Theory summaryAlessandro Strumia

ν

νe↔ νµ↔ ντ oscillations

E. Lisi reviewed how a lot of data

are non-trivially explained by 3ν os-

cillations. This fascinating field

started from astro-physics gave us

5 new fundamental parameters!

θ12, θ13, θ23,∆m212, |∆m2

23|Maybe 6, because now

δCP ∼ −π/2

is favoured by

θT2K13eff > θreactors

13 .

This would double the observed

CP-violating parameters, suggest-

ing a pattern: all CP violating

phases in nature are large?

⌫µ ! ⌫e appearance measurement

Discovery of ⌫µ ! ⌫e at 7.3�!

Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 061802,February 2014

Jordan Myslik (University of Victoria) Selected results from T2K March 15, 2015 12 / 19

(What) are we learning?

Still, we fail to identify the rationale behind the semi-ordered flavour pattern.

The pattern resembles SU(5) with some flavour symmetry acting only on 10i

λD ∼ λE ∝ ε, λU ∝ ε2, λN ∝ ε0

Lower-level arguments give precise predictions, that fill all range:

1

2

3

4

5

6

78

911

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25

0o 5o 10o 15o

Θ13

prob

abili

tyde

nsity

Assume VPMNS = R12(θC) ·R23(π/4) ·R12(π/4) with θC ≈ θGolden ≡ arccotϕ3:

θ23 = 44.2◦, θ12 = 35.5◦ θ13 = 9.3◦

The rector νe anomaly

νe rates are ∼ 5% lower than re-computations that claim a smaller uncertainty.

The deficit could be due to νs. S. Zsoldos presented STEREO: a new reactor

experiment at L ∼ 10 m to search oscillations with ∆m2 ∼ eV2. But present

null results push mνs>∼ eV, disfavoured by standard cosmology [N. Saviano].

The measured νe spectra differ from the predicted spectra at the same level.

A. Hayes reviewed the issue: nuclear theory and data are not solid enough to

claim that there is an anomaly. Better to have a near detector.

0ν2β decay

P.K. Raina reviewed nuclear matrix elements for Γ0ν2β = G |Mmee/me|2.

“NTEM QRPA, PHFB, DHF, EDF, IBM, SSDH, OEM” in the language of

nuclear physics means “there are various approaches, no agreement”.

nucleus 76Ge 82Se 100Mo 130Te 136Xe 150NdQ in keV 2039 2995 3034 2529 2476 3367

T 2ν2β1/2

in 1020 yr 15± 1 0.92± 0.07 .071± .004 9± 1 23± 1 .082± .009

G in 10−14/yr 0.63 2.73 11.3 4.14 4.37 19.4

M [IBM-2 2015] 4.68 4.37 3.7 4.03 3.33 2.32M [SFRVE 2007] 3.3÷ 5.7 2.8÷ 5.1 2.2÷ 4.6 2.3÷ 4.3 1.2÷ 2.8M [CS 2009] 4.0÷ 6.6 2.8÷ 4.6 2.7÷ 4.8 3.0÷ 5.4 2.1÷ 3.7M [MPCN 2008] 2.3 2.2 2.1 1.8M [BI 2009] 5.5 4.4 3.7 4.1 2.3M0 [SMK 1990] 4.2 4.0 1.3 3.6 1.7 0.690%CL bound on 190,160,210 4.4 5.8 30 260 0.036T 0ν2β

1/2in 1023 yr HM, IGEX,GERDA NEMO-3 NEMO-3 Cuoricino KL-Zen, EXO NEMO-3

Bound on mee/h 0.35,0.38,0.33 eV 1.2 eV 1.5 eV 0.40 eV 0.29 eV 31 eV

Nuclear quenching of gA could reduce 0ν2β rates by up to 6 − 50

Summary of ν talks

• S. Choubey reviewed how the neutrino

mass hierarchy can be determined with

a) matter effects in long baseline;

b) matter effects in atmospheric ν;

c) sun/atm interference in reactors.

