Dark matter and collider signatures of the MSSM

Andrew Fowlie; Enrico Maria Sessolo; Kamila Kowalska; Leszek Roszkowski; Yue-Lin Sming Tsai

REVIEW

Dark matter and collider signatures of the MSSM

Andrew Fowlie, Kamila Kowalska, Leszek Roszkowski, Enrico Maria Sessolo, Yue-Lin Sming Tsai

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 6 Jun 2013 · 158 references

Pith's verdict: A competent p9MSSM global fit whose headline window is narrower than the abstract implies, but the Sigma_piN treatment of XENON100 is genuinely worth having.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on November 10, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 3 major objections · 12 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID1306.1567 (version 3)

Pith ID5X3AWKP7, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationAndrew Fowlie, Enrico Maria Sessolo, Kamila Kowalska, Leszek Roszkowski, Yue-Lin Sming Tsai. "Dark matter and collider signatures of the MSSM." arXiv:1306.1567 (2013). https://pith.science/paper/5X3AWKP7

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

The thing worth your time here is not the 200–500 GeV neutralino window in the abstract; it is the XENON100 likelihood in Sec. 3.2. The authors fold the CHAOS determination of Sigma_piN = 43 ± 12 MeV into the direct-detection likelihood by profiling over it, and show in Fig. 4 that the XENON100 exclusion largely evaporates compared with the older Sigma_piN = 66 ± 6 MeV value. That is a clean, transferable point, and it is the part I would actually cite. The rest is a careful global fit of a nine-parameter MSSM: profile likelihood, six merged scans with mixed priors, two LHC searches reimplemented with Pythia plus a tuned PGS4 card and validated against the official simplified-model limits. The validation plots (Figs. 1 and 2) are honest about where the reimplementation sits relative to CMS, which is more than a lot of this literature does. On the window itself, the stress-test note is right and the reader is half right. The upper edge at 500 GeV is not a measurement; it follows from the imposed relation m_L1,2 = M1 + 50 GeV, which the authors state in Sec. 2 as a choice made to enhance g-2 and repeat in Sec. 4.2. Free the slepton masses and light sleptons can carry g-2 with a heavier neutralino, so the upper edge is a property of this slice. The abstract should say so. The lower edge is the more defensible one but carries a real uncertainty band: the EW search validation in Fig. 2 has a chargino-mass gap of up to about 50 GeV against a 200 GeV edge, and the likelihood is applied to a 2 percent subsample. One correction to the reader: the factor-1.8 LO/NLO discrepancy belongs to the alpha_T/T2bb validation, not the EW search that sets the lower edge. The indirect-detection sections are the weakest material. The per-point boost factor makes the dSphs statement a statement about required boosts rather than a constraint, and the AMS02 comparison is a null result (boosts of 60–120 needed) presented alongside positive projections. That is fine as a survey, but it is not evidence. Overall: solid, subfield-scoped, no hidden approximations, one overreaching abstract sentence. Send it out.

Referee report

Significance

The methodological core is solid and useful: a profile-likelihood treatment of a p9MSSM slice with on-the-fly reimplementations of two LHC searches, a Poisson XENON100 likelihood with the background marginalised as the collaboration specifies, and — the genuinely novel element — a profiling over the Σ_πN nuclear uncertainty rather than a fixed value. The demonstration that the CHAOS Σ_πN determination substantially weakens the XENON100 constraint on mixed bino/higgsino dark matter is a timely and reproducible result, and the explicit comparison with the older Σ_πN = 66 ± 6 MeV determination is the right way to present it. The benchmark points and the σv-versus-relic-density discussion in Appendix B are valuable for readers who use such scans. If the 200–500 GeV window survives the robustness checks requested below, it would be a meaningful statement about the current survivability of neutralino dark matter in the pMSSM.

Major objections (3)

[Abstract (s4); Sec. 2 and Table 1; Sec. 4.2] The abstract states the window 200 GeV < m_χ < 500 GeV as a result of the data, but the upper edge is partly a property of the imposed prior. Sec. 2 and Table 1 fix m_L1,2 = m_eR = m_μR = M1 + 50 GeV explicitly 'in order to enhance (g−2)_μ', and Sec. 4.2 itself notes that for a bino-like LSP an upper bound on the neutralino mass translates into an indirect bound on the smuon mass. The abstract should carry this qualification. More importantly, the manuscript should disentangle the two loops that set the upper edge: the chargino–sneutrino contribution (which, as Sec. 4.2 argues, gives m_χ± ≲ 1 TeV and hence m_χ ≲ 500 GeV for μ > M2) and the neutralino–smuon contribution (which is directly tied to the M1 + 50 GeV relation). A short scan with m_L1,2 free, or at minimum a quantitative statement of how far the 500 GeV edge moves when the relation is relaxed, is needed to support the abstract's phrasing. Relatedly, the sentence in Sec. 4.2 that the bound m_μ ≃ m_νμ ≲ 600 GeV is 'independent of our parametrization' sits uneasily with the fact that the smuon mass is fixed by M1 in this very parametrization; please reconcile the two statements.
[Sec. 3.1 and Fig. 8] The lower edge of the window is set entirely by the authors' reimplementation of the CMS 3ℓ+E_T^miss search, which is evaluated on a randomly selected sample of about 40,000 points out of 1.8 million (Sec. 3.1). The validation in Fig. 2 shows a chargino-mass discrepancy of up to about 50 GeV against the official simplified-model limit, i.e. roughly 25% of the quoted 200 GeV edge. The manuscript should quantify the statistical uncertainty on the edge introduced by the thinning (for example by bootstrapping the subsample or by reporting the local density of points near the boundary in Fig. 8), and should state whether the thinning is uniform in the profile-likelihood sense or prior-weighted. The text of Sec. 4.2 already says the edge is 200–250 GeV depending on parameters; the abstract and the Fig. 8 caption should say the same rather than quoting a single number.
[Sec. 3.2, Eq. (8)] The XENON100 likelihood profiles over Σ_πN but fixes the remaining nuclear matrix elements, m_u/m_d = 0.553, m_s/m_d = 18.9 and σ_0 = 35.5 MeV, without citing the source of these values or varying them. Since the headline claim is that the Σ_πN uncertainty 'greatly reduces' the impact of XENON100, the residual sensitivity to the other nuclear parameters should be established rather than assumed. Please vary m_s/m_d and σ_0 within their uncertainties for a representative subset of points (or quote the induced variation in σ_p^SI analytically) and cite the origin of the fixed values. This is load-bearing for the strength of the 'almost negligible' conclusion in Sec. 4.1.

Minor objections (12)

[Table 2 versus Sec. 1] Table 2 lists the CMS Higgs mass as 125.8 ± 0.6 GeV, whereas Sec. 1 quotes 125.7 ± 0.4 GeV from Ref. [2] and 125.5 ± 0.6 GeV from ATLAS. Please reconcile the central value and error used in the likelihood with the values quoted in the introduction.
[Fig. 9(a)] The caption for panel (a) of Fig. 9 is missing in the manuscript as provided; only the caption for panel (b) appears. Please supply a caption describing the 68.3% and 95.0% regions in the (m_h, m_t̃1) plane.
[Abstract (s5); Sec. 3.2] The priority claim 'for the first time' regarding the inclusion of the CHAOS Σ_πN determination in a XENON100 likelihood should either be supported by a citation check or softened, since the manuscript does not survey prior treatments of nuclear uncertainties in direct-detection likelihoods.
[Sec. 4.2] The statement that 'in the p9MSSM δ(g−2)_μ is parametrized only by m_χ' after the other constraints is an empirical observation from the scan, not a derivation; please rephrase it as such.
[Sec. 4.4.1] Adjusting the boost factor point by point to maximise the dSphs likelihood makes 'the likelihood does not exclude any of the points' a best-case statement. This should be said in the body text, not only in the figure caption, and the range of required boost factors should be summarised in the text.
[Table 3] The 'gaugino' benchmark has m_χ = 70.29 GeV, close to the LEP chargino limit of Eq. (2). Please list the chargino and slepton masses for each benchmark so that the reader can verify the LEP constraints directly.
[Fig. 10 and Appendix B] The vertical axis of Fig. 10 is labelled σv, but the quantity plotted is the present-day ⟨σv⟩_ID, not the thermally averaged cross section that enters the relic density. A label such as ⟨σv⟩_ID would prevent confusion, especially since Appendix B explains the distinction at length.
[Sec. 2] The statement that α_s and α_em are not varied because they are 'well constrained' deserves a sentence on the size of the induced shifts in m_h and Ω_χh², since the Higgs mass likelihood uses a 3 GeV theory error and α_s(m_Z) at the current precision shifts m_h by of order 1 GeV.
[Sec. 4.4.2] The choice ρ_0 = 0.4 GeV cm⁻³ is at the upper end of current determinations; please state the sensitivity of the Galactic Center comparison to this choice, or cite the determination that motivates it.
[Sec. 4.4.2] Selecting the three points with the smallest boost factor introduces a selection bias in the Galactic Center comparison; please note this explicitly when interpreting Fig. 11(b).
[Sec. 5] Typographical errors to correct: 'squarks an gluinos' and 'all contraints' in Sec. 5; 'the the γγ rate' in Sec. 4.3; 'Ho˙za 69' in the author address; 'O. Stl' in Ref. [96] should read 'O. Stal'.
[Fig. 5(a)] The 100 × 100 binning used to reduce the size of the figure also removes structure near the 95% boundary. Consider overlaying the unbinned profile-likelihood contour so that the boundary is not an artefact of the binning.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

A nine-parameter version of supersymmetry still leaves a narrow window where a neutralino can be the dark matter, satisfy the muon magnetic-moment anomaly, and escape the LHC's electroweak searches.

The reading

The paper asks whether the minimal supersymmetric standard model, stripped down to nine free parameters at the supersymmetry scale, can still produce a neutralino that is the dark matter and simultaneously survive every current measurement. The authors build a global likelihood from the Planck relic density, the 125.8 GeV Higgs mass, flavour observables, the muon anomalous magnetic moment, the XENON100 direct-detection bound, and their own reimplementation of two LHC searches at $8$ TeV. Their answer is yes, but only in a corridor: requiring the muon anomaly at $2σ$ pushes the neutralino below about $500$ GeV, while the CMS search for chargino–neutralino production with three leptons and missing energy pushes it above about $200$ GeV. A second result concerns nuclear physics: using a newer, smaller value of the pion–nucleon $Σ$ term ($43±12$ MeV from CHAOS data) makes the XENON100 bound far less statistically damaging than it looked with older, larger values. The paper is a map of what is still allowed, not a discovery.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on a profile-likelihood analysis of about $1.8×10^6$ MultiNest-sampled points, in which each point is passed through spectrum calculation, flavour and dark-matter codes, and then through purpose-built likelihoods for the experiments. Two of those likelihoods carry the weight. The first is an on-the-fly reimplementation of the CMS $α_T$ inclusive search and the CMS $3l+E_T^{miss}$ electroweak search: signal events are generated with PYTHIA 6.4, passed through a tuned PGS4 detector simulation, and compared to the published observed and background yields with a Poisson likelihood. The second is a XENON100 likelihood that separates an experimental Poisson part (two observed events, background marginalised at $b=1$, $δb=0.2$) from a theoretical part, and then profiles over $Σ_{πN}$ with a Gaussian, so that each point floats to whichever $Σ_{πN}$ maximises its likelihood. The authors are explicit about the cost of the electroweak search: because so many points are affected, that likelihood is computed only on a randomly chosen sample of roughly $40{,}000$ points, and the validation against the official simplified-model limit leaves a chargino-mass discrepancy of up to about $50$ GeV.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the p9MSSM — the MSSM with nine free parameters $M_2$, $M_3$, $m_{Q_3}$, $m_{L_3}$, $A_t$, $A_τ$, $m_A$, $μ$, $��β$ — retains a viable neutralino dark matter candidate that satisfies the Planck relic density, the measured Higgs mass, $b$-physics constraints, and the muon $g-2$ anomaly at $2σ$, while not being excluded by the strongest LHC search for electroweakino pair production. The upper edge of the allowed range comes from $δ(g-2)_μ$, which in this parametrization depends only on the neutralino mass once the other constraints are applied; the lower edge comes from the CMS $3l+E_T^{miss}$ search at $8$ TeV with $9.2$ fb$^{-1}$. The resulting window is $200$ GeV $≲ m_χ ≲ 500$ GeV. Separately, the authors show that a recent determination of the pion–nucleon $Σ$ term, $Σ_{πN}=43±12$ MeV, shrinks the excluded region from XENON100 to a small set of mixed bino/higgsino points near $m_χ ≃ 60$–$90$ GeV; with the older $Σ_{πN}=66±6$ MeV the mixed region is almost entirely excluded. They note a residual tension: the best-fit $χ^2$ with all constraints combined is slightly worse than with either $g-2$ or XENON100 alone.

Load-bearing premise

The lower edge of the allowed window rests entirely on the authors' own simulation of the CMS three-lepton plus missing-energy search, which is validated only to within about 50 GeV in chargino mass, uses leading-order cross sections that differ from the experimental ones by a factor of about 1.8, and is applied to a randomly chosen 2 percent of the scan.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the window is real, the $14$ TeV LHC run should close it: the authors state that the higher-energy run will definitely probe the $200$–$500$ GeV neutralino region.
A future XENON1T or LUX null result would strike at the mixed bino/higgsino composition that the surviving region relies on, even under the more forgiving $Σ_{πN}$ value.
If $Σ_{πN}$ settles near the older $66$ MeV value rather than the CHAOS $43$ MeV value, most of the mixed gaugino/higgsino parameter space is excluded at $95\%$ confidence by XENON100 alone.
The surviving points predict spin-dependent cross sections within reach of the five-year IceCube-86 sensitivity, so solar neutrino searches offer an independent handle on the same region.
The three benchmark points — gaugino-like at $70$ GeV, mixed at $211$ GeV, higgsino-like at $1.36$ TeV — give concrete targets for gamma-ray and positron searches, though matching AMS02 positron data would need boost factors of order $60$–$120$.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The lower edge of the window is not an experimental number in any direct sense: it is the output of the authors' own detector simulation and Poisson comparison, so a reader should treat $200$ GeV as a soft boundary whose position moves with the reimplementation, not as a published limit.
Because the electroweak likelihood was applied to only about $2\%$ of the scan, the quoted window is a statement about a thinned sample; a full application could in principle shift the lower edge or reveal excluded pockets inside the window that the sampling missed.
The paper's treatment of $Σ_{πN}$ as a profiled nuisance parameter is a template that generalises: any direct-detection bound quoted against supersymmetric models inherits a comparable factor-of-five spread in the spin-independent cross section from hadronic inputs alone.
The reported tension between $g-2$ and XENON100 is a two-sided squeeze: improving the $g-2$ measurement's precision would tighten the upper edge, while a deeper direct-detection limit would remove the mixed-composition points that sit near the lower edge.

