Likelihood Functions for Supersymmetric Observables in Frequentist Analyses of the CMSSM and NUHM1
O. Buchmueller, R. Cavanaugh, A. De Roeck, J.R. Ellis, H. Fl\"acher,, S. Heinemeyer, G. Isidori, K.A. Olive, F.J. Ronga, G. Weiglein

TL;DR
This paper performs a comprehensive frequentist analysis of the CMSSM and NUHM1 models, deriving likelihood functions for supersymmetric particle masses and observables based on current experimental data, and discusses their implications for collider searches.
Contribution
It introduces detailed likelihood functions for supersymmetric observables in CMSSM and NUHM1, incorporating various experimental constraints, and assesses the accessible parameter space for future collider experiments.
Findings
Light sparticle masses are preferred in both models.
Coannihilation region is favored over focus-point at 3-sigma.
Most preferred regions are accessible to early LHC and ILC.
Abstract
On the basis of frequentist analyses of experimental constraints from electroweak precision data, g-2, B physics and cosmological data, we investigate the parameters of the constrained MSSM (CMSSM) with universal soft supersymmetry-breaking mass parameters, and a model with common non-universal Higgs masses (NUHM1). We present chi^2 likelihood functions for the masses of supersymmetric particles and Higgs bosons, as well as b to s gamma, b to mu mu and the spin-independent dark matter scattering cross section. In the CMSSM we find preferences for sparticle masses that are relatively light. In the NUHM1 the best-fit values for many sparticle masses are even slightly smaller, but with greater uncertainties. The likelihood functions for most sparticle masses are cut off sharply at small masses, in particular by the LEP Higgs mass constraint. Both in the CMSSM and the NUHM1, the…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
