SUSY GUTs with
mainly axion cold dark matter:
implications for cosmology and colliders
Abstract
Supersymmetric grand unified theories based on the gauge group are highly motivated. In the simplest models, one expects Yukawa coupling unification, in addition to gauge, matter and Higgs unification. Yukawa unification only occurs with very special GUT scale boundary conditions, leading to a spectra with TeV first and second generation scalars, TeV-scale third generation scalars, and light gauginos. The relic density of neutralino cold dark matter is calculated to be times higher than observation. If we extend the theory with the PQ solution to the strong CP problem, then instead a mixture of axions and axinos comprises the dark matter, with the measured abundance. Such a solution solves several cosmological problems. We predict a rather light gluino with GeV that should be visible in either Tevatron or forthcoming LHC run 1 data. We would also expect ultimately a positive result from relic axion search experiments.
Keywords:
Supersymmetry; Grand unified theories; axions:
12.10.Kt,12.60.Jv,14.80.Va,14.80.Ly1 Introduction
The idea of the Standard Model extended by weak scale broken supersymmetry (SUSY) is extremely attractive in that it stabilizes the weak scale against quantum corrections, and allows ultimately for an embedding in Grand Unified Theories (GUTs)dg . GUTs are also highly attractive in that they unify the disparate forces contained in the SM into (usually) a single gauge group. SUSY GUTs receive some well-known indirect support from experiment in that the three gauge couplings– when extrapolated up to GeV via the MSSM RGEsdrw – very nearly meet at a point!
The gauge group is especially compellingso10 . Not only does it unify the SM forces, but it also unifies the SM matter of each generation into the 16-dimensional spinor representation. This unification only works if there is in addition to the SM superfields, a gauge singlet , for generations , which contains a right-hand neutrino state, as is required for see-saw neutrino massesseesaw . is naturally anomaly-free, thus explaining the otherwise ad-hoc anomaly cancellation in the SM or in . In addition, provides a basis for -parity conservation, in that only matter-matter-Higgs couplings are allowed, while the -violating matter-Higgs or matter-matter-matter couplings are forbidden. If is broken properly, the -parity survives as an exact symmetryspmartin . The simplest models also allow for Higgs unification, since both and live in the 10 of . Finally, in the simplest models, we also expect third generation Yukawa coupling unification at . The above features have convinced many theorists that the main ideas behind SUSY GUTs are surely right (even while most or all explicit models in the literature are likely wrong).
Here, we will assume (motivated by gauge coupling unification) that the MSSM, or MSSM plus gauge singlets, is the correct effective field theory valid from TeV all the way up to GeV. We will also require that the third generation Yukawa couplings should unify to reasonable () precision at .
To test Yukawa unification, we scan over -inspired SUSY parameter space:
(1) |
Here, is the common matter-scalar mass at , the common Higgs mass, the common gaugino mass and the common trilinear soft term. parametrizes the Higgs multiplet splittingmur , i.e. as is given by -term mass contributions arising from the breaking of . We will examine two cases: the “just-so” Higgs splitting (HS) model, where only the Higgs scalars split, and the DR3 model, where full scalar -term splitting is invoked, along with right-hand neutrino contributions, and possible third generation scalar mass splitting (i.e. at ).
We use the Isajet/Isasugra sparticle mass spectrum calculatorisajet . This includes full two-loop RGEsmv , an RG-improved one-loop effective potential calculation (evaluated at an optimized scale to account for leading two-loop effects) and full 1-loop sparticle mass correctionspbmz . Especially important is including the weak scale , and self energy corrections when transitioning from MSSM to SM effective theories; these depend on the entire superparticle mass spectrum, and are especially large for the correction at large hrs .
Exhaustive scans over parameter space reveal that Yukawa unification only occurs when the following conditions are metbf ; bdr ; us :
-
•
, with
-
•
TeV,
-
•
very small GeV),
-
•
-
•
.