Original abstract

We explore the MSSM with 9 free parameters (p9MSSM) that have been selected as a minimum set that allows an investigation of neutralino dark matter and collider signatures while maintaining consistency with several constraints. These include measurement of the dark matter relic density from PLANCK, main properties of the discovered Higgs boson, LHC direct SUSY searches, recent evidence for a Standard Model-like BR(Bs -> \mu+ \mu-), and the measurement of \delta(g-2), plus a number of other electroweak and flavor physics constraints. We perform a simulation of two LHC direct SUSY searches at sqrt(s)=8 TeV: the CMS inclusive \alpha_T search for squarks and gluinos and the CMS electroweak production search with 3l+E_T^miss in the final state. We use the latter to identify the regions of the parameter space, consistent at 2\sigma\ with \delta(g-2), that are not excluded by the direct limits from the electroweak production. We find that they correspond to a neutralino mass in the window 200 GeV<m_\chi<500 GeV. We also implement the likelihood for the XENON100 exclusion bound, in which we consider for the first time the impact of a recent determination of the \Sigma_{\pi N} term from CHAOS data, \Sigma_{\pi N}=43\pm12 MeV. We show that in light of this measurement, the present statistical impact of the XENON100 bound is greatly reduced, although future sensitivities of the LUX and XENON1T experiments will have decisive impact on the mixed bino/higgsino composition of the neutralino. We point out some tension between the constraints from \delta(g-2) and XENON100. Finally, we present prospects for various indirect searches of dark matter, namely \gamma-ray fluxes from dSphs and the Galactic Center at Fermi-LAT, and the positron flux at AMS02. We also show the 5-year sensitivity on the spin-dependent neutralino-proton cross section due to neutrino fluxes from the Sun at IceCube.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 8,068 input tokens, $0.0003 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.50 · states limitation 0.80 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.04 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.98 · compares with prior results 0.36 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v3. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

We explore the MSSM with 9 free parameters (p9MSSM) that have been selected as a minimum set that allows an investigation of neutralino dark matter and collider signatures while maintaining consistency with several constraints. These include measurement of the dark matter relic density from PLANCK, main properties of the discovered Higgs boson, LHC direct SUSY searches, recent evidence for a Standard Model-like BR(Bs -> \mu+ \mu-), and the measurement of \delta(g-2), plus a number of other electroweak and flavor physics constraints. We perform a simulation of two LHC direct SUSY searches at sqrt(s)=8 TeV: the CMS inclusive \alpha_T search for squarks and gluinos and the CMS electroweak production search with 3l+E_T^miss in the final state. We use the latter to identify the regions of the parameter space, consistent at 2\sigma\ with \delta(g-2), that are not excluded by the direct limits from the electroweak production. We find that they correspond to a neutralino mass in the window 200 GeV<m_\chi<500 GeV. We also implement the likelihood for the XENON100 exclusion bound, in which we consider for the first time the impact of a recent determination of the \Sigma_{\pi N} term from CHAOS data, \Sigma_{\pi N}=43\pm12 MeV. We show that in light of this measurement, the present statistical impact of the XENON100 bound is greatly reduced, although future sensitivities of the LUX and XENON1T experiments will have decisive impact on the mixed bino/higgsino composition of the neutralino. We point out some tension between the constraints from \delta(g-2) and XENON100. Finally, we present prospects for various indirect searches of dark matter, namely \gamma-ray fluxes from dSphs and the Galactic Center at Fermi-LAT, and the positron flux at AMS02. We also show the 5-year sensitivity on the spin-dependent neutralino-proton cross section due to neutrino fluxes from the Sun at IceCube.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	We explore the MSSM with 9 free parameters (p9MSSM) that have been selected as a minimum set that allows an investigation of neutralino dark matter and collider signatures while maintaining consistency with several constraints.	contribution 0.80	0.77	0.04	asserted 0.98
s1	These include measurement of the dark matter relic density from PLANCK, main properties of the discovered Higgs boson, LHC direct SUSY searches, recent evidence for a Standard Model-like BR(Bs -> \mu+ \mu-), and the measurement of \delta(g-2), plus a number of other electroweak and flavor physics constraints.	method 0.68	0.08	0.02	asserted 0.96
s2	We perform a simulation of two LHC direct SUSY searches at sqrt(s)=8 TeV: the CMS inclusive \alpha_T search for squarks and gluinos and the CMS electroweak production search with 3l+E_T^miss in the final state.	method 0.91	0.94	0.03	asserted 0.99
s3	We use the latter to identify the regions of the parameter space, consistent at 2\sigma\ with \delta(g-2), that are not excluded by the direct limits from the electroweak production.	method 0.79	0.90	0.09	asserted 0.79
s4	We find that they correspond to a neutralino mass in the window 200 GeV<m_\chi<500 GeV.	result 1.00	0.96	0.26	asserted 1.00
s5	We also implement the likelihood for the XENON100 exclusion bound, in which we consider for the first time the impact of a recent determination of the \Sigma_{\pi N} term from CHAOS data, \Sigma_{\pi N}=43\pm12 MeV.	method 0.56	0.83	0.05	asserted 0.99
s6	We show that in light of this measurement, the present statistical impact of the XENON100 bound is greatly reduced, although future sensitivities of the LUX and XENON1T experiments will have decisive impact on the mixed bino/higgsino composition of the neutralino.	interpretation 0.62	0.82	0.15	asserted 0.98
s7	We point out some tension between the constraints from \delta(g-2) and XENON100.	result 0.56	0.77	0.09	asserted 0.95
s8	Finally, we present prospects for various indirect searches of dark matter, namely \gamma-ray fluxes from dSphs and the Galactic Center at Fermi-LAT, and the positron flux at AMS02.	contribution 0.91	0.83	0.05	asserted 0.94
s9	We also show the 5-year sensitivity on the spin-dependent neutralino-proton cross section due to neutrino fluxes from the Sun at IceCube.	result 0.58	0.85	0.04	asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: simulation study 1.00 · evidence from simulation or computation 0.87.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v3

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** Our αT likelihood as a function of sparticle masses in (a) SMS Model T1 and (b) SMS Model T2bb. Points that are excluded at 3σ are shown as gray dots, at 2σ as cyan circles, and at 1σ as blue triangles. The 95% C.L. limit from CMS (solid green line) is also shown to facilitate a comparison with our result (boundary of cyan circles and blue triangles). In this paper we apply the results from two different searches: CMS inclusive search for SUSY final states with large missing transverse energy and b-quark jets in √ s = 8 TeV pp collisions with the variable αT [65]; and direct EW…

**Figure 2.** Our EW-production likelihood as a function of neutralino and chargino masses. Points

**Figure 3.** The spin-independent neutralino-proton scattering cross section versus the pion-nucleon

**Figure 4.** p9MSSM points scattered in the (mχ, σ SI p ) plane assuming (a) ΣπN = 43 ± 12 MeV and (b) ΣπN = 66±6 MeV. The XENON100 90% C.L. exclusion contour is shown in solid black. Points excluded through the likelihood of Eq. (8) at the 90% C.L. (δχ2 > 4.61) are shown as gray crosses. All the points in the plots satisfy the constraints from LEP, αT , Higgs mass, PLANCK, and flavor physics. In

**Figure 5.** (a) Scatter plot of p9MSSM points in the (

**Figure 6.** p9MSSM points that are allowed at 2σ by the basic constraints in the (mχ, σ SI p ) plane. The points consistent at 2σ with the basic and XENON100 constraints are divided by the composition of the neutralino: gaugino-like (green squares), mixed (blue circles), or higgsino-like (red stars). Points excluded at the 95% C.L. by basic+XENON100 are shown as gray crosses. (a) ΣπN = 43 ± 12 MeV, (b) ΣπN = 66 ± 6 MeV. through t-channel exchange of higgsino-like χ ± 1 and/or χ 0 2 . This is the p9MSSM equivalent of the focus point/hyperbolic branch (FP/HB) region of the CMSSM [119, 120], and…

**Figure 7.** (a) p9MSSM points scattered in the (mχ, mµ˜) plane. Points with a χ 2 from the (g − 2)µ constraint of greater than 4 are shown with gray crosses. Points with χ 2 < 1 and 1 < χ2 < 4 are shown with purple squares and orange circles, respectively. Points compatible with both (g − 2)µ and basic at 2σ are shown with light green circles. (b) p9MSSM points scattered in the (mν˜µ , m χ ± 1 ) plane. The color code is the same as in (a). and 7(b), the points for which the basic set of constraints is satisfied together with δ (g − 2)µ at 2σ are shown as green empty circles. One can identify…

**Figure 8.** Our chargino-neutralino pair production (EW) likelihood in the (

**Figure 9.** (a) 68.3% (blue points) and 95.0% (cyan diamonds) confidence regions for the

**Figure 10.** p9MSSM points allowed at 2σ by the basic constraints in the (mχ, σv) plane. The points consistent at 2σ with the basic and XENON100 constraints are shown for different composition of the neutralino: gaugino-like (green squares), mixed (blue circles), or higgsino-like (red stars). (a) ΣπN = 43 ± 12 MeV, (b) ΣπN = 66 ± 6 MeV. also be as low as 0.6. Different mechanism of di-photon rate enhancement were discussed in the literature, including the effects of the light staus [13] or light charginos [128]. In our scan, di-photon rate enhancement is in general a combination of different…

**Figure 11.** (a) p9MSSM points consistent with the basic and XENON100 constraints at 2σ in the (mχ, σv) plane. The γ-ray flux boost factor BF is indicated by the different colors: points with BF > 20 are shown with gray circles, 10 < BF < 20 with orange squares, and BF < 10 with green diamonds. (b) The expected γ-ray flux distribution above the background from the GC for three p9MSSM points (shown in

**Figure 12.** (a) p9MSSM points allowed at 2σ by the basic constraints in the (mχ, Nµ) plane. The points consistent at 2σ with the basic and XENON100 (ΣπN = 43 ± 12 MeV) constraints are characterized by the composition of the neutralino: gaugino-like (green squares), mixed (blue circles), or higgsino-like (red stars). The expected 95% C.L. sensitivity of IceCube-86 with 5 years of data is shown with a horizontal solid line. (b) Same as (a), but with ΣπN = 66 ± 6 MeV. (c) p9MSSM points consistent at 2σ with the basic and XENON100 (ΣπN = 43±12 MeV) constraints in the (mχ, σ SD p ) plane. The points

**Figure 13.** Positron flux fraction from dark matter annihilation in the Galactic halo versus the

**Figure 14.** Breakdown of χ 2 at the best-fit points in four likelihood combinations. Note that while in each plot all contributions are plotted, only specific contributions were minimized in each case. Contributions that were (were not) minimized are shown with red, darker (green, lighter) bars. The procedure for identifying these points is described in the text. The total χ 2 in each case is marked with a vertical dashed red line. 5 Summary and conclusions In this paper we have performed a global statistical analysis of a parametrization of the MSSM with 9 free parameters defined at the SUSY s

**Figure 15.** Best-fitting mass spectra of the p9MSSM in four likelihood combinations (red stars),

**Figure 16.** The Boltzmann factor, κ (dashed thin in black), and the annihilation cross section, σv (solid thin in red), versus effective neutralino momentum (p = |~p2| = | ~p1| for annihilating neutralinos labelled χ1χ2) for four p9MSSM points for which the neutralino relic density is achieved via distinct mechanisms: (a) Higgs resonance, (b) A-funnel, (c) ∼ 1 TeV higgsino, and (d) the focus point with mixed-composition neutralinos. The thermally averaged cross section, which is σv weighted by κ, hσvi ann. abund. (applicable to neutralino annihilation in the early Universe), is shown with a…

Figures reproduced from arXiv:1306.1567 by the authors.

