EF08 Contributions Jim Hirschauer >> Recording in progress. >> Hello. Can you hear us on Zoom? >> Yes. >> Okay. Great. And I see that Jim's connected. Let's give us here in the room like half a minute to come back from the coffee break. Thanks. JIM: Mia, can you see my slides moving? >> Yes, perfect. JIM: Perfect. >> We can see it on Zoom too. JIM: Okay. Thanks. >> Mia: Okay. Let's get started. So, welcome to the second session of this afternoon. We will have reports from Energy Frontier 08 and 09 topical groups. And BSM searches and modeldependent/independent ways. So, the first talk will be given by Jim Hirschauer. And Jim, get started whenever you want to. JIM: Great. Thank you. Thanks, everyone. It's great to see people there in person even if I sadly am not there. It looks fun. I wish I were with you all. You can see my second slide now with introduction? >> Yep. We can see it. JIM: Okay. Great. Thank you. Yes, I will be talking about beyond Standard Model searches with modelspecific explorations. We focus on sensitivity of future colliders to establish benchmark models and their signatures. This includes things you would imagine like supersymmetry, extra dimensions, composite Higgs, leptoquarks, et cetera. This is obviously important for quantifying the sensitivity of future colliders and their complementarity. We coordinate very closely as you would hope with EF09 which is more modelindependent, signaturebased B SM. For instance, particles is a focus. And EF10, which is dark matter at colliders. More general models as a main focus. We received about 20 white paper submissions that were relevant for EF08. Thanks so much, everyone. They're very interesting. We have been going over them for the past couple weeks. From our standpoint the European Strategy physics briefing book provided an excellent starting point looking at the future sensitivity better BSM benchmark models. The HEP community is tireless and there has been a lot of work on future collider studies and I will tell you about that some today. No going over the white papers, we have seen several themes emerge. This is a personal subjective statement. But we have seen a lot of interest in a muon collider. Not surprisingly if you have been following the Snowmass process. A year ago, we saw that Fermi Lab released a measurement, of muon g2. That's impacted the work we have received. And the pMSSM scan, I won't talk about that today. But Jennet Dickenson will be on that Thursday and Friday. Find those talks. And challenging SUSY signatures at hadron and lepton colliders. Thank you for everyone's hard and interesting work. Let me go through that today to show highlights. For the European strategy briefing book, it was very comprehensive. You can see on the upper left, the top quark sensitivity reaches 10TeV at 100 proton clowder, which I will call FCChh for the rest of the talk. Higgsino like dark matter candidate, it's a lot harder. We can reach something like 1.3TeV in a monojet, final state at FCChh. And the composite Higgs at sensitivity at the bottom in terms of confinement scale versus the coupling of the composite Higgs to the row of the new theory. So, that's where we're starting from. And now I'm gonna go through some of the highlights we've received. I'll start with the muon collider which we'll hear about at other times during this. But workshop. But this is more of a view from the EF08centric standpoint. So, the physics summary, you can see the link here, was a really nice summary of everything. Showing how you get the best of both worlds at a muon collider. Both in terms of the energy and the precision. One of the main challenges with the muon collider, as we discussed a lot over the last couple years through the Snowmass process are the beaminduced backgrounds. A lot of progress has been made. You can find the reference here. For looking at how beaminduced backgrounds are wellunderstood and modeled now. You can see in this plot here that the 10 to 30TEV muon collider offers unparalleled sensitivity that were interested into a in EF08. On the bottom, you can see the top partner, and the SUSY particles, the stop, Stau and squarks. And the coupling of a chargino or stau. You can see we're already exceeding an FCChh shown in the lightlyshaded diagram. If you want to even for the stronglyproduced final states, if you go to up to a 30TeV muon collider, we're well into unprobed territory. This is not surprising. You can see on the left how the cross section for producing these new particles is related for center of mass that are protonproton collider to a muon collider. And obviously, if you have an elementary particle like a muon, you won't have the suppression from the luminosity. You can see the 100TeV protonproton is comparable to a 14TeV muon collider. One of the more challenging and the interesting connection to dark matter is for Higgsino or Wino dark matter, we have disappearing tracks. This is the overlap with EF09. They have done a