These conditions, derived earlier by Bagger et al.bfpz , yield a radiatively driven inverted scalar mass hierarchy (RIMH). The physical sparticle mass spectrum is then given by
-
•
first/second generation squarks and sleptons TeV,
-
•
third generation squarks, sleptons, and : TeV,
-
•
light gauginos with GeV, GeV and GeV.
The heavy first/second generation squarks and sleptons can act to suppress possible SUSY FCNC and violating interactions, and proton decay. The much lighter third generation scalars meet the needs for technical naturalness. Note that Yukawa-unified SUSY provides a viable realization of the “effective SUSY” scenario put forth by Cohen, Kaplan and Nelsonckn , while maintaining the MSSM as the correct effective theory all the way up to .
The HS model is found to give many cases with exact unificationbdr ; us (which is perhaps better than expected, given the theoretical uncertainties of the perturbative calculations). The DR3 modeldr3 , with full -term splitting, can give Yukawa unification down to the 2% level, but only if neutrino Yukawa running is included down to GeV (as suggested by neutrino mass difference measurements), and there is a small first/third generation scalar splitting at . An example case is shown in Fig. 1.

2 Mixed axion/axino cold dark matter
If SUSY is broken in gravity mediation, then one expects the scalar masses to be directly related to the gravitino mass. In this case, TeV as well. This range of solves a major portion of the cosmological gravitino problem: such a heavy gravitino will have a lifetime less than 1 secondmoroi , so that it decays just before the onset of BBN. Thus, this model should be BBN safe, and should allow for a re-heat temperature GeV. While this value is not enough to sustain thermal leptogenesis as a baryogenesis mechanism, it is enough to sustain non-thermal leptogenesis, wherein right hand neutrinos are produced via inflaton decay, or Affleck-Dine leptogenesis.
The above mass spectrum predicted by Yukawa-unified SUSY has many desirable features. However, if we calculate the thermally produced relic abundance of neutralinos (we use IsaReDisared ), we find , i.e. 3-5 orders of magnitude higher than the measured valuerelic !
At this point, we have totally neglected (at our peril!) the strong problem. If we invoke the PQWWpqww solution to the strong CP problem with an “invisible” axioninvax , then we must include the axion/axino supermultiplet in the theory. The QCD axion has mass eV according to astrophysical/cosmological constraints. The axino is -parity odd, and can serve as the LSPrtw . Its mass is relatively unconstrained, and can span the keV GeV range. If MeV range, then with a lifetime typically less than 1 second (BBN safe). Each thermally produced neutralino will decay to exactly one axino, and the (non-thermally produced) axino abundance will be ckkr : the ratio of masses yields a factor , and can completely wipe out the neutralino overabundance. These decay-produced MeV-scale axinos would likely constitute warm dark matterjlm .
The axinos can also be produced thermally via scattering off quarks and gluons early on in the cosmic soup. The abundance depends on the axino mass, the PQ breaking scale and the re-heat temperature after inflationckkr ; bsteff . The thermally produced axinos will constitute cold dark matter so long as MeV.
A third dark matter component comes as usual from vacuum misalignment production of cold axions, as shown by Sikivie and othersas . This contribution depends on the PQ scale (or alternatively the axion mass) and the initial mis-alignment angle .
The total dark matter abundance in the PQMSSM model comes from three components:
(2) |
We examined Yukawa-unified SUSY models with both low and high values of and bhkss . By enforcing as measured by WMAP, we can extract the required re-heat temperature. The values of can range easily between GeV, thus being in the range required by the gravitino problem, and also allowing for non-thermal or Affleck-Dine leptogenesis!