References

Works cited (158)

[1]

CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., “Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC,” Phys.Lett. B716 (2012) 30–61, arXiv:1207.7235 [hep-ex]. ; ATLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al., “Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC,” Phys.Lett. B716 (201...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[2]

“Combination of standard model higgs boson searches and measurements of the properties of the new boson with a mass near 125 gev,” Tech. Rep. CMS-PAS-HIG-13-005, CERN, Geneva, 2013

View on Pith 2013
[3]

“Combined measurements of the mass and signal strength of the higgs-like boson with the atlas detector using up to 25 fb−1 of proton-proton collision data,” Tech. Rep. ATLAS-CONF- 2013-014, CERN, Geneva, Mar, 2013

View on Pith 2013
[4]

L. J. Hall, D. Pinner, and J. T. Ruderman, “A Natural SUSY Higgs Near 126 GeV,” JHEP 1204 (2012) 131, arXiv:1112.2703 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[5]

H. Baer, V. Barger, and A. Mustafayev, “Implications of a 125 GeV Higgs scalar for LHC SUSY and neutralino dark matter searches,” Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 075010, arXiv:1112.3017 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[6]

S. Heinemeyer, O. Stal, and G. Weiglein, “Interpreting the LHC Higgs Search Results in the MSSM,” Phys.Lett. B710 (2012) 201–206, arXiv:1112.3026 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[7]

A. Arbey et al. , “Implications of a 125 GeV Higgs for supersymmetric models,” Phys.Lett. B708 (2012) 162–169, arXiv:1112.3028 [hep-ph] . ; A. Arbey, M. Battaglia, A. Djouadi, and F. Mahmoudi, “The Higgs sector of the phenomenological MSSM in the light of the Higgs boson discovery,” JHEP 1209 (2012) 107, arXiv:1207.1348 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[8]

M. Carena, S. Gori, N. R. Shah, and C. E. Wagner, “A 125 GeV SM-like Higgs in the MSSM and the γγ rate,” JHEP 1203 (2012) 014, arXiv:1112.3336 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[9]

J. Cao et al. , “A SM-like Higgs near 125 GeV in low energy SUSY: a comparative study for MSSM and NMSSM,” JHEP 1203 (2012) 086, arXiv:1202.5821 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[10]

N. D. Christensen, T. Han, and S. Su, “MSSM Higgs Bosons at The LHC,” Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 115018, arXiv:1203.3207 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[11]

F. Brummer, S. Kraml, and S. Kulkarni, “Anatomy of maximal stop mixing in the MSSM,” JHEP 1208 (2012) 089, arXiv:1204.5977 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[12]

A. Arbey, M. Battaglia, and F. Mahmoudi, “Light Neutralino Dark Matter in the pMSSM: Implications of LEP, LHC and Dark Matter Searches on SUSY Particle Spectra,”Eur.Phys.J. C72 (2012) 2169, arXiv:1205.2557 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[13]

M. Carena, S. Gori, N. R. Shah, C. E. Wagner, and L.-T. Wang, “Light Stau Phenomenology and the Higgs γγ Rate,” JHEP 1207 (2012) 175, arXiv:1205.5842 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[14]

S. Mohanty, S. Rao, and D. Roy, “Reconciling the muon g - 2 and dark matter relic den- sity with the LHC results in nonuniversal gaugino mass models,” JHEP 1309 (2013) 027, arXiv:1303.5830 [hep-ph] . 33

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[15]

T. Han, Z. Liu, and A. Natarajan, “Dark Matter and Higgs Bosons in the MSSM,” arXiv:1303.3040 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[16]

J. Ellis and K. A. Olive, “Revisiting the Higgs Mass and Dark Matter in the CMSSM,” Eur.Phys.J. C72 (2012) 2005, arXiv:1202.3262 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[17]

H. Baer, V. Barger, and A. Mustafayev, “Neutralino dark matter in mSUGRA/CMSSM with a 125 GeV light Higgs scalar,” JHEP 1205 (2012) 091, arXiv:1202.4038 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[18]

P. Bechtle et al. , “Constrained Supersymmetry after two years of LHC data: a global view with Fittino,” JHEP 1206 (2012) 098, arXiv:1204.4199 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[19]

C. Balazs et al. , “Should we still believe in constrained supersymmetry?,” arXiv:1205.1568 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[20]

A. Fowlie, M. Kazana, K. Kowalska, S. Munir, L. Roszkowski, et al., “The CMSSM Favoring New Territories: The Impact of New LHC Limits and a 125 GeV Higgs,” Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 075010, arXiv:1206.0264 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[21]

O. Buchmueller, R. Cavanaugh, M. Citron, A. De Roeck, M. Dolan, et al., “The CMSSM and NUHM1 in Light of 7 TeV LHC, Bs to mu+mu- and XENON100 Data,” Eur.Phys.J. C72 (2012) 2243, arXiv:1207.7315 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[22]

S. Akula, P. Nath, and G. Peim, “Implications of the Higgs Boson Discovery for mSUGRA,” Phys.Lett. B717 (2012) 188–192, arXiv:1207.1839 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[23]

C. Strege, G. Bertone, F. Feroz, M. Fornasa, R. R. de Austri, et al. , “Global Fits of the cMSSM and NUHM including the LHC Higgs discovery and new XENON100 constraints,” JCAP 1304 (2013) 013, arXiv:1212.2636 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[24]

M. E. Cabrera, J. A. Casas, and R. R. de Austri, “The health of SUSY after the Higgs discovery and the XENON100 data,” arXiv:1212.4821 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[25]

K. Kowalska, L. Roszkowski, and E. M. Sessolo, “Two ultimate tests of constrained super- symmetry,” JHEP 1306 (2013) 078, arXiv:1302.5956 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[26]

G. L. Kane, C. F. Kolda, L. Roszkowski, and J. D. Wells, “Study of constrained minimal supersymmetry,” Phys. Rev. D49 (1994) 6173–6210, arXiv:hep-ph/9312272 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1994
[27]

V. Berezinsky, A. Bottino, J. R. Ellis, N. Fornengo, G. Mignola, et al. , “Neutralino dark matter in supersymmetric models with nonuniversal scalar mass terms,” Astropart.Phys. 5 (1996) 1–26, arXiv:hep-ph/9508249 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996
[28]

S. Profumo and C. E. Yaguna, “A Statistical analysis of supersymmetric dark matter in the MSSM after WMAP,” Phys.Rev. D70 (2004) 095004, arXiv:hep-ph/0407036 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[29]

L. Roszkowski, R. Ruiz de Austri, R. Trotta, Y.-L. S. Tsai, and T. A. Varley, “Global ﬁts of the Non-Universal Higgs Model,” Phys.Rev. D83 (2011) 015014, arXiv:0903.1279 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[30]

LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , “First evidence for the decay Bs → µ+µ−,” Phys.Rev.Lett. 110 (2013) 021801, arXiv:1211.2674 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[31]

A. J. Buras, J. Girrbach, D. Guadagnoli, and G. Isidori, “On the Standard Model prediction for BR(Bs,d to mu+ mu-),” Eur.Phys.J. C72 (2012) 2172, arXiv:1208.0934 [hep-ph] . 34

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[32]

A. J. Buras, R. Fleischer, J. Girrbach, and R. Knegjens, “Probing New Physics with the Bs→µ +µ− Time-Dependent Rate,” JHEP 1307 (2013) 77, arXiv:1303.3820 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[33]

“Search for gluino pair production in ﬁnal states with missing transverse momentum and at least three b-jets using 12.8 fb-1 of pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 tev with the atlas detector.,” Tech. Rep. ATLAS-CONF-2012-145, CERN, Geneva, Nov, 2012

View on Pith 2012
[34]

“Search for squarks and gluinos with the atlas detector using ﬁnal states with jets and missing transverse momentum and 5.8 fb −1 of√s=8 tev proton-proton collision data,” Tech. Rep. ATLAS-CONF-2012-109, CERN, Geneva, Aug, 2012

View on Pith 2012
[35]

“Search for direct top squark pair production in ﬁnal states with one isolated lepton, jets, and missing transverse momentum in sqrts = 8,tevpp collisions using 21 fb−1 of atlas data,” Tech. Rep. ATLAS-CONF-2013-037, CERN, Geneva, Mar, 2013

View on Pith 2013
[36]

“Search for direct sbottom production in event with two b-jets using 12.8 fb-1 of pp colli- sions at sqrts = 8 tev with the atlas detector.,” Tech. Rep. ATLAS-CONF-2012-165, CERN, Geneva, Dec, 2012

View on Pith 2012
[37]

“Search for top-squark pair production in the single lepton ﬁnal state in pp collisions at 8 tev,” Tech. Rep. CMS-PAS-SUS-13-011, CERN, Geneva, 2013

View on Pith 2013
[38]

“Search for direct ewk production of susy particles in multilepton modes with 8tev data,” Tech. Rep. CMS-PAS-SUS-12-022, CERN, Geneva, 2012

View on Pith 2012
[39]

Muon G-2 Collaboration, G. Bennett et al. , “Final Report of the Muon E821 Anomalous Magnetic Moment Measurement at BNL,” Phys.Rev. D73 (2006) 072003, arXiv:hep-ex/0602035 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[40]

M. E. Cabrera, J. A. Casas, R. Ruiz de Austri, and R. Trotta, “Quantifying the tension between the Higgs mass and ( g− 2)µ in the CMSSM,” Phys.Rev. D84 (2011) 015006, arXiv:1011.5935 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[41]

M. Cahill-Rowley, J. Hewett, A. Ismail, and T. Rizzo, “SUSY Without Prejudice at the 7 and 8 TeV LHC: Gravitino LSPs,” arXiv:1211.7106 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[42]

S. S. AbdusSalam and D. Choudhury, “Higgs boson discovery versus sparticles prediction: Impact on the pMSSM’s posterior samples from a Bayesian global ﬁt,” arXiv:1210.3331 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[43]

J. A. Conley, J. S. Gainer, J. L. Hewett, M. P. Le, and T. G. Rizzo, “Supersymmetry Without Prejudice at the LHC,” Eur.Phys.J. C71 (2011) 1697, arXiv:1009.2539 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[44]

M. W. Cahill-Rowley, J. L. Hewett, S. Hoeche, A. Ismail, and T. G. Rizzo, “The New Look pMSSM with Neutralino and Gravitino LSPs,” Eur.Phys.J. C72 (2012) 2156, arXiv:1206.4321 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[45]

S. S. AbdusSalam, “LHC-7 supersymmetry search interpretation within the pMSSM,” Phys.Rev. D87 (2013) 115012, arXiv:1211.0999 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[46]

A. Choudhury and A. Datta, “Neutralino dark matter confronted by the LHC constraints on Electroweak SUSY signals,” arXiv:1305.0928 [hep-ph] . 35

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[47]

M. Cahill-Rowley, R. Cotta, A. Drlica-Wagner, S. Funk, J. Hewett, et al., “Complementarity and Searches for Dark Matter in the pMSSM,” arXiv:1305.6921 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[48]

U. Haisch and F. Mahmoudi, “MSSM: Cornered and Correlated,” JHEP 1301 (2013) 061, arXiv:1210.7806 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[49]

A. Arbey, M. Battaglia, A. Djouadi, and F. Mahmoudi, “An update on the constraints on the phenomenological MSSM from the new LHC Higgs results,” Phys.Lett. B720 (2013) 153–160, arXiv:1211.4004 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[50]

F. Mahmoudi, A. Arbey, M. Battaglia, and A. Djouadi, “Implications of LHC Higgs and SUSY searches for MSSM,” arXiv:1211.2794 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[51]

F. Mahmoudi, A. Arbey, and M. Battaglia, “Light neutralino dark matter in MSSM,” arXiv:1211.2795 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[52]

M. Carena, J. Lykken, S. Sekmen, N. R. Shah, and C. E. Wagner, “The pMSSM Interpretation of LHC Results Using Rernormalization Group Invariants,” Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 075025, arXiv:1205.5903 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[53]

M. Carena, G. Nardini, M. Quiros, and C. E. Wagner, “MSSM Electroweak Baryogenesis and LHC Data,” JHEP 1302 (2013) 001, arXiv:1207.6330 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[54]

C. Boehm, P. S. B. Dev, A. Mazumdar, and E. Pukartas, “Naturalness of Light Neutralino Dark Matter in pMSSM after LHC, XENON100 and Planck Data,” JHEP 1306 (2013) 113, arXiv:1303.5386 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[55]

A. Arbey, M. Battaglia, and F. Mahmoudi, “Constraints on the MSSM from the Higgs Sector: A pMSSM Study of Higgs Searches, Bs→µ+µ− and Dark Matter Direct Detection,” Eur.Phys.J. C72 (2012) 1906, arXiv:1112.3032 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[56]

A. Arbey, M. Battaglia, F. Mahmoudi, and D. Martinez Santos, “Supersymmetry confronts B0s→ µ+µ−: Present and future status,” Phys.Rev. D87 (2013) 035026, arXiv:1212.4887 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[57]

F. Mahmoudi, S. Neshatpour, and J. Orloﬀ, “Supersymmetric constraints from Bs→µ+µ− and B→K∗µ+µ− observables,” JHEP 1208 (2012) 092, arXiv:1205.1845 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[58]

W. Altmannshofer, M. Carena, N. R. Shah, and F. Yu, “Indirect Probes of the MSSM after the Higgs Discovery,” JHEP 1301 (2013) 160, arXiv:1211.1976 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[59]

M. Endo, K. Hamaguchi, S. Iwamoto, and T. Yoshinaga, “Muon g-2 vs LHC in Supersym- metric Models,” arXiv:1303.4256 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[60]

M. Ibe, T. T. Yanagida, and N. Yokozaki, “Muon g-2 and 125 GeV Higgs in Split-Family Supersymmetry,” JHEP 1308 (2013) 067, arXiv:1303.6995 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[61]

M. Arana-Catania, S. Heinemeyer, and M. Herrero, “New Constraints on General Slepton Flavor Mixing,” Phys.Rev. D88 (2013) 015026, arXiv:1304.2783 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[62]

H.-B. Zhang, T.-F. Feng, S.-M. Zhao, and T.-J. Gao, “Lepton-ﬂavor violation and ( g− 2)µ in the µνSSM,” Nucl.Phys. B873 (2013) 300–324, arXiv:1304.6248 [hep-ph] . 36

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[63]

H.-S. Lee and M. Sher, “Dark Two Higgs Doublet Model,” Phys.Rev. D87 (2013) 115009, arXiv:1303.6653 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[64]

Y. Akrami, C. Savage, P. Scott, J. Conrad, and J. Edsjo, “Statistical coverage for supersym- metric parameter estimation: a case study with direct detection of dark matter,” JCAP 1107 (2011) 002, arXiv:1011.4297 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[65]

CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., “Search for supersymmetry in hadronic ﬁnal states with missing transverse energy using the variablesαT and b-quark multiplicity in pp collisions at√s = 8 TeV,” arXiv:1303.2985 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[66]

XENON100 Collaboration, E. Aprile et al. , “Dark Matter Results from 225 Live Days of XENON100 Data,” Phys.Rev.Lett. 109 (2012) 181301, arXiv:1207.5988 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[67]

J. Gasser, H. Leutwyler, and M. Sainio, “Sigma term update,” Phys.Lett. B253 (1991) 252– 259

View on Pith 1991
[68]

J. Stahov, H. Clement, and G. Wagner, “Evaluation of the Pion-Nucleon Sigma Term from CHAOS data,” arXiv:1211.1148 [nucl-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[69]

K. Kowalska, S. Munir, L. Roszkowski, E. M. Sessolo, S. Trojanowski,et al., “The Constrained NMSSM with a 125 GeV Higgs boson – A global analysis,” Phys.Rev. D87 (2013) 115010, arXiv:1211.1693 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[70]

S. Munir, L. Roszkowski, and S. Trojanowski, “Di-photon rate enhancement in the NMSSM with nearly degenerate scalar and pseudoscalar Higgs bosons,” arXiv:1305.0591 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[71]