• A. Vincent discussed flavour recon-

struction in IceCube ν. Taking into

account and track mis-identification,

all oscillated production mechanisms (π

decays, µ decays, n decays) can fit data.

Conclusions

20

For unfavorable deltacp values, early hints expected 'om atmospheric expts and/or Juno

For favorable deltacpearly hints expected 'om NOvA

Srubabati Goswami

Hierarchy sensitvity in future experiments

Neutrino Phenomenology 28

After Blenow et al. 1311.1822 Hierarchy sensitvity of NOvA atmospheric experiments

CPG NOvA

23TAtmospheric INO/SK 40 50o o�

Pingu : 3 3.7 .8 51o o�

NoVA : 3 3Q Q�

INO : arXiv:1406.3689 HK : arXiv 1109.3262

PINGU: arXiv 1401.2046

Different statistical procedure followed by different groups

The lower end of the bands denote worst sensitivity Pingu/HK huge statistics help for higher 2-3 angle

For favourable CP values early hint from Nova and for unfavourable CP values from NOvA + INO

Adapted from Blennow et al, 1311.1822

Thank you!

• M. Masip argued that the excess over the ν atm bck observed by IceCube is

showers, not tracks. Can be fitted with increased ν cross section in models

with extra dimensions; predicts double-bang events.

• J. Heeck reviewed gauged U(1)B−L. If broken by 4 units (operator ν4R):

pp→ 4`, Dirac leptogenesis, Neff = π.

• J. Lopez Pavon: type-I see-saw with 1 eV < mνR < 100 MeV is excluded by

cosmology because νR thermalize.

• V. de Romeri: Z → eµ at FCC-ee from see-saw is already excluded by

µ→ eγ etc; Z → µτ could be seen.

DM

Models for DM

• Models that generate ν masses and DM and give lepton flavor violations:

- A. Ahrice: 3 loop model.

- D.R. Lamprea, 1 loop model.

• G. Arcadi: decaying DM. Model with Yukawas:

y matter DM scalar + y′ matter matter scalar

y predicted assuming freeze-in: scalar is long lived at LHC. If MDM ≈ 7 keV

to fit controversial 3.5 keV γ line, then y is too big.

What is DM?

In the past century we understood matter. Cosmology and astrophysics tell

that there is more work to be done. If MDM = 100 GeV × 10±40 ≈ 100 GeV it

can be discovered in direct, indirect, collider searches in 2012 or maybe later.

• J. Billard: direct DM searches are

reaching the ν background. Seasonal

variations (DM max in June, solar ν

max in January), multiple experiments,

directionality might allow to survive to

the crash on the ground.

• U. Hash: higher order corrections for

DM search at LHC could be relevant. � �� ��� ���� �����-����-����-����-����-����-����-����-����-���-���-����-����-����-��

��-���-���-��-��-���-���-���-���-���-���-���-���-��-

���� ���� [�/�]����-� ���������������[��]

����-� ���������������[��]

COHERENT NEUTRIN O SCATTERING

C

OH

ER

EN

T NE

U

TRINO SCATTERING COHERENT NEUTRINO SCATTERING

CDMS II Ge (2009)

Xenon100 (2012)

CRESST

CoGeNT(2012)

CDMS Si(2013)

DAMA SIMPLE (2012)

ZEPLIN-III (2012)COUPP (2012)

LUX (2013)

CD

MSlite (2013) SuperCDM

S LT (2014)

8BNeutrinos

Atmospheric and DSNB Neutrinos

7BeNeutrinos

COHERENT NEUTRIN O SCATTERING

C

OH

ER

EN

T NE

U

TRINO SCATTERING COHERENT NEUTRINO SCATTERING

CRESST (2014)

EDELWEISS (2011)

DAMIC (2012)

9

Impact on direct detection sensitivity

• First detection of CNS! • Diversifying toward solar neutrino physics (J. Billard et al., arXiv:1409.0050)

Julien Billard (IPNL) - Moriond EW

(J. Billard et al., PRD 89 (2014))

DM searches at colliders

ATLAS and CMS like effective operators but

1. The effective operator approximation fails at LHC.

Effective operators hold at low energy. For any collider the limit will beΛ� √s, because tagging the invisible signal needs extra j or γ: small σ.