lot of the work in understanding how you can use the disappearing track final states. We have basically looked for the charged member of the multiplot, either Higgsino or wino to be produced. And decay into the partner, giving the low PT pion in the state from the low mass splitting. And the pion is not reconstructed. We have our disappearing track. We have a photon to trigger on. And basically, you can see that at a muon collider. And yellow is the three TeV muon collider. And then these shaded regions is the 10TeV muon collider. You can see that for cross  for lifetimes that are consistent with what the theory predicts, that's here in this dotted line. We have good sensitivity out to about 3TeV. Although you'll notice the sensitivity is right on the edge of where we have the lifetime sensitivity. Doing this full analysis as has been done is really important and especially having a good understanding of the beaminduced backgrounds they mentioned earlier. For reference, you can get sensitivity at an FCChh at just over 1TeV. Really the muon colliders are providing really excellent sensitivity here. For composite Higgs, we have a nice submission looking at composite sensitivity at the muon collider. That was paper they were talking in general at the processes that a lepton collider might be simple, but are complicated theoretically and experimentally by electroweak radiation. They looked at the electroweak at a general either on electron or muon at the collider range. And applied to the muon collider on taking on experimental efficiencies criteria from CLIC. More research could be done, but this nice paper shows in green how it's exceeding the others here. The others show the work from the European strategy and the FCCee and the FCChh. So, last topic for the muon collider. On the way to attend  or 30TeV muon collider, a 3TeV stage offers a substantial opportunity for BSM physics. I'll tell you here about leptoquarks. This is gaining interest as the LHCb star anomaly, they could explain this anomaly causing a resurgence in the popularity. And you can see the vector lepton quark and the scalar leptonquark. And you can see the production of the muon collider. However, if you just look for the effects in muon to bb bar quark scattering with the lepton quark in the tchannel, or similarly in the right, bs scattering with the lepton quark tchannel. It's giving good coverage for RK star in both. That holds in the vector and scalar leptoquark case. Not surprisingly. So, moving on, we had a few submissions for heavy neutrinos and new gauge symmetries. You can see the search at LHC, looking for a heavy righthanded neutrino, coupling to electroweak bosons. And you can see we produced it here in the tchannel with the W or in the schannel with the Z. And again, this search really highlights the nice complementarity between lepton colliders and hadron colliders. You can see hadron colliders, LHC100TeV is nice out to the mass, but has trouble at the lower couplings. And not surprisingly, the very clean lepton colliders can get down to very low coupling. But at the lower energies. At the higher energies, they start to run out of steam. A slightly different model, this is the heavy Majorana neutrino at the ILC. This shows where we have had a lot of good recent work establishing the prom at the ILC. In this case, we extend the standard model, U1. This gives a  and the new Z boson. There's theory work on the right that shows how the sensitivity at lepton colliders in general could be expected to compare to that at LHC. This group  but this was based on indirect effects and forwardbackward asymmetries that give you sensitive toy a high Z prime mass. You can see out to 10TeV, for instance. And this is at a 1TeV LHC. This ILD group actually took a point here and went through the full study to show the  how you would actually do this sort of analysis, a direct search at ILC. And you can see the really nice clean signature. This is for Z prime of 7TeV, heavy neutrino masses around 200 GeV and a coupling of 1. And you can see we have really good sensitivity out to 200 GeV. Finally, one more on BSM neutrinos and energy scale complementarity. This is a similar U1 symmetry. And in this case, they highlighted that when the new physics scale is not very high, relative electroweak scale, you cannot compare it out. And this has comparison even with DUNE and COHERENT. Looking at production of a Z prime. Not surprisingly, hadron colliders dominate out here, 100 to 1,000 GeV, and here, we have the DUNE and COHERENT. This is all preferred by the muon G2. Takes us to the next topic. Another theme in the submissions we received was muon g2. As we all know well, Fermilab just published their most recent measurement last year. Which brought the experimental average here with smaller error bars giving us a 4 sigma discrepancy. This is from Heinemyer and collaborators. They did a scan of the  electroweak sector of MSSM, considering constraints from measured