R. Cotta, K. Howe, J. Hewett, and T. Rizzo, “Phenomenological minimal supersym- metric standard model dark matter searches on ice,” Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 035017, arXiv:1105.1199 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[72]

N. Arkani-Hamed, A. Delgado, and G. Giudice, “The Well-tempered neutralino,” Nucl.Phys. B741 (2006) 108–130, arXiv:hep-ph/0601041 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[73]

G. Bertone, D. Cerdeno, M. Fornasa, L. Pieri, R. Ruiz de Austri, et al. , “Complemen- tarity of Indirect and Accelerator Dark Matter Searches,” Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 055014, arXiv:1111.2607 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[74]

B. Allanach, “SOFTSUSY: a program for calculating supersymmetric spectra,” Com- put.Phys.Commun. 143 (2002) 305–331, arXiv:hep-ph/0104145 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[75]

F. Feroz, M. Hobson, and M. Bridges, “MultiNest: an eﬃcient and robust Bayesian inference tool for cosmology and particle physics,” Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 398 (2009) 1601–1614, arXiv:0809.3437 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[76]

A. Arbey and F. Mahmoudi, “SuperIso Relic: A program for calculating relic density and ﬂavor physics observables in Supersymmetry,” Comput.Phys.Commun. 176 (2007) 367–382, arXiv:0906.0369 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[77]

G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov, and A. Semenov, “micrOMEGAs2.0: a program to calculate the relic density of dark matter in a generic model,” Comput.Phys.Commun. 181 (2010) 1277–1292, arXiv:hep-ph/0607059 [hep-ph] . 37

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[78]

P. Gondolo et al. , “DarkSUSY: Computing supersymmetric dark matter properties numeri- cally,” JCAP 0407 (2004) 008, arXiv:astro-ph/0406204 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[79]

M. Frank, T. Hahn, S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, H. Rzehak, et al. , “The Higgs Boson Masses and Mixings of the Complex MSSM in the Feynman-Diagrammatic Approach,” JHEP 0702 (2007) 047, arXiv:hep-ph/0611326 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[80]

G. Degrassi, S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, P. Slavich, and G. Weiglein, “Towards high precision predictions for the MSSM Higgs sector,” Eur.Phys.J. C28 (2003) 133–143, arXiv:hep-ph/0212020 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003
[81]

S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, and G. Weiglein, “FeynHiggs: A Program for the calculation of the masses of the neutral CP even Higgs bosons in the MSSM,” Comput.Phys.Commun. 124 (2000) 76–89, arXiv:hep-ph/9812320 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[82]

S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, and G. Weiglein, “The Masses of the neutral CP - even Higgs bosons in the MSSM: Accurate analysis at the two loop level,” Eur.Phys.J. C9 (1999) 343– 366, arXiv:hep-ph/9812472 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999
[83]

P. Bechtle, O. Brein, S. Heinemeyer, G. Weiglein, and K. E. Williams, “HiggsBounds 2.0.0: Confronting Neutral and Charged Higgs Sector Predictions with Exclusion Bounds from LEP and the Tevatron,” Comput.Phys.Commun. 182 (2011) 2605–2631, arXiv:1102.1898 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[84]

A. Fowlie et al. , “Bayesian Implications of Current LHC and XENON100 Search Limits for the Constrained MSSM,” Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 075012, arXiv:1111.6098 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[85]

W. A. Rolke, A. M. Lopez, and J. Conrad, “Limits and conﬁdence intervals in the presence of nuisance parameters,” Nucl.Instrum.Meth. A551 (2005) 493–503, arXiv:physics/0403059 [physics]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[86]

“Combination of standard model higgs boson searches and measurements of the properties of the new boson with a mass near 125 gev,” Tech. Rep. CMS-PAS-HIG-12-045, CERN, Geneva, 2012

View on Pith 2012
[87]

Planck Collaboration, P. Ade et al. , “Planck 2013 results. XVI. Cosmological parameters,” arXiv:1303.5076 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[88]

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/hfag/rare/2012/radll/index.html

View on Pith 2012
[89]

Heavy Flavor Averaging Group Collaboration, Y. Amhis et al. , “Averages of b-hadron, c-hadron, and tau-lepton properties as of early 2012,” arXiv:1207.1158 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[90]

Particle Data Group Collaboration, J. Beringer et al., “Review of Particle Physics (RPP),” Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 010001

View on Pith 2012
[91]

J. P. Miller, E. de Rafael, and B. L. Roberts, “Muon (g-2): Experiment and theory,” Rept.Prog.Phys. 70 (2007) 795, arXiv:hep-ph/0703049 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[92]

R. R. de Austri, R. Trotta, and L. Roszkowski, “A Markov chain Monte Carlo analysis of the CMSSM,” JHEP 0605 (2006) 002, arXiv:hep-ph/0602028 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[93]

K. De Bruyn, R. Fleischer, R. Knegjens, P. Koppenburg, M. Merk, et al. , “Branching Ratio Measurements of Bs Decays,” Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 014027, arXiv:1204.1735 [hep-ph] . 38

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[94]

K. De Bruyn, R. Fleischer, R. Knegjens, P. Koppenburg, M. Merk, et al. , “Probing New Physics via the B0s → µ+µ− Eﬀective Lifetime,” Phys.Rev.Lett. 109 (2012) 041801, arXiv:1204.1737 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[95]

F. Mahmoudi, private communication

View on Pith
[96]

M. Carena, S. Heinemeyer, O. Stl, C. Wagner, and G. Weiglein, “MSSM Higgs Boson Searches at the LHC: Benchmark Scenarios after the Discovery of a Higgs-like Particle,” arXiv:1302.7033 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[97]

S. Scopel, N. Fornengo, and A. Bottino, “Embedding the 125 GeV Higgs boson measured at the LHC in an eﬀective MSSM: possible implications for neutralino dark matter,” Phys.Rev. D88 (2013) 023506, arXiv:1304.5353 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[98]

B. Bhattacherjee, M. Chakraborti, A. Chakraborty, U. Chattopadhyay, D. Das, et al., “Impli- cations of 98 GeV and 125 GeV Higgs scenario in non-decoupling SUSY with updated ATLAS, CMS and PLANCK data,” Phys.Rev. D88 (2013) 035011, arXiv:1305.4020 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[99]

T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, “PYTHIA 6.4 Physics and Manual,” JHEP 0605 (2006) 026, arXiv:hep-ph/0603175 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[100]

http://physics.ucdavis.edu/~conway/research/software/pgs/pgs4-general.htm

View on Pith
[101]

https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/pub/CMSPublic/PhysicsResultsSUS12028/SUS-12-028_ result.pdf

View on Pith
[102]

XENON100 Collaboration, E. Aprile et al. , “The XENON100 Dark Matter Experiment,” Astropart.Phys. 35 (2012) 573–590, arXiv:1107.2155 [astro-ph.IM]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[103]

XENON100 Collaboration, E. Aprile et al., “Likelihood Approach to the First Dark Matter Results from XENON100,” Phys. Rev. D84 (2011) 052003, arXiv:1103.0303 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[104]

XENON100 Collaboration, E. Aprile et al. , “Dark Matter Results from 100 Live Days of XENON100 Data,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (2011) 131302, arXiv:1104.2549 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[105]

G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, and K. Griest, “Supersymmetric dark matter,” Phys.Rept. 267 (1996) 195–373, arXiv:hep-ph/9506380 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996
[106]

J. R. Ellis, K. A. Olive, and C. Savage, “Hadronic Uncertainties in the Elastic Scattering of Supersymmetric Dark Matter,” Phys.Rev. D77 (2008) 065026, arXiv:0801.3656 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[107]

R. Catena and P. Ullio, “The local dark matter phase-space density and impact on WIMP direct detection,” JCAP 1205 (2012) 005, arXiv:1111.3556 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[108]

L. Roszkowski, E. M. Sessolo, and Y.-L. S. Tsai, “Bayesian Implications of Current LHC Supersymmetry and Dark Matter Detection Searches for the Constrained MSSM,” Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 095005, arXiv:1202.1503 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[109]

H. Denz, P. Amaudruz, J. Brack, J. Breitschopf, P. Camerini, et al. , “pi+- p diﬀerential cross sections at low energies,” Phys.Lett. B633 (2006) 209–213, arXiv:nucl-ex/0512006 [nucl-ex]. 39

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[110]

K. Raywood, S. McFarland, P. Amaudruz, G. Smith, and M. Sevior, “The CHAOS second level trigger: A Fast, programmable ECL trigger for a magnetic spectrometer using multiwire proportional chambers,” Nucl.Instrum.Meth. A357 (1995) 296–305

View on Pith 1995
[111]

R. L. Workman, R. A. Arndt, W. J. Briscoe, M. W. Paris, and I. I. Strakovsky, “Parameteri- zation dependence of t-matrix poles and eigenphases from a ﬁt to πn elastic scattering data,” Phys. Rev. C 86 (Sep, 2012) 035202. http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.86. 035202

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevc.86 2012
[112]

J. Alarcon, J. Martin Camalich, and J. Oller, “The chiral representation of the πN scattering amplitude and the pion-nucleon sigma term,” Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 051503, arXiv:1110.3797 [hep-ph] . ; J. Alarcon, L. Geng, J. M. Camalich, and J. Oller, “On the strangeness content of the nucleon,” arXiv:1209.2870 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[113]

G. E. Hite, W. B. Kaufmann, and R. J. Jacob, “New evaluation of the piNSigma term,” Phys.Rev. C71 (2005) 065201

View on Pith 2005
[114]

K. Cheung, Y.-L. S. Tsai, P.-Y. Tseng, T.-C. Yuan, and A. Zee, “Global Study of the Simplest Scalar Phantom Dark Matter Model,” JCAP 1210 (2012) 042, arXiv:1207.4930 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[115]

L. Alvarez-Ruso, T. Ledwig, J. M. Camalich, and M. Vicente-Vacas, “The nucleon mass and pion-nucleon sigma term from a chiral analysis of lattice QCD world data,”arXiv:1304.0483 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[116]

R. Arndt, W. Briscoe, I. Strakovsky, R. Workman, and M. Pavan, “Dispersion relation con- strained partial wave analysis of π N elastic and πN → ηN scattering data: The Baryon spectrum,” Phys.Rev. C69 (2004) 035213, arXiv:nucl-th/0311089 [nucl-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[117]

J. R. Ellis, L. Roszkowski, and Z. Lalak, “Higgs eﬀects on the relic supersymmetric particle density,” Phys.Lett. B245 (1990) 545–555

View on Pith 1990
[118]

J. R. Ellis, T. Falk, and K. A. Olive, “Neutralino - Stau coannihilation and the cosmological upper limit on the mass of the lightest supersymmetric particle,” Phys.Lett. B444 (1998) 367–372, arXiv:hep-ph/9810360 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998
[119]

K. L. Chan, U. Chattopadhyay, and P. Nath, “Naturalness, weak scale supersymmetry and the prospect for the observation of supersymmetry at the Tevatron and at the LHC,” Phys. Rev. D58 (1998) 096004, arXiv:hep-ph/9710473

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998
[120]

J. L. Feng, K. T. Matchev, and T. Moroi, “Focus points and naturalness in supersymmetry,” Phys. Rev. D61 (2000) 075005, arXiv:hep-ph/9909334

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[121]

M. Drees and M. M. Nojiri, “The Neutralino relic density in minimal N = 1 supergravity,” Phys.Rev. D47 (1993) 376–408, arXiv:hep-ph/9207234 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1993
[122]

M. Drees and M. Nojiri, “Neutralino - nucleon scattering revisited,” Phys.Rev. D48 (1993) 3483–3501, arXiv:hep-ph/9307208 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1993
[123]

LUX Collaboration, D. Akerib et al. , “The Large Underground Xenon (LUX) Experiment,” Nucl.Instrum.Meth. A704 (2013) 111–126, arXiv:1211.3788 [physics.ins-det]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[124]

XENON1T Collaboration, E. Aprile, “The XENON1T Dark Matter Search Experiment,” arXiv:1206.6288 [astro-ph.IM] . 40

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[125]

J. F. Gunion, Y. Jiang, and S. Kraml, “Could two NMSSM Higgs bosons be present near 125 GeV?,” Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 071702, arXiv:1207.1545 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[126]

LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group, S. Dittmaier, C. Mariotti, G. Passarino, and R. Tanaka (Eds.), “Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 1. Inclusive Observables,” CERN-2011-002 (CERN, Geneva, 2011) , arXiv:1101.0593 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[127]

S. Dittmaier, S. Dittmaier, C. Mariotti, G. Passarino, R. Tanaka, et al. , “Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 2. Diﬀerential Distributions,” arXiv:1201.3084 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[128]

J. A. Casas, J. M. Moreno, K. Rolbiecki, and B. Zaldivar, “Implications of light charginos for Higgs observables, LHC searches and dark matter,” arXiv:1305.3274 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[129]

Y.-L. S. Tsai, Q. Yuan, and X. Huang, “A generic method to constrain the dark matter model parameters from Fermi observations of dwarf spheroids,” JCAP 1303 (2013) 018, arXiv:1212.3990 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[130]

http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/data

View on Pith
[131]

T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, “A Brief Introduction to PYTHIA 8.1,” Com- put.Phys.Commun. 178 (2008) 852–867, arXiv:0710.3820 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[132]

M. Bahr, S. Gieseke, M. Gigg, D. Grellscheid, K. Hamilton, et al. , “Herwig++ Physics and Manual,” Eur.Phys.J. C58 (2008) 639–707, arXiv:0803.0883 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[133]

J. Cembranos, A. de la Cruz-Dombriz, V. Gammaldi, R. Lineros, and A. Maroto, “Reliability of Monte Carlo event generators for gamma ray dark matter searches,” arXiv:1305.2124 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[134]

A. Strong, I. Moskalenko, T. Porter, G. Johannesson, E. Orlando, et al. , “The GALPROP Cosmic-Ray Propagation Code,” arXiv:0907.0559 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[135]

J. Einasto and U. Haud, “Galactic models with massive corona. I - Method. II - Galaxy,” Astronomy and Astrophysics (ISSN 0004-6361) 223 (Oct., 1989) 89–106