2. Effective operators could mislead to miss the missing energy signal.

The assumed growth of σ ∼ E2/Λ4 is crucial in getting competitive collider“bounds” on σSI. In models where 1/Λ2 ≈ g2

mediator/M2mediator, such growth

stops at the mediator mass: the signal is no longer at the highest E.

3. What LHC would really see is the heavy mediator particle.

Not missing energy. Even using “simplified models” the casistics is tedious.The basic possibilities are a colored mediator in t-channel (signal: QCDpair production) or a neutral mediator in s-channel (signal: pp→ jj).

B. Zaldivar discussed simplified models.

h

Higgs

• R. Kogler summarized EW fits. Summary of the summary: SM ok.

• A. Celis studied models with 2 H with proportional Yukawa matrices at tree

level to avoid FCNC.

• V. Bizouard: 3h from NMSSM computed at one loop.

• S.I. Godunov: type-II see-saw triplet produces hh. Higher rates can be

obtained with an ad-hoc fine tuning proposed by Georgi-Machacek.

Composite Higgs?

Obviously relevant for experiments.

Theory degenerated in ‘cosettology’:

postulating needed nice properties

(partial compositeness, custodial sym-

metry...) in a Leff supposed to describe

a set of fundamental theories.

Is the set empty?

• How can Yukawas arise from a natural weak-scale fundamental theory?

• LEP studied 3/4 of H, finding Λ>∼10 TeV: too high for naturalness.

A possible approach is accept unnaturalness and

a) try to do real theories with ΛTC ∼ 1010 GeV;

b) make a decent TeV-scale theory using a techni-scalar with techni-Yukawas.

Summary of composite Higgs talks

• F. Riva reviewed ‘BSM as dimension 6 operators’: there are 79 of them

(2499 with flavour). Given present experiments, NRO are mostly equiva-

lent to simpler κ modifications of h and Z SM couplings.

• A. David: data allow to go beyond κ, maybe some BSM averages out in

the total rate, and can be captured by some κ(q) pseudo-observables. E.g.

a spin-crazy Higgs would couple through a NRO that can be tuned to re-

produce the total rate, but with higher 〈pT 〉.

• D. Espriu discussed how unitarity can constrain resonances.

• K. Kanshin computes dim-∞ operators assuming a chiral Lagrangian for

the Higgs. I. Brivio discussed typical effects of such nonlinearities.

• A. Kaminska considers techni-ρ in (partially)composite Higgs models.

Rare Z,W, h decays

M. Neubert presented predictions for rare Z,W decays into exclusive channels,

that can can be precisely computed using factorization and measured with high

luminosity LHC.

Exclusive radiative decays of Z bosons

Predictions for branching ratios including detailed error estimates:

