. K. Fujii et al., Physics case for the 250GeV stage of the international linear collider (2017), arXiv:1710.07621. Google Scholar
57. A. Robson and P. Roloff, Updated CLIC luminosity staging baseline and Higgs coupling prospects (2018), arXiv:1812.01644.. Google Scholar
58. J. de Blas et al., J. High Energy Phys. 1, 139 (2020). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
59. R. K. Ellis et al., Physics briefing book: Input for the European strategy for particle physics update 2020 (2019), arXiv:1910.11775. Google Scholar