View on Pith 1989
[136]

P. Salucci, F. Nesti, G. Gentile, and C. Martins, “The dark matter density at the Sun’s location,” Astron.Astrophys. 523 (2010) A83, arXiv:1003.3101 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[137]

R. Trotta, G. Johannesson, I. Moskalenko, T. Porter, R. R. de Austri, et al. , “Constraints on cosmic-ray propagation models from a global Bayesian analysis,” Astrophys.J. 729 (2011) 106, arXiv:1011.0037 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[138]

Fermi-LATCollaboration, “Fermi-LAT Observations of the Diﬀuse Gamma-Ray Emission: Implications for Cosmic Rays and the Interstellar Medium,” Astrophys.J. 750 (2012) 3, arXiv:1202.4039 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[139]

IceCube Collaboration, M. Aartsen et al. , “Search for dark matter annihilations in the Sun with the 79-string IceCube detector,” Phys.Rev.Lett. 110 (2013) 131302, arXiv:1212.4097 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[140]

PAMELA Collaboration, O. Adriani et al. , “PAMELA results on the cosmic-ray antipro- ton ﬂux from 60 MeV to 180 GeV in kinetic energy,” Phys.Rev.Lett. 105 (2010) 121101, arXiv:1007.0821 [astro-ph.HE] 41

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[141]

The Fermi LAT Collaboration, A. A. Abdo et al. , “Measurement of the Cosmic Ray e+ plus e- spectrum from 20 GeV to 1 TeV with the Fermi Large Area Telescope,”Phys.Rev.Lett. 102 (2009) 181101, arXiv:0905.0025 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[142]

AMS Collaboration, M. Aguilar et al. , “First Result from the Alpha Magnetic Spectrome- ter on the International Space Station: Precision Measurement of the Positron Fraction in Primary Cosmic Rays of 0.5350 GeV,” Phys.Rev.Lett. 110 no. 14, (2013) 141102

View on Pith 2013
[143]

M. Cirelli, M. Kadastik, M. Raidal, and A. Strumia, “Model-independent implications of the e+-, anti-proton cosmic ray spectra on properties of Dark Matter,” Nucl.Phys. B813 (2009) 1–21, arXiv:0809.2409 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[144]

J. Kopp, “Constraints on dark matter annihilation from AMS-02 results,” arXiv:1304.1184 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[145]

A. De Simone, A. Riotto, and W. Xue, “Interpretation of AMS-02 Results: Correlations among Dark Matter Signals,” JCAP 1305 (2013) 003, arXiv:1304.1336 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[146]

Q. Yuan, X.-J. Bi, G.-M. Chen, Y.-Q. Guo, S.-J. Lin, et al. , “Implications of the AMS-02 positron fraction in cosmic rays,” arXiv:1304.1482 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[147]

I. Cholis and D. Hooper, “Dark Matter and Pulsar Origins of the Rising Cosmic Ray Positron Fraction in Light of New Data From AMS,”Phys.Rev. D88 (2013) 023013, arXiv:1304.1840 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[148]

Q. Yuan and X.-J. Bi, “Reconcile the AMS-02 positron fraction and Fermi-LAT/HESS total e± spectra by the primary electron spectrum hardening,” arXiv:1304.2687 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[149]

D. T. Cumberbatch, Y.-L. S. Tsai, and L. Roszkowski, “The impact of propagation uncer- tainties on the potential Dark Matter contribution to the Fermi LAT mid-latitude gamma-ray data,” Phys.Rev. D82 (2010) 103521, arXiv:1003.2808 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[150]

E. A. Baltz and J. Edsjo, “Positron propagation and ﬂuxes from neutralino annihilation in the halo,” Phys.Rev. D59 (1998) 023511, arXiv:astro-ph/9808243 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998
[151]

J. Lavalle, J. Pochon, P. Salati, and R. Taillet, “Clumpiness of dark matter and positron annihilation signal: computing the odds of the galactic lottery,” Astron.Astrophys.462 (2007) 827–848, arXiv:astro-ph/0603796 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[152]

M. Cirelli, A. Strumia, and M. Tamburini, “Cosmology and Astrophysics of Minimal Dark Matter,” Nucl.Phys. B787 (2007) 152–175, arXiv:0706.4071 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[153]

J. Hisano, S. Matsumoto, M. M. Nojiri, and O. Saito, “Non-perturbative eﬀect on dark matter annihilation and gamma ray signature from galactic center,” Phys.Rev. D71 (2005) 063528, arXiv:hep-ph/0412403 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[154]

A. Hryczuk, R. Iengo, and P. Ullio, “Relic densities including Sommerfeld enhancements in the MSSM,” JHEP 1103 (2011) 069, arXiv:1010.2172 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[155]

P. Brun, G. Bertone, J. Lavalle, P. Salati, and R. Taillet, “Antiproton and Positron Sig- nal Enhancement in Dark Matter Mini-Spikes Scenarios,” Phys.Rev. D76 (2007) 083506, arXiv:0704.2543 [astro-ph] . 42

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[156]

J. Lavalle, Q. Yuan, D. Maurin, and X. Bi, “Full Calculation of Clumpiness Boost fac- tors for Antimatter Cosmic Rays in the light of Lambda-CDM N-body simulation results. Abandoning hope in clumpiness enhancement?,” Astron.Astrophys. 479 (2008) 427–452, arXiv:0709.3634 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[157]

T. Hurth and F. Mahmoudi, “New physics search with ﬂavour in the LHC era,” Rev.Mod.Phys. 85 (2013) 795, arXiv:1211.6453 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013
[158]

J. Edsjo, M. Schelke, P. Ullio, and P. Gondolo, “Accurate relic densities with neu- tralino, chargino and sfermion coannihilations in mSUGRA,” JCAP 0304 (2003) 001, arXiv:hep-ph/0301106 [hep-ph] . 43

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

Forward citations

Cited by 13 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Standard Model anatomy of WIMP dark matter direct detection II: QCD analysis and hadronic matrix elements
hep-ph 2014-09 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

The paper provides a complete QCD matching and renormalization-group framework connecting weak-scale WIMP operators to three-flavor QCD operators, with new higher-order threshold corrections and hadronic matrix elemen...
Dark matter, fine-tuning and $(g-2)_{\mu}$ in the pMSSM
hep-ph 2021-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Within a pMSSM scan, the surviving spectra that explain the muon anomaly, saturate the relic density and stay minimally fine-tuned all have spin-dependent dark-matter-nucleon cross sections large enough for PICO-500 a...
Relic density of wino-like dark matter in the MSSM
hep-ph 2016-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Once the Sommerfeld effect, one-loop mass splittings and running couplings are included, wino-like neutralino dark matter in the MSSM matches the observed relic density for masses from 1.7 TeV to beyond 4 TeV, not jus...
GUT-inspired SUSY and the muon g-2 anomaly: prospects for LHC 14 TeV
hep-ph 2015-03 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

For four GUT-constrained supersymmetric models that fit the muon g-2 anomaly, the dark matter relic density and the 125 GeV Higgs, simulated 14 TeV LHC searches with 300 inverse femtobarns would exclude essentially th...
What next for the CMSSM and the NUHM: Improved prospects for superpartner and dark matter detection
hep-ph 2014-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Updated CMSSM and NUHM fits still favor ~1 TeV higgsino dark matter, now with about 30% of the CMSSM probability in the A-resonance funnel, and both regions sit within reach of tonne-scale direct detection and, margin...

Show 8 more citing papers

Neutrino Mass and Dark Matter in light of recent AMS-02 results
hep-ph 2013-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Fitting the AMS-02 positron excess with a type-II seesaw dark matter model prefers a normal over an inverted neutrino mass ordering, but only with an annihilation boost factor of 10^3 to 10^4.
NMSSM neutralino dark matter for CDF II $W$-boson mass and muon $g-2$ and the promising prospect of direct detection
hep-ph 2022-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A bino-like neutralino in the 180-280 GeV range can fit the muon g-2 and CDF II W-mass anomalies in the NMSSM while satisfying relic density and direct-detection limits.
GUT-constrained supersymmetry and dark matter in light of the new $(g-2)_\mu$ determination
hep-ph 2021-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

In GUT-constrained supersymmetry with non-universal gaugino masses, a light bino, or a strongly subdominant higgsino or wino, can supply the muon g-2 anomaly, unlike in the CMSSM or NUHM.
A common origin of muon g-2 anomaly, Galaxy Center GeV excess and AMS-02 anti-proton excess in the NMSSM
hep-ph 2021-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A ~60 GeV bino-like neutralino in the NMSSM, annihilating through a singlet pseudoscalar resonance, can simultaneously fit the muon g-2 anomaly, the Fermi Galactic Center GeV excess, and the AMS-02 antiproton excess.
Likelihood Analysis of the pMSSM11 in Light of LHC 13-TeV Data
hep-ph 2017-10 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

In a global fit of the 11-parameter MSSM, imposing the muon g-2 anomaly selects a Bino-like lightest neutralino with Wino or slepton coannihilation, while dropping it selects a Higgsino-like neutralino with Higgsino o...
Supersymmetric Dark Matter after LHC Run 1
hep-ph 2015-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

In four MSSM variants, the mechanism that sets the dark matter relic density determines whether the LHC or a future direct-detection experiment such as LZ or Darwin is the most likely place to find supersymmetry.
The new "MUON G-2" Result and Supersymmetry
hep-ph 2021-04 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

With the combined Fermilab plus Brookhaven muon g-2 deviation at 4.2 sigma, a rescan of the MSSM electroweak sector sets upper limits of roughly 600 GeV on the lightest and next-to-lightest supersymmetric particles.
Dark matter production in the early Universe: beyond the thermal WIMP paradigm
hep-ph 2014-06 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

A comprehensive review argues that thermally produced WIMPs are increasingly constrained and that mixed axion/supersymmetric dark matter, including axinos and saxions, is a better-motivated target for the next generat...

How the literature uses it

52 arXiv papers cite this in 97 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 55 sentences without a confident label

Builds on it 2 papers

We extend the procedure developed in [ref] .

Natural MSSM after the LHC 8 TeV run · LHC SUSY limits · 1.00
The purpose of this work is to improve and update on previous papers [ref] that have explored the observational status and prospects of detecting neutralino DM within the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM).

Testing dark matter with Cherenkov light -- prospects of H.E.S.S. and CTA for exploring minimal supersymmetry · Introduction · 0.82

Uses its method or tool 10 papers

New results from the LHC 13 TeV are taken into account by employing the recast procedure developed and described in detail in Refs. [ref] .

Phenomenological MSSM in light of new 13 TeV LHC data · 13 TeV LHC SUSY searches · 1.00
The scans in this study are performed with the BayesFITS package [ref] , which interfaces several publicly available tools to direct the scanning procedure and calculate physical observables.

What next for the CMSSM and the NUHM: Improved prospects for superpartner and dark matter detection · Scanning methodology and experimental constraints · 1.00
The CMS 3-lepton search [ref] is recast using the code designed by some of us and described in detail in Refs. [ref] .

GUT-inspired SUSY and the muon g-2 anomaly: prospects for LHC 14 TeV · Numerical implementation of LHC searches · 0.91

Uses its data or values 3 papers

For each scenario we create a sample of more than 5000 points subject to the following constraints, whose central values are taken from Table 2 of Ref. [ref] and the uncertainties are obtained from the same table by adding the experimental and theoretical errors in quadrature. and are always satisfied at $2σ$.[With respect to Table 2 of Ref. [ref] , the measured value of was very recently updated by the LHCb and CMS Collaborations [ref] .

Natural MSSM after the LHC 8 TeV run · Naturalness in the MSSM · 0.98
The limits are given in Eq. (2) of Ref. [ref] , with the exception of the limit on the neutralino mass that has been replaced here by the LEP limit on the invisible $Z$ width, $Γ(Z→χχ)$ [ref] .

GUT-inspired SUSY and the muon g-2 anomaly: prospects for LHC 14 TeV · GUT-defined models and experimental constraints · 0.88
The limits are given in Eq. (2) of Ref. [ref] , with the exception of the limit on the neutralino mass that has been replaced here by the LEP limit on the invisible $Z$ width, $Γ(Z→χχ)$ [ref] .

Prospects for dark matter searches in the pMSSM · Scanning methodology and experimental constraints · 0.82

Compares with it 1 paper

The results for the higgsino DM relic density agree well with other recent analyses (see, e.g., [ref] ).

Neutralino and gravitino dark matter with low reheating temperature · The MSSM · 1.00

Cites it as support 2 papers

However, several studies have shown [ref] that if the experimental limits provided by the CMS and ATLAS collaborations are reinterpreted and applied to more general MSSM scenarios the 8 LHC results can only constrain a small part of the available parameter space, so that ample room still remains to attribute a supersymmetric (SUSY) origin to .

GUT-inspired SUSY and the muon g-2 anomaly: prospects for LHC 14 TeV · Introduction · 0.96
It has been shown, see e.g., [ref] , that there are good prospects for future detection of an $≃1$ neutralino.

Low fine tuning in the MSSM with higgsino dark matter and unification constraints · Spectra and phenomenology · 0.96

Cites it as background 15 papers

The collider, flavour and DM constraints on the general pMSSM were explored in several publications [ref] and the impact of stop searches was also considered [ref] .

Light stop in the MSSM after LHC Run 1 · Introduction · 0.95
Recently, a number of studies have considered the status of the pMSSM post 7 and/or 8 TeV runs of the LHC [ref] and more specifically of the light neutralino.

The invisible decay of Higgs boson in the context of a thermal and non-thermal relic in MSSM · Introduction · 0.89
Recent parameter scans of different supersymmetric scenarios, including the present work, include uncertainties in the estimation of the local dark matter density and velocity dispersion, as well as in nuclear physics quantities, like in the hadronic nucleon matrix elements [ref] .

Impact of nucleon matrix element uncertainties on the interpretation of direct and indirect dark matter search results · Introduction · 0.85

What it cites · 118 sentences without a confident label

Builds on 2 papers

In order to implement the impact of direct SUSY search limits on the p9MSSM parameter space, we extend the procedure developed previously in [ref] for the derivation of approximate but accurate likelihood maps.