3 Consequences for Tevatron, LHC and ADMX
The Yukawa-unified SUSY model predicts a rather light gluino with GeV. In standard SUSY models with gaugino mass unification, the LEP2 limit on GeV implies GeV, which is somewhat beyond Tevatron reach. However, in Yukawa-unified SUSY, the huge TeV parameter feeds into gaugino mass evolution via two-loop RGEs to suppress the gap between the and gaugino masses and . Thus, in Yukawa-unified SUSY, can be as low as GeV while respecting the LEP2 chargino limit. Also, the huge first generation squark masses actually suppress negative interference in the production cross section, thus raising the production cross section at the Tevatron by factors of 3-10 beyond standard calculations! Finally, the decays nearly 100% of the time via 3-body modes into -quarks. Thus, four or more -jets are expected in each final state. By requiring or even , SM backgrounds are highly suppressed. Detailed calculations find a 5 fb-1 reach of Tevatron to GeVtev . This probes the most favored portion of Yukawa-unified parameter space, since Yukawa-unification worsens as increases. This search is strongly recommended for CDF and D0!
At the TeV LHC, the cross section ranges between 2000-6000 fb, and occurs mainly via annihilation. The events should again be characterized by high -jet multiplicity. In addition, the decay followed by can occur at a large rate. In this case, the distribution for SF/OS dileptons should have a characteristic mass bump followed by an edge at : see Fig. 2. Since this mass gap is typically bounded by about 90 GeV, the bump/edge should sit between the and peaks, and should be easily visible even with very low integrated luminosity fb-1. An estimate of the TeV LHC reach with just 0.1 fb-1 of integrated luminosity, and not using cuts, is to GeV. With 1 fb-1 of integrated luminosity, which is now anticipated in LHC run 1, the reach using cuts is to GeV. Thus, it is expected that LHC will be able to either discover or rule out Yukawa-unified SUSY during its first run at TeV! This search is strongly recommended for Atlas and CMS!

Finally, since a large value of is favored cosmologically, we would expect the axion/axino abundance to be mainly mis-alignment produced axions. Thus, we can anticipate a possible axion discovery by ADMXadmx in the years to come, if Yukawa-unified SUSY is correct.
4 Conclusions
The Yukawa-unified SUSY scenario invokes IMO the four greatest ideas in physics beyond the SM: grand unification, supersymmetry, see-saw neutrino masses and the PQWW axion solution to the strong CP problem. Yukawa-unified SUSY with mixed axion/axino CDM also solves several cosmological problems, and is consistent with low energy realizations of the fifth greatest idea: string theoryraby . The immediate prediction is a rather light gluino with GeV which decays via three-body modes into mainly -quarks: it should be observable in the next year or two via Tevatron and LHC run 1 data. A positive signal would also be likely at the ADMX experiment.
References
- (1) S. Dimopoulos and H. Georgi, Nucl. Phys. B 193 (1981) 150.
- (2) S. Dimopoulos, S. Raby and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. D 24 (1981) 1681
- (3) H. Georgi, in Proceedings of the American Institue of Physics, edited by C. Carlson (1974); H. Fritzsch and P. Minkowski, Ann. Phys. 93, 193 (1975); M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky, Rev. Mod. Phys. 50, 721 (1978).
- (4) P. Minkowski, Phys. Lett. B 67 (1977) 421; M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky, in Supergravity, Proceedings of the Workshop, Stony Brook, NY 1979 (North-Holland, Amsterdam); T. Yanagida, KEK Report No. 79-18, 1979; R. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44 (1980) 912.
- (5) S. P. Martin, Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 2340.
- (6) H. Murayama, M. Olechowski and S. Pokorski, Phys. Lett. B 371 (1996) 57.
- (7) F. Paige, S. Protopopescu, H. Baer and X. Tata, hep-ph:0312045.
- (8) S. P. Martin and M. Vaughn, Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 2282.
- (9) D. Pierce, J. Bagger, K. Matchev and R. Zhang, Nucl. Phys. B 491 (1997) 3.
- (10) R. Hempfling, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 6168; L. J. Hall, R. Rattazzi and U. Sarid, Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 7048; M. Carena et al., Nucl. Phys. B 426 (1994) 269.