Decay mode Branching ratio asymptotic LO

Z0 → π0γ (9.80 +0.09− 0.14 µ ± 0.03f ± 0.61a2 ± 0.82a4) · 10−12 7.71 14.67

Z0 → ρ0γ (4.19 +0.04− 0.06 µ ± 0.16f ± 0.24a2 ± 0.37a4) · 10−9 3.63 5.68

Z0 → ωγ (2.89 +0.03− 0.05 µ ± 0.15f ± 0.29a2 ± 0.25a4) · 10−8 2.54 3.84

Z0 → φγ (8.63 +0.08− 0.13 µ ± 0.41f ± 0.55a2 ± 0.74a4) · 10−9 7.12 12.31

Z0 → J/ψ γ (8.02 +0.14− 0.15 µ ± 0.20f

+ 0.39− 0.36 σ) · 10−8 10.48 6.55

Z0 → Υ(1S) γ (5.39 +0.10− 0.10 µ ± 0.08f

+ 0.11− 0.08 σ) · 10−8 7.55 4.11

Z0 → Υ(4S) γ (1.22 +0.02− 0.02 µ ± 0.13f

+ 0.02− 0.02 σ) · 10−8 1.71 0.93

Z0 → Υ(nS) γ (9.96 +0.18− 0.19 µ ± 0.09f

+ 0.20− 0.15 σ) · 10−8 13.96 7.59

Table 4: Predicted branching fractions for various Z → Mγ decays, including errorestimates due to scale dependence (subscript “µ”) and the uncertainties in the mesondecay constants (“f”), the Gegenbauer moments of light mesons (“an”), and the widthparameters of heavy mesons (“σ”). See text for further explanations.

our case, on the other hand, p2 = m2Z is equal to the mass of the decaying heavy gauge boson,

in which case the above expression does not exhibit a 1/k2 pole, but is instead proportionalto 1/m2

Z . Hence we conclude that A = 0 in (68). Note that in the limit k2 → 0 one obtainsfrom (69)

1

m2Z

!1

ϵ+ ln

m2Z

µ2− iπ + const.

", (70)

which is precisely of the form of our (bare) hard-scattering coefficients.

3.4 Phenomenological results

We are now ready to present detailed numerical predictions for the various radiative decaymodes. We start with the decays of the Z boson, using relation (35). Besides the inputparameters already mentioned, we need the Z-boson mass mZ = (91.1876 ± 0.0021)GeV andtotal width ΓZ = (2.4955±0.0009)GeV [45]. When squaring the decay amplitudes, we expandthe resulting expressions consistently to first order in αs. The imaginary parts of the formfactors in (42) do not enter at this order. Our results are presented in Table 4. Significantuncertainties in our predictions arise from the hadronic input parameters, in particular themeson decay constants (see Appendix B) and the various Gegenbauer moments. Their impactis explicitly shown in the table. Our error budget also includes a perturbative uncertainty,which we estimate by varying the factorization scale by a factor of 2 about the default valueµ = mZ . All other uncertainties, such as those in the values of Standard Model parameters,are negligible. Note also that power corrections from higher-twist LCDAs are bound to benegligibly small, since they scale like (ΛQCD/mZ)2 for light mesons and at most like (mM/mZ)2

for heavy ones. The predicted branching fractions range from about 10−11 for Z0 → π0γ toabout 10−7 for Z0 → J/ψ γ. In the last row, the symbol Υ(nS) means that we sum overthe first three Υ states (n = 1, 2, 3). Strong, mode-specific differences arise foremost from the

26

12

ATLAS analysis:

< 2.6 · 10�6

< 3.4 · 10�6

arXiv:1501.03276

h→ J/ψ γ and h→ Φγ could constrain Higgs couplings to c and maybe s.

t

Measuring Mt

or better yt, which is well defined even including weak corrections.

Motivation: yt is the biggest coupling of the Higgs, relevant for natural-

ness; for stability bounds on VSM(h); for MSSM predictions of Mh. Assuming

mSUSY �MZ gives Mh = (3 GeV below FeynHiggs)± 1MtGeV, SUSY heavier:

1 103 30115

120

125

130

135

Degenerate SUSY scale in TeV

Hig

gs

mas

sin

GeV

Quasi-natural SUSY, tanΒ = 20

SUSY thresholds at 2 QCD loops

SUSY thresholds at 1 loop Maximal stop mixing

Minimal sto

p mixing

exp

Lighter band: m�

�3 < mi < 3m�

Darker: Mt = 173.34 ± 0.76 GeV

104 106 108 1010 10121

10

3

SUSY scale in GeV

tan

Β

High-Scale SUSY

Measuring Mt

Indirect determination from precision data [from R. Kogler]:

Mt = 177± 0.5th ± 2.4exp uncertainty dominated by MW , sin2 θ

and from flavour data [thanks to Pierini, Silvestrini, Paradisi]

Mt = 171.5± 7 GeV

and from peak in invariant mass

Mt = 173.34± 0.76 GeV

Like Mpig = KMC∑

Msausages — better not to know how sausages are made.