Two ultimate tests of constrained supersymmetry · Likelihood for LHC direct SUSY searches · 0.91
In order to implement the impact of direct SUSY search limits on the p9MSSM parameter space, we extend the procedure developed previously in [ref] for the derivation of approximate but accurate likelihood maps.

Constrained MSSM favoring new territories: The impact of new LHC limits and a 125 GeV Higgs boson · Likelihood for LHC direct SUSY searches · 0.91

Uses the method or tool of 17 papers

DM observables, such as the relic density and DD and ID observables, are calculated with [ref] and [ref] .

DarkSUSY: Computing Supersymmetric Dark Matter Properties Numerically · Model description and numerical methodology · 1.00
DM observables, such as the relic density and DD and ID observables, are calculated with [ref] and [ref] .

micrOMEGAs2.0: a program to calculate the relic density of dark matter in a generic model · Model description and numerical methodology · 1.00
The color code indicates the boost factor required at each point to maximize the dSphs likelihood [ref] .

A generic method to constrain the dark matter model parameters from Fermi observations of dwarf spheroids · $γ$ rays from dSphs · 0.97

Uses data or values from 8 papers

In this paper we apply the results from two different searches: CMS inclusive search for SUSY final states with large missing transverse energy and $b$-quark jets in $pp$ collisions with the variable [ref] ; and direct EW production of charginos and neutralinos in $pp$ collisions at [ref] .

Search for supersymmetry in hadronic final states with missing transverse energy using the variables AlphaT and b-quark multiplicity in pp collisions at 8 TeV · Likelihood for LHC direct SUSY searches · 0.89
For the relic density we use the recent determination by PLANCK [ref] .

Planck 2013 results. XVI. Cosmological parameters · Statistical treatment of experimental constraints · 1.00
Likewise we construct an approximate but accurate likelihood function to incorporate limits on the spin-independent (SI) neutralino-nucleon cross section, , from XENON100 [ref] .

Dark Matter Results from 225 Live Days of XENON100 Data · Introduction · 0.95

Compares with 3 papers

In fig:at_8tev_smsfig:a we present the bounds obtained from our likelihood in the gluino-LSP plane for model T1 of pair-produced gluinos decaying into a neutralino and quarks of the first two generations [ref] .

Search for supersymmetry in hadronic final states with missing transverse energy using the variables AlphaT and b-quark multiplicity in pp collisions at 8 TeV · Likelihood for LHC direct SUSY searches · 0.96
This value is substantially lower than the values previously calculated using phase-shift analyses from the GWU/SAID database [ref] , or using chiral perturbation theory [ref] , and it can have substantial implications, as we shall see, when deriving limits on SUSY from DD experiments.

The chiral representation of the $\pi N$ scattering amplitude and the pion-nucleon sigma term · XENON100 likelihood · 0.93
gives $^SM_time ave=3.87×10^-9$, which is higher than the most recent time-averaged calculation, $^SM_time ave=(3.56±0.18)×10^-9$ [ref] .

Probing New Physics with the B_s to {\mu}+ {\mu}- Time-Dependent Rate · Statistical treatment of experimental constraints · 0.95

Cites as support 7 papers

However, such a possibility is confined to a very fine-tuned region of the parameter space, which is essentially ruled out by the direct search limits on the lightest Higgs $h$ and the pseudo-scalar Higgs $A$ and other experimental constraints from flavor physics [ref] .

MSSM Higgs Bosons at The LHC · Statistical treatment of experimental constraints · 0.98
However, such a possibility is confined to a very fine-tuned region of the parameter space, which is essentially ruled out by the direct search limits on the lightest Higgs $h$ and the pseudo-scalar Higgs $A$ and other experimental constraints from flavor physics [ref] .

Implications of 98 GeV and 125 GeV Higgs scenario in non-decoupling SUSY with updated ATLAS, CMS and PLANCK data · Statistical treatment of experimental constraints · 0.98
However, such a possibility is confined to a very fine-tuned region of the parameter space, which is essentially ruled out by the direct search limits on the lightest Higgs $h$ and the pseudo-scalar Higgs $A$ and other experimental constraints from flavor physics [ref] .

MSSM Higgs Boson Searches at the LHC: Benchmark Scenarios after the Discovery of a Higgs-like Particle · Statistical treatment of experimental constraints · 0.98

Cites as background 22 papers

Most of the papers on these “p$n$MSSM” models analyzed the impact of constraints from direct LHC SUSY searches [ref] , from the Higgs discovery [ref] , from $b$-physics [ref] , and from direct and indirect detection of DM [ref] .

Supersymmetry Without Prejudice at the LHC · Introduction · 0.95
Most of the papers on these “p$n$MSSM” models analyzed the impact of constraints from direct LHC SUSY searches [ref] , from the Higgs discovery [ref] , from $b$-physics [ref] , and from direct and indirect detection of DM [ref] .

Constraints on the MSSM from the Higgs Sector - A pMSSM Study of Higgs Searches, Bs -> mu+ mu- and Dark Matter Direct Detection · Introduction · 0.95
Most of the papers on these “p$n$MSSM” models analyzed the impact of constraints from direct LHC SUSY searches [ref] , from the Higgs discovery [ref] , from $b$-physics [ref] , and from direct and indirect detection of DM [ref] .

Supersymmetric constraints from Bs -> mu+mu- and B -> K* mu+mu- observables · Introduction · 0.95

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [1]

CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., “Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC,” Phys.Lett. B716 (2012) 30–61, arXiv:1207.7235 [hep-ex]. ; ATLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al., “Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC,” Phys.Lett. B716 (201...

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[2] [2]

“Combination of standard model higgs boson searches and measurements of the properties of the new boson with a mass near 125 gev,” Tech. Rep. CMS-PAS-HIG-13-005, CERN, Geneva, 2013

View on Pith 2013

[3] [3]

“Combined measurements of the mass and signal strength of the higgs-like boson with the atlas detector using up to 25 fb−1 of proton-proton collision data,” Tech. Rep. ATLAS-CONF- 2013-014, CERN, Geneva, Mar, 2013

View on Pith 2013

[4] [4]

L. J. Hall, D. Pinner, and J. T. Ruderman, “A Natural SUSY Higgs Near 126 GeV,” JHEP 1204 (2012) 131, arXiv:1112.2703 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[5] [5]

H. Baer, V. Barger, and A. Mustafayev, “Implications of a 125 GeV Higgs scalar for LHC SUSY and neutralino dark matter searches,” Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 075010, arXiv:1112.3017 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[6] [6]

S. Heinemeyer, O. Stal, and G. Weiglein, “Interpreting the LHC Higgs Search Results in the MSSM,” Phys.Lett. B710 (2012) 201–206, arXiv:1112.3026 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[7] [7]

A. Arbey et al. , “Implications of a 125 GeV Higgs for supersymmetric models,” Phys.Lett. B708 (2012) 162–169, arXiv:1112.3028 [hep-ph] . ; A. Arbey, M. Battaglia, A. Djouadi, and F. Mahmoudi, “The Higgs sector of the phenomenological MSSM in the light of the Higgs boson discovery,” JHEP 1209 (2012) 107, arXiv:1207.1348 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[8] [8]

M. Carena, S. Gori, N. R. Shah, and C. E. Wagner, “A 125 GeV SM-like Higgs in the MSSM and the γγ rate,” JHEP 1203 (2012) 014, arXiv:1112.3336 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[9] [9]

J. Cao et al. , “A SM-like Higgs near 125 GeV in low energy SUSY: a comparative study for MSSM and NMSSM,” JHEP 1203 (2012) 086, arXiv:1202.5821 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[10] [10]

N. D. Christensen, T. Han, and S. Su, “MSSM Higgs Bosons at The LHC,” Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 115018, arXiv:1203.3207 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[11] [11]

F. Brummer, S. Kraml, and S. Kulkarni, “Anatomy of maximal stop mixing in the MSSM,” JHEP 1208 (2012) 089, arXiv:1204.5977 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[12] [12]

A. Arbey, M. Battaglia, and F. Mahmoudi, “Light Neutralino Dark Matter in the pMSSM: Implications of LEP, LHC and Dark Matter Searches on SUSY Particle Spectra,”Eur.Phys.J. C72 (2012) 2169, arXiv:1205.2557 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[13] [13]

M. Carena, S. Gori, N. R. Shah, C. E. Wagner, and L.-T. Wang, “Light Stau Phenomenology and the Higgs γγ Rate,” JHEP 1207 (2012) 175, arXiv:1205.5842 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[14] [14]

S. Mohanty, S. Rao, and D. Roy, “Reconciling the muon g - 2 and dark matter relic den- sity with the LHC results in nonuniversal gaugino mass models,” JHEP 1309 (2013) 027, arXiv:1303.5830 [hep-ph] . 33

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[15] [15]

T. Han, Z. Liu, and A. Natarajan, “Dark Matter and Higgs Bosons in the MSSM,” arXiv:1303.3040 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[16] [16]

J. Ellis and K. A. Olive, “Revisiting the Higgs Mass and Dark Matter in the CMSSM,” Eur.Phys.J. C72 (2012) 2005, arXiv:1202.3262 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[17] [17]

H. Baer, V. Barger, and A. Mustafayev, “Neutralino dark matter in mSUGRA/CMSSM with a 125 GeV light Higgs scalar,” JHEP 1205 (2012) 091, arXiv:1202.4038 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[18] [18]

P. Bechtle et al. , “Constrained Supersymmetry after two years of LHC data: a global view with Fittino,” JHEP 1206 (2012) 098, arXiv:1204.4199 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[19] [19]

C. Balazs et al. , “Should we still believe in constrained supersymmetry?,” arXiv:1205.1568 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[20] [20]

A. Fowlie, M. Kazana, K. Kowalska, S. Munir, L. Roszkowski, et al., “The CMSSM Favoring New Territories: The Impact of New LHC Limits and a 125 GeV Higgs,” Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 075010, arXiv:1206.0264 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[21] [21]

O. Buchmueller, R. Cavanaugh, M. Citron, A. De Roeck, M. Dolan, et al., “The CMSSM and NUHM1 in Light of 7 TeV LHC, Bs to mu+mu- and XENON100 Data,” Eur.Phys.J. C72 (2012) 2243, arXiv:1207.7315 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[22] [22]

S. Akula, P. Nath, and G. Peim, “Implications of the Higgs Boson Discovery for mSUGRA,” Phys.Lett. B717 (2012) 188–192, arXiv:1207.1839 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[23] [23]

C. Strege, G. Bertone, F. Feroz, M. Fornasa, R. R. de Austri, et al. , “Global Fits of the cMSSM and NUHM including the LHC Higgs discovery and new XENON100 constraints,” JCAP 1304 (2013) 013, arXiv:1212.2636 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[24] [24]

M. E. Cabrera, J. A. Casas, and R. R. de Austri, “The health of SUSY after the Higgs discovery and the XENON100 data,” arXiv:1212.4821 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[25] [25]

K. Kowalska, L. Roszkowski, and E. M. Sessolo, “Two ultimate tests of constrained super- symmetry,” JHEP 1306 (2013) 078, arXiv:1302.5956 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[26] [26]

G. L. Kane, C. F. Kolda, L. Roszkowski, and J. D. Wells, “Study of constrained minimal supersymmetry,” Phys. Rev. D49 (1994) 6173–6210, arXiv:hep-ph/9312272 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1994

[27] [27]

V. Berezinsky, A. Bottino, J. R. Ellis, N. Fornengo, G. Mignola, et al. , “Neutralino dark matter in supersymmetric models with nonuniversal scalar mass terms,” Astropart.Phys. 5 (1996) 1–26, arXiv:hep-ph/9508249 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996

[28] [28]

S. Profumo and C. E. Yaguna, “A Statistical analysis of supersymmetric dark matter in the MSSM after WMAP,” Phys.Rev. D70 (2004) 095004, arXiv:hep-ph/0407036 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[29] [29]

L. Roszkowski, R. Ruiz de Austri, R. Trotta, Y.-L. S. Tsai, and T. A. Varley, “Global ﬁts of the Non-Universal Higgs Model,” Phys.Rev. D83 (2011) 015014, arXiv:0903.1279 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[30] [30]

LHCb Collaboration, R. Aaij et al. , “First evidence for the decay Bs → µ+µ−,” Phys.Rev.Lett. 110 (2013) 021801, arXiv:1211.2674 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[31] [31]

A. J. Buras, J. Girrbach, D. Guadagnoli, and G. Isidori, “On the Standard Model prediction for BR(Bs,d to mu+ mu-),” Eur.Phys.J. C72 (2012) 2172, arXiv:1208.0934 [hep-ph] . 34

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[32] [32]

A. J. Buras, R. Fleischer, J. Girrbach, and R. Knegjens, “Probing New Physics with the Bs→µ +µ− Time-Dependent Rate,” JHEP 1307 (2013) 77, arXiv:1303.3820 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[33] [33]

“Search for gluino pair production in ﬁnal states with missing transverse momentum and at least three b-jets using 12.8 fb-1 of pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 tev with the atlas detector.,” Tech. Rep. ATLAS-CONF-2012-145, CERN, Geneva, Nov, 2012

View on Pith 2012

[34] [34]

“Search for squarks and gluinos with the atlas detector using ﬁnal states with jets and missing transverse momentum and 5.8 fb −1 of√s=8 tev proton-proton collision data,” Tech. Rep. ATLAS-CONF-2012-109, CERN, Geneva, Aug, 2012

View on Pith 2012

[35] [35]

“Search for direct top squark pair production in ﬁnal states with one isolated lepton, jets, and missing transverse momentum in sqrts = 8,tevpp collisions using 21 fb−1 of atlas data,” Tech. Rep. ATLAS-CONF-2013-037, CERN, Geneva, Mar, 2013

View on Pith 2013

[36] [36]

“Search for direct sbottom production in event with two b-jets using 12.8 fb-1 of pp colli- sions at sqrts = 8 tev with the atlas detector.,” Tech. Rep. ATLAS-CONF-2012-165, CERN, Geneva, Dec, 2012

View on Pith 2012

[37] [37]

“Search for top-squark pair production in the single lepton ﬁnal state in pp collisions at 8 tev,” Tech. Rep. CMS-PAS-SUS-13-011, CERN, Geneva, 2013