muon g2, LHC searches, dark matter relic density, and dark matter direct detection. You can see in the models with the Higgsino dark matter with the characteristics 5 GeV mass splitting. We know dark matter with the smaller .3 GeV mass splitting. This in both shows the LHC sensitivity current. And you can see the points in red are those that survived the constraints on LHC. G2, the relic density, direct detection  I'm sorry  LHC and g2 included. so, I think this is a really nice way to show us what's available for future colliders. And we can look at that with future colliders in the next. This is a different model from the same paper, though. This is bino dark matter with slepton coannihilation. This will allow the full saturation of the relic abundance. As you can see, it's a little more challenging whether you get to the low mass splitting. But what we see here is in the spinindependent coupling, so, this shows us  this is a nice way to look at this for comparison to direct detection. These are all points that would be allowed by xenon 1 ton. Here's the neutrino floor. You can see there's a lot of open parameter space. The red shows those that are consistent with the correct relic abundance. Where you can see it's a little harder to produce these red points down at the low spin independent cross section. However, the good news is, is that these points are all consistent. You can see this is the cross section to produce SUSY. And e+e collider at 1TeV. And you can see there's plenty of points with mass below 500 GeV. This gives us a good chance to observe this at a future lepton collider or hadron collider. There's a similar analysis looking at how muon g2 relates to a split SUSY spectrum. So, you have the measure, g2 and the large Higgs mass. This gives us an interesting spectrum where you have the lights sleptons shown here that gives the observed g2. And you have the heavy spectrum for squarks that gives you the heavy Higgs. This arises naturally in models with radiant breaking with electroweak symmetry driven by heavy gluinos with SUGRA unified model. They are available at HLLHC or HELHC. And you can see here, again consistent with the delta mu from Fermi Lab and relative abundance. In some cases, not fully saturated. Final topic on muon g2. This is an interesting paper that says let's assume we're in a good position. We're at the ILC. we have observed a stau and a bino. Can we determine if this is all that's possible for the observed g2 or are there more contributions out there? They argue you can look at the masses and mixing of the smuon and the bino mass. But you have observed the style, the mixing there is larger. You're better off looking at the stau mixing. Using that to relate back to the smuon mixing. And from that, you can get your measured SUSY contribution with g2 with only 8% uncertainty. Indeed, this would be great situation to find ourselves in some way where we're at an ILC or future lepton collider. Confirming the recent measurement isn't d related to SUSY. This was another search. The stau is another motivated search. It's challenging. That's the reason it's so wellmotivated. It has challenging some NLSP and small cross sections and challenging experimental signatures. Likely to be the lightest slepton via see saw mechanism. And it can give you dark matter with the correct matter abundance. They made it hard on themselves. They looked for the worst case in stau mixing, neutralino and neutralino type to make it difficult to observe it at ILC. They found at 500ILC, they could see the stau out to the limit of 250 GeV with only a small fall off here in this corner and then here from your reference is the signal events expected. And the background events expected for these different polarizations. So, one last topic was naturalness. This is from  and company. This is interesting for EF08 when we're talking about these models. We like to know how natural they are. As difficult as it can be to quantity naturalness. Using this delta electroweak, using this definition here, Howie and the collaborators provided this package which is open for general use for computing the naturalness from any of these usual suspects of SUSY spectrum generators shown here. And then indeed they use this to show the natural SUSY with the delta electroweak metric less than 30 are still surviving LHC constraints on gluino shown here, and consistent with the LHC constraints and also the Higgs mass, this red, and this black which is 125 GeV. That was whirlwind tour through some of the submissions. Trying to put them together. That's nice talk from Brian tomorrow on naturalness and experimental consequences. Very interesting for EM08. On Thursday afternoon, we have BSM plenary discussions. We have three topics. Impact on recent muon g2 results on BSM models from Sebastian. Probing BSM physics at the muon collider, Andrea, and impact of precision measurements on pMSSM from Jennet. And on Friday, the WIMP dark matter, which