- (11) H. Baer and J. Ferrandis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 211803.
- (12) A. Cohen, D. Kaplan and A. Nelson, Phys. Lett. B 388 (1996) 588.
- (13) T. Blazek, R. Dermisek and S. Raby, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 111804 and Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 115004; R. Dermisek, S. Raby, L. Roszkowski and R. Ruiz de Austri, J. High Energy Phys. 0304 (2003) 037 and J. High Energy Phys. 0509 (2005) 029; M. Albrecht, W. Altmannshofer, A. Buras, D. Guadagnoli and D. Straub, J. High Energy Phys. 0710 (2007) 055; W. Altmannshofer, D. Guadagnoli, S. Raby and D. Straub, Phys. Lett. B 668 (2008) 385; D. Guadagnoli, S. Raby and D. Straub, J. High Energy Phys. 0910 (2009) 059.
- (14) D. Auto, H. Baer, C. Balazs, A. Belyaev, J. Ferrandis and X. Tata, J. High Energy Phys. 0306 (2003) 023; H. Baer, S. Kraml, S. Sekmen and H. Summy, J. High Energy Phys. 0803 (2008) 056.
- (15) J. Bagger, J. Feng, N. Polonsky and R. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 473 (2000) 264.
- (16) H. Baer, S. Kraml and S. Sekmen, J. High Energy Phys. 0909 (2009) 005.
- (17) M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri, T. Moroi and A. Yotsuyanagi, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 065011
- (18) H. Baer, C. Balazs, A. Belyaev, J. High Energy Phys. 0203 (2002) 042.
- (19) D. Auto, H. Baer, A. Belyaev and T. Krupovnickas, J. High Energy Phys. 0410 (2004) 066.
- (20) R. Peccei and H. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38 (1977) 1440 and Phys. Rev. D 16 (1977) 1791; S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40 (1978) 223; F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40 (1978) 279.
- (21) J. E. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43 (1979) 103; M. A. Shifman, A. Vainstein and V. I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B 166 (1980) 493; M. Dine, W. Fischler and M. Srednicki, Phys. Lett. B 104 (1981) 199; A. P. Zhitnitskii, Sov. J. Nucl. 31 (1980) 260.
- (22) K. Rajagopal, M. Turner and F. Wilczek, Nucl. Phys. B 358 (1991) 447.
- (23) K. Jedamzik, M. LeMoine and G. Moultaka, JCAP0607 (2006) 010.
- (24) L. Covi, J. E. Kim and L. Roszkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999) 4180; L. Covi, H. B. Kim, J. E. Kim and L. Roszkowski, J. High Energy Phys. 0105 (2001) 033.
- (25) A. Brandenburg and F. Steffen, JCAP0408 (2004) 008.
- (26) L. F. Abbott and P. Sikivie, Phys. Lett. B 120 (1983) 133; J. Preskill, M. Wise and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. B 120 (1983) 127; M. Dine and W. Fischler, Phys. Lett. B 120 (1983) 137; M. Turner, Phys. Rev. D 33 (1986) 889.
- (27) H. Baer and H. Summy, Phys. Lett. B 666 (2008) 5; H. Baer, M. Haider, S. Kraml, S. Sekmen and H. Summy, JCAP0902 (2009) 002.
- (28) H. Baer, S. Kraml, A. Lessa, S. Sekmen and H. Summy, Phys. Lett. B 685 (2010) 72.
- (29) H. Baer, S. Kraml, S. Sekmen and H. Summy, J. High Energy Phys. 0810 (2008) 079; H. Baer, S. Kraml, A. Lessa and S. Sekmen, J. High Energy Phys. 1002 (2010) 055.
- (30) S. Raby, Eur. Phys. J. C 59 (2009) 223.
- (31) S. Asztalos, L. Rosenberg, K. van Bibber, P. Sikivie and K. Zioutas, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.56 (2006) 293.