View on Pith 2013

[38] [38]

“Search for direct ewk production of susy particles in multilepton modes with 8tev data,” Tech. Rep. CMS-PAS-SUS-12-022, CERN, Geneva, 2012

View on Pith 2012

[39] [39]

Muon G-2 Collaboration, G. Bennett et al. , “Final Report of the Muon E821 Anomalous Magnetic Moment Measurement at BNL,” Phys.Rev. D73 (2006) 072003, arXiv:hep-ex/0602035 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[40] [40]

M. E. Cabrera, J. A. Casas, R. Ruiz de Austri, and R. Trotta, “Quantifying the tension between the Higgs mass and ( g− 2)µ in the CMSSM,” Phys.Rev. D84 (2011) 015006, arXiv:1011.5935 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[41] [41]

M. Cahill-Rowley, J. Hewett, A. Ismail, and T. Rizzo, “SUSY Without Prejudice at the 7 and 8 TeV LHC: Gravitino LSPs,” arXiv:1211.7106 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[42] [42]

S. S. AbdusSalam and D. Choudhury, “Higgs boson discovery versus sparticles prediction: Impact on the pMSSM’s posterior samples from a Bayesian global ﬁt,” arXiv:1210.3331 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[43] [43]

J. A. Conley, J. S. Gainer, J. L. Hewett, M. P. Le, and T. G. Rizzo, “Supersymmetry Without Prejudice at the LHC,” Eur.Phys.J. C71 (2011) 1697, arXiv:1009.2539 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[44] [44]

M. W. Cahill-Rowley, J. L. Hewett, S. Hoeche, A. Ismail, and T. G. Rizzo, “The New Look pMSSM with Neutralino and Gravitino LSPs,” Eur.Phys.J. C72 (2012) 2156, arXiv:1206.4321 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[45] [45]

S. S. AbdusSalam, “LHC-7 supersymmetry search interpretation within the pMSSM,” Phys.Rev. D87 (2013) 115012, arXiv:1211.0999 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[46] [46]

A. Choudhury and A. Datta, “Neutralino dark matter confronted by the LHC constraints on Electroweak SUSY signals,” arXiv:1305.0928 [hep-ph] . 35

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[47] [47]

M. Cahill-Rowley, R. Cotta, A. Drlica-Wagner, S. Funk, J. Hewett, et al., “Complementarity and Searches for Dark Matter in the pMSSM,” arXiv:1305.6921 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[48] [48]

U. Haisch and F. Mahmoudi, “MSSM: Cornered and Correlated,” JHEP 1301 (2013) 061, arXiv:1210.7806 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[49] [49]

A. Arbey, M. Battaglia, A. Djouadi, and F. Mahmoudi, “An update on the constraints on the phenomenological MSSM from the new LHC Higgs results,” Phys.Lett. B720 (2013) 153–160, arXiv:1211.4004 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[50] [50]

F. Mahmoudi, A. Arbey, M. Battaglia, and A. Djouadi, “Implications of LHC Higgs and SUSY searches for MSSM,” arXiv:1211.2794 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[51] [51]

F. Mahmoudi, A. Arbey, and M. Battaglia, “Light neutralino dark matter in MSSM,” arXiv:1211.2795 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[52] [52]

M. Carena, J. Lykken, S. Sekmen, N. R. Shah, and C. E. Wagner, “The pMSSM Interpretation of LHC Results Using Rernormalization Group Invariants,” Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 075025, arXiv:1205.5903 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[53] [53]

M. Carena, G. Nardini, M. Quiros, and C. E. Wagner, “MSSM Electroweak Baryogenesis and LHC Data,” JHEP 1302 (2013) 001, arXiv:1207.6330 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[54] [54]

C. Boehm, P. S. B. Dev, A. Mazumdar, and E. Pukartas, “Naturalness of Light Neutralino Dark Matter in pMSSM after LHC, XENON100 and Planck Data,” JHEP 1306 (2013) 113, arXiv:1303.5386 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[55] [55]

A. Arbey, M. Battaglia, and F. Mahmoudi, “Constraints on the MSSM from the Higgs Sector: A pMSSM Study of Higgs Searches, Bs→µ+µ− and Dark Matter Direct Detection,” Eur.Phys.J. C72 (2012) 1906, arXiv:1112.3032 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[56] [56]

A. Arbey, M. Battaglia, F. Mahmoudi, and D. Martinez Santos, “Supersymmetry confronts B0s→ µ+µ−: Present and future status,” Phys.Rev. D87 (2013) 035026, arXiv:1212.4887 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[57] [57]

F. Mahmoudi, S. Neshatpour, and J. Orloﬀ, “Supersymmetric constraints from Bs→µ+µ− and B→K∗µ+µ− observables,” JHEP 1208 (2012) 092, arXiv:1205.1845 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[58] [58]

W. Altmannshofer, M. Carena, N. R. Shah, and F. Yu, “Indirect Probes of the MSSM after the Higgs Discovery,” JHEP 1301 (2013) 160, arXiv:1211.1976 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[59] [59]

M. Endo, K. Hamaguchi, S. Iwamoto, and T. Yoshinaga, “Muon g-2 vs LHC in Supersym- metric Models,” arXiv:1303.4256 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[60] [60]

M. Ibe, T. T. Yanagida, and N. Yokozaki, “Muon g-2 and 125 GeV Higgs in Split-Family Supersymmetry,” JHEP 1308 (2013) 067, arXiv:1303.6995 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[61] [61]

M. Arana-Catania, S. Heinemeyer, and M. Herrero, “New Constraints on General Slepton Flavor Mixing,” Phys.Rev. D88 (2013) 015026, arXiv:1304.2783 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[62] [62]

H.-B. Zhang, T.-F. Feng, S.-M. Zhao, and T.-J. Gao, “Lepton-ﬂavor violation and ( g− 2)µ in the µνSSM,” Nucl.Phys. B873 (2013) 300–324, arXiv:1304.6248 [hep-ph] . 36

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[63] [63]

H.-S. Lee and M. Sher, “Dark Two Higgs Doublet Model,” Phys.Rev. D87 (2013) 115009, arXiv:1303.6653 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[64] [64]

Y. Akrami, C. Savage, P. Scott, J. Conrad, and J. Edsjo, “Statistical coverage for supersym- metric parameter estimation: a case study with direct detection of dark matter,” JCAP 1107 (2011) 002, arXiv:1011.4297 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[65] [65]

CMS Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., “Search for supersymmetry in hadronic ﬁnal states with missing transverse energy using the variablesαT and b-quark multiplicity in pp collisions at√s = 8 TeV,” arXiv:1303.2985 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[66] [66]

XENON100 Collaboration, E. Aprile et al. , “Dark Matter Results from 225 Live Days of XENON100 Data,” Phys.Rev.Lett. 109 (2012) 181301, arXiv:1207.5988 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[67] [67]

J. Gasser, H. Leutwyler, and M. Sainio, “Sigma term update,” Phys.Lett. B253 (1991) 252– 259

View on Pith 1991

[68] [68]

J. Stahov, H. Clement, and G. Wagner, “Evaluation of the Pion-Nucleon Sigma Term from CHAOS data,” arXiv:1211.1148 [nucl-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[69] [69]

K. Kowalska, S. Munir, L. Roszkowski, E. M. Sessolo, S. Trojanowski,et al., “The Constrained NMSSM with a 125 GeV Higgs boson – A global analysis,” Phys.Rev. D87 (2013) 115010, arXiv:1211.1693 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[70] [70]

S. Munir, L. Roszkowski, and S. Trojanowski, “Di-photon rate enhancement in the NMSSM with nearly degenerate scalar and pseudoscalar Higgs bosons,” arXiv:1305.0591 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[71] [71]

R. Cotta, K. Howe, J. Hewett, and T. Rizzo, “Phenomenological minimal supersym- metric standard model dark matter searches on ice,” Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 035017, arXiv:1105.1199 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[72] [72]

N. Arkani-Hamed, A. Delgado, and G. Giudice, “The Well-tempered neutralino,” Nucl.Phys. B741 (2006) 108–130, arXiv:hep-ph/0601041 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[73] [73]

G. Bertone, D. Cerdeno, M. Fornasa, L. Pieri, R. Ruiz de Austri, et al. , “Complemen- tarity of Indirect and Accelerator Dark Matter Searches,” Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 055014, arXiv:1111.2607 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[74] [74]

B. Allanach, “SOFTSUSY: a program for calculating supersymmetric spectra,” Com- put.Phys.Commun. 143 (2002) 305–331, arXiv:hep-ph/0104145 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[75] [75]

F. Feroz, M. Hobson, and M. Bridges, “MultiNest: an eﬃcient and robust Bayesian inference tool for cosmology and particle physics,” Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 398 (2009) 1601–1614, arXiv:0809.3437 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[76] [76]

A. Arbey and F. Mahmoudi, “SuperIso Relic: A program for calculating relic density and ﬂavor physics observables in Supersymmetry,” Comput.Phys.Commun. 176 (2007) 367–382, arXiv:0906.0369 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[77] [77]

G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov, and A. Semenov, “micrOMEGAs2.0: a program to calculate the relic density of dark matter in a generic model,” Comput.Phys.Commun. 181 (2010) 1277–1292, arXiv:hep-ph/0607059 [hep-ph] . 37

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[78] [78]

P. Gondolo et al. , “DarkSUSY: Computing supersymmetric dark matter properties numeri- cally,” JCAP 0407 (2004) 008, arXiv:astro-ph/0406204 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[79] [79]

M. Frank, T. Hahn, S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, H. Rzehak, et al. , “The Higgs Boson Masses and Mixings of the Complex MSSM in the Feynman-Diagrammatic Approach,” JHEP 0702 (2007) 047, arXiv:hep-ph/0611326 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[80] [80]

G. Degrassi, S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, P. Slavich, and G. Weiglein, “Towards high precision predictions for the MSSM Higgs sector,” Eur.Phys.J. C28 (2003) 133–143, arXiv:hep-ph/0212020 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003

[81] [81]

S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, and G. Weiglein, “FeynHiggs: A Program for the calculation of the masses of the neutral CP even Higgs bosons in the MSSM,” Comput.Phys.Commun. 124 (2000) 76–89, arXiv:hep-ph/9812320 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[82] [82]

S. Heinemeyer, W. Hollik, and G. Weiglein, “The Masses of the neutral CP - even Higgs bosons in the MSSM: Accurate analysis at the two loop level,” Eur.Phys.J. C9 (1999) 343– 366, arXiv:hep-ph/9812472 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999

[83] [83]

P. Bechtle, O. Brein, S. Heinemeyer, G. Weiglein, and K. E. Williams, “HiggsBounds 2.0.0: Confronting Neutral and Charged Higgs Sector Predictions with Exclusion Bounds from LEP and the Tevatron,” Comput.Phys.Commun. 182 (2011) 2605–2631, arXiv:1102.1898 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[84] [84]

A. Fowlie et al. , “Bayesian Implications of Current LHC and XENON100 Search Limits for the Constrained MSSM,” Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 075012, arXiv:1111.6098 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[85] [85]

W. A. Rolke, A. M. Lopez, and J. Conrad, “Limits and conﬁdence intervals in the presence of nuisance parameters,” Nucl.Instrum.Meth. A551 (2005) 493–503, arXiv:physics/0403059 [physics]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[86] [86]

“Combination of standard model higgs boson searches and measurements of the properties of the new boson with a mass near 125 gev,” Tech. Rep. CMS-PAS-HIG-12-045, CERN, Geneva, 2012

View on Pith 2012

[87] [87]

Planck Collaboration, P. Ade et al. , “Planck 2013 results. XVI. Cosmological parameters,” arXiv:1303.5076 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[88] [88]

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/hfag/rare/2012/radll/index.html

View on Pith 2012

[89] [89]

Heavy Flavor Averaging Group Collaboration, Y. Amhis et al. , “Averages of b-hadron, c-hadron, and tau-lepton properties as of early 2012,” arXiv:1207.1158 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[90] [90]

Particle Data Group Collaboration, J. Beringer et al., “Review of Particle Physics (RPP),” Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 010001

View on Pith 2012

[91] [91]

J. P. Miller, E. de Rafael, and B. L. Roberts, “Muon (g-2): Experiment and theory,” Rept.Prog.Phys. 70 (2007) 795, arXiv:hep-ph/0703049 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[92] [92]

R. R. de Austri, R. Trotta, and L. Roszkowski, “A Markov chain Monte Carlo analysis of the CMSSM,” JHEP 0605 (2006) 002, arXiv:hep-ph/0602028 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[93] [93]

K. De Bruyn, R. Fleischer, R. Knegjens, P. Koppenburg, M. Merk, et al. , “Branching Ratio Measurements of Bs Decays,” Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 014027, arXiv:1204.1735 [hep-ph] . 38

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[94] [94]

K. De Bruyn, R. Fleischer, R. Knegjens, P. Koppenburg, M. Merk, et al. , “Probing New Physics via the B0s → µ+µ− Eﬀective Lifetime,” Phys.Rev.Lett. 109 (2012) 041801, arXiv:1204.1737 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[95] [95]

F. Mahmoudi, private communication

View on Pith

[96] [96]

M. Carena, S. Heinemeyer, O. Stl, C. Wagner, and G. Weiglein, “MSSM Higgs Boson Searches at the LHC: Benchmark Scenarios after the Discovery of a Higgs-like Particle,” arXiv:1302.7033 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[97] [97]

S. Scopel, N. Fornengo, and A. Bottino, “Embedding the 125 GeV Higgs boson measured at the LHC in an eﬀective MSSM: possible implications for neutralino dark matter,” Phys.Rev. D88 (2013) 023506, arXiv:1304.5353 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[98] [98]

B. Bhattacherjee, M. Chakraborti, A. Chakraborty, U. Chattopadhyay, D. Das, et al., “Impli- cations of 98 GeV and 125 GeV Higgs scenario in non-decoupling SUSY with updated ATLAS, CMS and PLANCK data,” Phys.Rev. D88 (2013) 035011, arXiv:1305.4020 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[99] [99]

