Paper detail

CMSSM, naturalness and the "fine-tuning price" of the Very Large Hadron Collider

The absence of supersymmetry or other new physics at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has lead many to question naturalness arguments. With Bayesian statistics, we argue that natural models are most probable and that naturalness is not merely an aesthetic principle. We calculate a probabilistic measure of naturalness, the Bayesian evidence, for the Standard Model (SM) with and without quadratic divergences, confirming that the SM with quadratic divergences is improbable. We calculate the Bayesian evidence for the Constrained Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (CMSSM) with naturalness priors in three cases: with only the $M_Z$ measurement; with the $M_Z$ measurement and LHC measurements; and with the $M_Z$ measurement, $m_h$ measurement and a hypothetical null result from a $\sqrt{s}=100\,\text{TeV}$ Very Large Hadron Collider (VLHC) with $3000/\text{fb}$. The "fine-tuning price" of the VLHC given LHC results would be $\sim400$, which is slightly less than that of the LHC results given the electroweak scale ($\sim500$).

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.