is of interest to EF08. And Friday afternoon, some of our early career contributors working with us to help organize all the references for our EF08 report. This is Gwen, Maxx, Suneth, Avi and Reilly from Penn State and Wayne State. and Gwen will be giving the information. EF08, 09 and 10 are planning a joint EP BSM report. Our goal is to share the EF08 contribution next month in April for feedback from the community. We're building on the energy  European Strategy report. As mentioned, that's a great starting point for us. There's been a lot of work since then that we're incorporating for hadron and lepton colliders. We have seen themes for challenging SUSY signatures. Muon collider as well as impact of Fermilab measurement and g2. I would like to thank everyone again for all of your input through the last couple years throughout this process. I would like to say it's not too late. It's never too late. If you have a white paper and you have missed the deadline, as far as EF08 is concerned, please let us know. And it's never too late to finalize your input. And also, please, you know, as we  as the report comes out, we're interested in people's impacts  input  to make sure we're saying what the community wants us to say. So, help us steer the focus of the report. Thank you. >> I think I unmuted really slow. So, there was applause in case you missed that. Thanks for your talk. I think we are ready to take questions. Maybe we can start from Zoom. >> I don't see any hands yet on Zoom. >> Okay. The question in the room. >> So, hello, thank you for the very nice talk. You made a point about interesting phenomena at the 3TeV muon collider. But I think it's also worth pointing out that in almost every case, the same physics is accessible from a 3TeV e+e collider. And there's a big difference in which we know how to construct a 2TeV e+e collider, it's called CLIC. There's a large strategy on CLIC on TeV. I think you ought to put these things on the same footing. The one example you gave is different. If you have a leptoquark that explains the anomalies, that's simply a muon to be a leptoquark, but it seems crazy to have a muon be leptoquark and not a leptoquark. And since it's in the same channel, it doesn't matter that it's not the same mass. You have mass sensitivity on up. There isn't really an exception to in and so, if you think about new physics at a 3TeV muon collider, you ought to be talking about new physics at a 3TeV electron collider in the same breath. JIM: Yes, thank you, Michael. I didn't mean to give that impression. I agree with you that when we write the report we need to be very careful to keep everything on the same footing. Certainly I gave short shrift in this talk to the huge amount of work that's been done for the European Strategy and previous to Snowmass. For the final report, we will definitely find the right balance. Today I was focusing on giving highlights from some of the recent submissions that we received specifically for EF08 and specifically for this process which is why I had the focus that I did. But you're absolutely right. That the report we need to be careful to make sure that we're  have everything on equal footing. >> Yeah. Again, there is this big book of BSM physics at CLIC. I'll send you the reference and you really ought to go through it in detail when you talk about the synergy reach. JIM: Yes. I'm aware of it. I have it myself. But yeah. The goal today was not to be comprehensive. I didn't mean to give that impression. It was more to highlight what's come out new recently. I should have made that more clear. Hopefully your question helped make that more clear. >> Yeah. We have a question on Zoom now. Kevin? >> Kevin: Yeah, I just wanted to also partially respond to that. I don't think anybody, including the proponents of a possible muon collider, are really arguing that, you know, it would be as easy to construct a muon collider as it would be an e+e collider. After all, we have been colliding e+e since the mid 1960s. Has a long history. It's clearly not the same level of virtuality versus on shell. It's more of the longterm development of a future possible collider and, you know, dealing with the issues. If you really wanted to get to very high energy like the 10TeV or above. And, you know, what would be the most ideal and optimistic way of getting there through dealing with the synchrotron radiation that you don't have to deal with in the case of  as much as the case of muon collider in comparing it to other options with the high energy protonproton like 100TeV. But nobody is certainly saying it's on the same level of realty that, of course, we have been talking about building ILC types of things for 20 years. And, you know, that's just a given. >> Thanks, Kevin. Are there more questions in the room? What about on Zoom? Online? >> Nothing so far. Thank you. >> Okay. >> I think it was extremely clear. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Jim, once again.