S. Weinzierl reported that QCD experts now know what to do to improve the

situation with short-distance definitions (like done for jets, but still to be done).

b

The B → K∗µ+µ− anomaly

J. Matias and D. Straub got new LHC-B data

about angular distributions in B → K∗µ+µ−,

disappeared from coffee breaks and slopes,

made global analyses with older data about

B → K`+`− rates, caused a panic during the

solar eclipse claiming they see BSM at ≈ 4σ:

(bγµs)L(µγµµ)L or V

(20− 30 TeV)2

Their analyses mostly agree, Matias also finds

fits with (bγµs)R. Such operators can be me-

diated at tree level by lepto-quarks or Z′ such

as Crivellin Lµ − Lτ .

The charm loop could (?) give a q2-dependent

L× V effect equal in µ+µ− and in e+e−.

New physics would give an anomaly that does

not depend on q2 but can depend on flavor

and maybe even violate it giving B → K(∗)µe.

SM+charm

C9NP=-1.1

C9NP=-C10NP=-0.6

0 5 10 15-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

q2HGeV2L

P 5'

BSM

LHC inverse problem solved

Half of the particles needed for supersymmetry discovered

Metaphysics

Dirac asked: why Felectric/Fgravity ∼ 1040?

In the SM, it become a big naturalness question

about its only dimensionful parameter:

Why Mh�MPl?

Since 1982 naturalness motivated SUSY searches

Naturalness...

‘The Higgs receives power divergent quantum corrections δM2h ∼ g2

SMΛ2. New-

physics must provide a cut-off Λ<∼700 GeV to keep Mh natural’. Weak-scale

SUSY is by far the best proposed natural theory. With SUSY-GUT and super-

strings it forms a beautifully coherent theory.

“Experiments within the next 5-10 years will enable us to decide whether su-

persymmetry, as a solution to the naturalness problem of the weak interaction

is a myth or reality”. H.P. Nilles 1984.

10 years later LEP favoured SUSY-GUTs. 30 years later the CMSSM is Kilo-

Fine-Tuned and Mh ≈ 125 GeV points to even more unnatural SUSY.

...or ant**pic selection in a multiverse?

(Sorry. But, if Moriond were in California, this would be the main topic)

Vmin ≈ 10−120M4Pl poses another hierarchy problem that no theory can explain,

except anthropic selection in a multiverse of > 10120 vacua.

In the SM chemistry arises because the charged proton is lighter than theneutral neutron and of the Λ (made of lighter uuu) thanks to

ydv ≈ αΛQCD ⇒ Anthropic upper bound on v.

Mh � MPl is just another anthropic fine tuning? Probably no. Even if we livein a multiverse, nature should have more likely chosen:

• one of the existing natural theories, like SUSY;

• or an anthropically acceptable alternative to the SM that does not involvean unnaturally light Higgs scalar;

• or (even within the Standard Model) a smaller y or a smaller MPl.

Subtle is the Lord

Today we are confused but nature is surely following some logic

Natural solution: Napoli = Salerno. But not supported by geo data

Anthropic solution: mafia sells signposts. Plausible but untestable

Or think different

Data speaks and is telling SM, SM, SM

We now have all its parameters, let’s assume SM and see what happens

Fact 1: the SM can be extrapolated at

least up to MPl.

Fact 2: Mh ≈ 130 GeV corresponds to

λ(MPl) ≈ 0.