T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, “PYTHIA 6.4 Physics and Manual,” JHEP 0605 (2006) 026, arXiv:hep-ph/0603175 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[100] [100]

http://physics.ucdavis.edu/~conway/research/software/pgs/pgs4-general.htm

View on Pith

[101] [101]

https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/pub/CMSPublic/PhysicsResultsSUS12028/SUS-12-028_ result.pdf

View on Pith

[102] [102]

XENON100 Collaboration, E. Aprile et al. , “The XENON100 Dark Matter Experiment,” Astropart.Phys. 35 (2012) 573–590, arXiv:1107.2155 [astro-ph.IM]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[103] [103]

XENON100 Collaboration, E. Aprile et al., “Likelihood Approach to the First Dark Matter Results from XENON100,” Phys. Rev. D84 (2011) 052003, arXiv:1103.0303 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[104] [104]

XENON100 Collaboration, E. Aprile et al. , “Dark Matter Results from 100 Live Days of XENON100 Data,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (2011) 131302, arXiv:1104.2549 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[105] [105]

G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, and K. Griest, “Supersymmetric dark matter,” Phys.Rept. 267 (1996) 195–373, arXiv:hep-ph/9506380 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996

[106] [106]

J. R. Ellis, K. A. Olive, and C. Savage, “Hadronic Uncertainties in the Elastic Scattering of Supersymmetric Dark Matter,” Phys.Rev. D77 (2008) 065026, arXiv:0801.3656 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[107] [107]

R. Catena and P. Ullio, “The local dark matter phase-space density and impact on WIMP direct detection,” JCAP 1205 (2012) 005, arXiv:1111.3556 [astro-ph.CO]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[108] [108]

L. Roszkowski, E. M. Sessolo, and Y.-L. S. Tsai, “Bayesian Implications of Current LHC Supersymmetry and Dark Matter Detection Searches for the Constrained MSSM,” Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 095005, arXiv:1202.1503 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[109] [109]

H. Denz, P. Amaudruz, J. Brack, J. Breitschopf, P. Camerini, et al. , “pi+- p diﬀerential cross sections at low energies,” Phys.Lett. B633 (2006) 209–213, arXiv:nucl-ex/0512006 [nucl-ex]. 39

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[110] [110]

K. Raywood, S. McFarland, P. Amaudruz, G. Smith, and M. Sevior, “The CHAOS second level trigger: A Fast, programmable ECL trigger for a magnetic spectrometer using multiwire proportional chambers,” Nucl.Instrum.Meth. A357 (1995) 296–305

View on Pith 1995

[111] [111]

R. L. Workman, R. A. Arndt, W. J. Briscoe, M. W. Paris, and I. I. Strakovsky, “Parameteri- zation dependence of t-matrix poles and eigenphases from a ﬁt to πn elastic scattering data,” Phys. Rev. C 86 (Sep, 2012) 035202. http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.86. 035202

View on Pith doi:10.1103/physrevc.86 2012

[112] [112]

J. Alarcon, J. Martin Camalich, and J. Oller, “The chiral representation of the πN scattering amplitude and the pion-nucleon sigma term,” Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 051503, arXiv:1110.3797 [hep-ph] . ; J. Alarcon, L. Geng, J. M. Camalich, and J. Oller, “On the strangeness content of the nucleon,” arXiv:1209.2870 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[113] [113]

G. E. Hite, W. B. Kaufmann, and R. J. Jacob, “New evaluation of the piNSigma term,” Phys.Rev. C71 (2005) 065201

View on Pith 2005

[114] [114]

K. Cheung, Y.-L. S. Tsai, P.-Y. Tseng, T.-C. Yuan, and A. Zee, “Global Study of the Simplest Scalar Phantom Dark Matter Model,” JCAP 1210 (2012) 042, arXiv:1207.4930 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[115] [115]

L. Alvarez-Ruso, T. Ledwig, J. M. Camalich, and M. Vicente-Vacas, “The nucleon mass and pion-nucleon sigma term from a chiral analysis of lattice QCD world data,”arXiv:1304.0483 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[116] [116]

R. Arndt, W. Briscoe, I. Strakovsky, R. Workman, and M. Pavan, “Dispersion relation con- strained partial wave analysis of π N elastic and πN → ηN scattering data: The Baryon spectrum,” Phys.Rev. C69 (2004) 035213, arXiv:nucl-th/0311089 [nucl-th]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[117] [117]

J. R. Ellis, L. Roszkowski, and Z. Lalak, “Higgs eﬀects on the relic supersymmetric particle density,” Phys.Lett. B245 (1990) 545–555

View on Pith 1990

[118] [118]

J. R. Ellis, T. Falk, and K. A. Olive, “Neutralino - Stau coannihilation and the cosmological upper limit on the mass of the lightest supersymmetric particle,” Phys.Lett. B444 (1998) 367–372, arXiv:hep-ph/9810360 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998

[119] [119]

K. L. Chan, U. Chattopadhyay, and P. Nath, “Naturalness, weak scale supersymmetry and the prospect for the observation of supersymmetry at the Tevatron and at the LHC,” Phys. Rev. D58 (1998) 096004, arXiv:hep-ph/9710473

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998

[120] [120]

J. L. Feng, K. T. Matchev, and T. Moroi, “Focus points and naturalness in supersymmetry,” Phys. Rev. D61 (2000) 075005, arXiv:hep-ph/9909334

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[121] [121]

M. Drees and M. M. Nojiri, “The Neutralino relic density in minimal N = 1 supergravity,” Phys.Rev. D47 (1993) 376–408, arXiv:hep-ph/9207234 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1993

[122] [122]

M. Drees and M. Nojiri, “Neutralino - nucleon scattering revisited,” Phys.Rev. D48 (1993) 3483–3501, arXiv:hep-ph/9307208 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1993

[123] [123]

LUX Collaboration, D. Akerib et al. , “The Large Underground Xenon (LUX) Experiment,” Nucl.Instrum.Meth. A704 (2013) 111–126, arXiv:1211.3788 [physics.ins-det]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[124] [124]

XENON1T Collaboration, E. Aprile, “The XENON1T Dark Matter Search Experiment,” arXiv:1206.6288 [astro-ph.IM] . 40

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[125] [125]

J. F. Gunion, Y. Jiang, and S. Kraml, “Could two NMSSM Higgs bosons be present near 125 GeV?,” Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 071702, arXiv:1207.1545 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[126] [126]

LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group, S. Dittmaier, C. Mariotti, G. Passarino, and R. Tanaka (Eds.), “Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 1. Inclusive Observables,” CERN-2011-002 (CERN, Geneva, 2011) , arXiv:1101.0593 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[127] [127]

S. Dittmaier, S. Dittmaier, C. Mariotti, G. Passarino, R. Tanaka, et al. , “Handbook of LHC Higgs Cross Sections: 2. Diﬀerential Distributions,” arXiv:1201.3084 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[128] [128]

J. A. Casas, J. M. Moreno, K. Rolbiecki, and B. Zaldivar, “Implications of light charginos for Higgs observables, LHC searches and dark matter,” arXiv:1305.3274 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[129] [129]

Y.-L. S. Tsai, Q. Yuan, and X. Huang, “A generic method to constrain the dark matter model parameters from Fermi observations of dwarf spheroids,” JCAP 1303 (2013) 018, arXiv:1212.3990 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[130] [130]

http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/data

View on Pith

[131] [131]

T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, “A Brief Introduction to PYTHIA 8.1,” Com- put.Phys.Commun. 178 (2008) 852–867, arXiv:0710.3820 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[132] [132]

M. Bahr, S. Gieseke, M. Gigg, D. Grellscheid, K. Hamilton, et al. , “Herwig++ Physics and Manual,” Eur.Phys.J. C58 (2008) 639–707, arXiv:0803.0883 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[133] [133]

J. Cembranos, A. de la Cruz-Dombriz, V. Gammaldi, R. Lineros, and A. Maroto, “Reliability of Monte Carlo event generators for gamma ray dark matter searches,” arXiv:1305.2124 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[134] [134]

A. Strong, I. Moskalenko, T. Porter, G. Johannesson, E. Orlando, et al. , “The GALPROP Cosmic-Ray Propagation Code,” arXiv:0907.0559 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[135] [135]

J. Einasto and U. Haud, “Galactic models with massive corona. I - Method. II - Galaxy,” Astronomy and Astrophysics (ISSN 0004-6361) 223 (Oct., 1989) 89–106

View on Pith 1989

[136] [136]

P. Salucci, F. Nesti, G. Gentile, and C. Martins, “The dark matter density at the Sun’s location,” Astron.Astrophys. 523 (2010) A83, arXiv:1003.3101 [astro-ph.GA]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[137] [137]

R. Trotta, G. Johannesson, I. Moskalenko, T. Porter, R. R. de Austri, et al. , “Constraints on cosmic-ray propagation models from a global Bayesian analysis,” Astrophys.J. 729 (2011) 106, arXiv:1011.0037 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[138] [138]

Fermi-LATCollaboration, “Fermi-LAT Observations of the Diﬀuse Gamma-Ray Emission: Implications for Cosmic Rays and the Interstellar Medium,” Astrophys.J. 750 (2012) 3, arXiv:1202.4039 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[139] [139]

IceCube Collaboration, M. Aartsen et al. , “Search for dark matter annihilations in the Sun with the 79-string IceCube detector,” Phys.Rev.Lett. 110 (2013) 131302, arXiv:1212.4097 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[140] [140]

PAMELA Collaboration, O. Adriani et al. , “PAMELA results on the cosmic-ray antipro- ton ﬂux from 60 MeV to 180 GeV in kinetic energy,” Phys.Rev.Lett. 105 (2010) 121101, arXiv:1007.0821 [astro-ph.HE] 41

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[141] [141]

The Fermi LAT Collaboration, A. A. Abdo et al. , “Measurement of the Cosmic Ray e+ plus e- spectrum from 20 GeV to 1 TeV with the Fermi Large Area Telescope,”Phys.Rev.Lett. 102 (2009) 181101, arXiv:0905.0025 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[142] [142]

AMS Collaboration, M. Aguilar et al. , “First Result from the Alpha Magnetic Spectrome- ter on the International Space Station: Precision Measurement of the Positron Fraction in Primary Cosmic Rays of 0.5350 GeV,” Phys.Rev.Lett. 110 no. 14, (2013) 141102

View on Pith 2013

[143] [143]

M. Cirelli, M. Kadastik, M. Raidal, and A. Strumia, “Model-independent implications of the e+-, anti-proton cosmic ray spectra on properties of Dark Matter,” Nucl.Phys. B813 (2009) 1–21, arXiv:0809.2409 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[144] [144]

J. Kopp, “Constraints on dark matter annihilation from AMS-02 results,” arXiv:1304.1184 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[145] [145]

A. De Simone, A. Riotto, and W. Xue, “Interpretation of AMS-02 Results: Correlations among Dark Matter Signals,” JCAP 1305 (2013) 003, arXiv:1304.1336 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[146] [146]

Q. Yuan, X.-J. Bi, G.-M. Chen, Y.-Q. Guo, S.-J. Lin, et al. , “Implications of the AMS-02 positron fraction in cosmic rays,” arXiv:1304.1482 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[147] [147]

I. Cholis and D. Hooper, “Dark Matter and Pulsar Origins of the Rising Cosmic Ray Positron Fraction in Light of New Data From AMS,”Phys.Rev. D88 (2013) 023013, arXiv:1304.1840 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[148] [148]

Q. Yuan and X.-J. Bi, “Reconcile the AMS-02 positron fraction and Fermi-LAT/HESS total e± spectra by the primary electron spectrum hardening,” arXiv:1304.2687 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[149] [149]

D. T. Cumberbatch, Y.-L. S. Tsai, and L. Roszkowski, “The impact of propagation uncer- tainties on the potential Dark Matter contribution to the Fermi LAT mid-latitude gamma-ray data,” Phys.Rev. D82 (2010) 103521, arXiv:1003.2808 [astro-ph.HE]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[150] [150]

E. A. Baltz and J. Edsjo, “Positron propagation and ﬂuxes from neutralino annihilation in the halo,” Phys.Rev. D59 (1998) 023511, arXiv:astro-ph/9808243 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998

[151] [151]

J. Lavalle, J. Pochon, P. Salati, and R. Taillet, “Clumpiness of dark matter and positron annihilation signal: computing the odds of the galactic lottery,” Astron.Astrophys.462 (2007) 827–848, arXiv:astro-ph/0603796 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[152] [152]

M. Cirelli, A. Strumia, and M. Tamburini, “Cosmology and Astrophysics of Minimal Dark Matter,” Nucl.Phys. B787 (2007) 152–175, arXiv:0706.4071 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[153] [153]

J. Hisano, S. Matsumoto, M. M. Nojiri, and O. Saito, “Non-perturbative eﬀect on dark matter annihilation and gamma ray signature from galactic center,” Phys.Rev. D71 (2005) 063528, arXiv:hep-ph/0412403 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[154] [154]

A. Hryczuk, R. Iengo, and P. Ullio, “Relic densities including Sommerfeld enhancements in the MSSM,” JHEP 1103 (2011) 069, arXiv:1010.2172 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[155] [155]

P. Brun, G. Bertone, J. Lavalle, P. Salati, and R. Taillet, “Antiproton and Positron Sig- nal Enhancement in Dark Matter Mini-Spikes Scenarios,” Phys.Rev. D76 (2007) 083506, arXiv:0704.2543 [astro-ph] . 42

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[156] [156]

J. Lavalle, Q. Yuan, D. Maurin, and X. Bi, “Full Calculation of Clumpiness Boost fac- tors for Antimatter Cosmic Rays in the light of Lambda-CDM N-body simulation results. Abandoning hope in clumpiness enhancement?,” Astron.Astrophys. 479 (2008) 427–452, arXiv:0709.3634 [astro-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[157] [157]

T. Hurth and F. Mahmoudi, “New physics search with ﬂavour in the LHC era,” Rev.Mod.Phys. 85 (2013) 795, arXiv:1211.6453 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2013

[158] [158]

J. Edsjo, M. Schelke, P. Ullio, and P. Gondolo, “Accurate relic densities with neu- tralino, chargino and sfermion coannihilations in mSUGRA,” JCAP 0304 (2003) 001, arXiv:hep-ph/0301106 [hep-ph] . 43

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2003