SciPost Submission Page
Dark matter, fine-tuning and (g-2)_{\mu} in the pMSSM
by Melissa Van Beekveld, Wim Beenakker, Marrit Schutten, Jeremy De Wit
This is not the latest submitted version.
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Melissa van Beekveld |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | scipost_202105_00004v1 (pdf) |
| Date submitted: | 2021-05-05 09:10 |
| Submitted by: | van Beekveld, Melissa |
| Submitted to: | SciPost Physics |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Physics |
| Specialties: |
|
| Approach: | Phenomenological |
Abstract
In this paper we analyze spectra in the phenomenological supersymmetric Standard Model that simultaneously result in the right dark-matter relic density $\Omega_{\rm DM} h^2$, offer an explanation for the $(g-2)_{\mu}$ discrepancy $\Delta a_{\mu}$ and are minimally fine-tuned. We discuss the LHC phenomenology resulting from these spectra and the sensitivity of dark-matter direct detection experiments to these spectra. We find that the latter type of experiments with sensitivity to the spin-dependent dark-matter\,--\,nucleon scattering cross section $\sigma_{\rm SD,p}$ will probe all of our found solutions.
Current status:
Reports on this Submission
Anonymous Report 1 on 2021-6-2 (Invited Report)
- Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:scipost_202105_00004v1, delivered 2021-06-02, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.3016
Strengths
1. The authors did an analysis which seems to me very complicated and time-consuming.
2. The analysis procedure seems rigid and trustworthy.
Weaknesses
1. The accomplishment of this work is not clearly written.
2. The manuscript is not well organized, or at least not reader-friendly.
3. Figures might be misleading.
Report
This work focuses on MSSM model points that solve the muon g-2 anomaly and provides the correct relic density of the dark matter.
The authors also require that the models should have small fine-tuning, which is measured by Eq. (2), as well as pass the constraints from experiments.
The model points passing all these criteria are shown in their figures.
This work is distinctive because, as far as I know, and as the authors stated in Sec. 1, this is the first study in which all these constraints are taken into account in drawing such scatter plots, i.e., with correct relic density, correct muon g-2, small fine-tuning, collider constraints, and DM direct detection constraints.
However, although the authors did careful analyses and obtained good data, the discussion and the way of presentation are not reader-friendly or well-organized, as described below and therefore I ask for a major revision.
In particular, I would ask to solve the following issue 1) before further consideration.
1)
The biggest concern of mine is that I am not sure what is the main message of this work, or in other words, if this manuscript provides a significant progress to this field.
That is, getting the data points itself counts as a significant progress only if the data points are made public; otherwise, the authors are responsible to describe and discuss the model points and clarify what the readers can learn.
However, such statements are not found in Conclusion. Rather, it seems to me that the information in Conclusion has been known previously, in particular, in the authors' previous work 1612.06333.
I thus ask for the authors to clarify what is the main message of this work; e.g., the progress/difference they accomplished compared to 1612.06333.
2)
The authors discuss the collider phenomenology of the model points that are not excluded by colliders, but I am not sure its purpose.
For example, in L258-278, the authors discuss LHC phenomenology on the model points that we already know have eluded the LHC constraints.
If to characterize the property of surviving points, then the points should be compared with the excluded points.
If to discuss future prospects, then the discussion should be done quantitatively with the published information on, e.g., HL-LHC prospects.
It seems to me that, unfortunately, the collider phenomenology part is just a display of what they know on the points, and not leading the readers to any goals.
3)
The categorization of Fig. 1 Right might be misleading.
In Fig. 1 Right and others, the authors categorize the model points by the mechanism for DM relic density.
However, the way it is displayed seems to me very confusing; namely, novice young (or busy senior) readers may misunderstand that the (200GeV, $10^{-26}$cm^3/s) regions are not by bbbar but only by ttbar.
I recommend the authors to think again on the way of presentation.
4) Several minor comments/questions.
- Which order is the g-2 calculated at? The tanbeta resummation of GM2Calc is turned on or not?
- Which scale the MSSM parameters are specified at? GUT scale with the running considered, or MSUSY?
- The paragraph L209-231 seems important but not well-organized. The authors should consider refine it, e.g., for the statement in L214, it is helpful if the authors could provide a plot like Fig. 1 but with the color showing the magnitude of bino-component ($N_{11}$).
- L272: The method of recasting should be detailed.
- L297: What happened to "those points"? Are they rejected by some of the above-given criteria, or the authors just assume that the points have been excluded?