Fact 3: β(λ) vanishes around MPl.

DISCLAIMER. These could be acci-

dents; new physics can change these,

by a bit or by a lot. The goal is search-

ing messages in what we have now.102 104 106 108 1010 1012 1014 1016 1018 1020

-0.04

-0.02

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

RGE scale Μ in GeV

Hig

gs

quar

tic

coupli

ng

Λ

3Σ bands in

Mt = 173.3 ± 0.8 GeV HgrayLΑ3HMZL = 0.1184 ± 0.0007HredLMh = 125.1 ± 0.2 GeV HblueL

Mt = 171.1 GeV

ΑsHMZL = 0.1163

ΑsHMZL = 0.1205

Mt = 175.6 GeV

If this is the message from nature, it differers from what we believed.

Soni: going to India Columbus discovered USA (I agree on this point)

Vacuum decay

If Mt > 171 GeV the Higgs potential

VSM = λeff(h)h4/4

falls down above h > hmax ∼ 1011 GeV

for present central values.

This instability leads to safely slow vac-

uum decay because λeff > −0.05 is neg-

ative but small.

V. Branchina shows that vacuum decay

can be faster in BSM models where VSM

is stabilised at MPl in this way:

VBSM = VSM −h6

M6Pl

+h8

M8Pl

+ · · ·

Possible, but like excavating a moat be-

fore a safety net for skiers.

102 104 106 108 1010 1012 1014 1016 1018 1020-0.15

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

h vev in GeV

Λef

f=

4V

�h4

SM potential

B.S

Mpote

nti

al?

Slow enough vacuum decay

Too fast vacuum decay

Cosmological Higgstory

Inflation probes physics at H ∼ 2.5 1014 GeV√r where r < 0.10 [Planck talk].

Can h fall in the small SM minimum rather than in the big one?Yes if 120 GeV<∼Mh<∼130 GeV

During inflation with Hubble constant H the Higgs h fluctuates acquiring a largerandom vev ∼ H, limited by Higgs coupling to gravity ξH < 0 or to inflaton.

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

h = h�hmax

Pro

bab

ilit

yaf

ter

60

e-fo

lds

H = hmax, pHh>hmaxL = 0.42, pHh®¥L = 0.00011

ΞH = 0

VHhL

If somewhere h falls in the big hole, AdS bubbles expand conquering all Minkowski.

Higgs cosmology after inflation

During the thermal phase V ∼ VSM + T2h2: h fluctuations fall back down to

h = 0. Thermal effects do not give too fast decay if Mh>∼120 GeV.

A. Kusenko showed how this out-of-equilibrium phase can give baryogengesis,

although extra ad-hoc model building is needed to avoid iso-curvature pertur-

bations (excluded by observations) by reducing Higgs fluctuations.

Modified naturalness

Naturalness attributes physical meaning to unphysical regulators and powerdivergences. Some time ago theorists believed that Maxwell eq.s need a æther,that was not found. Power divergences vanish if nature is described by a QFTwith no dimensionful parameters (no masses, no NRO) valid up to ∞ energy.

Modified naturalness only demands

δMh ∼ gextraMextra<∼Mh

RGE dominated by lighter particles with

bigger couplings. The SM is natural if

ggravity ∼ E2/MPl

stops growing before 1011 GeV.

A. Salvio: this happens if Einstein grav-

ity is replaced by adimensional gravity.

MPl dynamically generated if a quartic

runs such that λ = β(λ) = 0 around

MPl, like the Higgs quartic.102 104 106 108 1010 1012 1014 1016 1018 1020

10-15

10-10

10-5

100

Energy in GeV

Coupli

ng

toth

eH

iggs

UnnaturalN

atural

g grav

ity»

E�M

Pl

Conclusions

Not today. LHC starts in May at 13 TeV. The next 1-2 years will be crucial.

Results presented at Moriond 2016 could bring us much closer to the conclusion.