Paper detail

Fixing the EW scale in supersymmetric models after the Higgs discovery

TeV-scale supersymmetry was originally introduced to solve the hierarchy problem and therefore fix the electroweak (EW) scale in the presence of quantum corrections. Numerical methods testing the SUSY models often report a good likelihood L (or chi^2=-2ln L) to fit the data {\it including} the EW scale itself (m_Z^0) with a {\it simultaneously} large fine-tuning i.e. a large variation of this scale under a small variation of the SUSY parameters. We argue that this is inconsistent and we identify the origin of this problem. Our claim is that the likelihood (or chi^2) to fit the data that is usually reported in such models does not account for the chi^2 cost of fixing the EW scale. When this constraint is implemented, the likelihood (or chi^2) receives a significant correction (delta_chi^2) that worsens the current data fits of SUSY models. We estimate this correction for the models: constrained MSSM (CMSSM), models with non-universal gaugino masses (NUGM) or higgs soft masses (NUHM1, NUHM2), the NMSSM and the general NMSSM (GNMSSM). For a higgs mass m_h\approx 126 GeV, one finds that in these models (delta_chi^2)/ndf> 1.5 (approx 1 for GNMSSM), which violates the usual condition of a good fit (total chi^2/ndf approx 1) already before fitting observables other than the EW scale itself (ndf=number of degrees of freedom). This has (negative) implications for SUSY models and it is suggested that future data fits properly account for this effect, if one remains true to the original goal of SUSY. Since the expression of delta_chi^2 that emerges from our calculation depends on a familiar measure of fine-tuning, one concludes that EW fine-tuning is an intrinsic part of the likelihood to fit the data that includes the EW scale (m_Z^0).

preprint2013arXivOpen 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.