Pure Gravity Mediation with m3/2= 10–100TeV
Masahiro Ibe(a,b), Shigeki Matsumoto(b), and Tsutomu T. Yanagida(b)
(a)ICRR, University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, 277-8582, Japan
(b)IPMU, TODIAS, University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, 277-8583, Japan
Recently, the ATLAS and CMS collaborations reported exciting hints of a
Standard Model-like Higgs boson with a mass around 125GeV. Such a Higgs
boson mass can be easily obtained in the minimal supersymmetric Standard
Model based on the “pure gravity mediation model” where the sfermion masses
and the Higgs mass parameters are in tens to hundreds TeV range while the
gauginos are in the hundreds GeV to TeV range. In this paper, we discuss
detalis of the gaugino mass spectrum in the pure gravity mediation model. We
also discuss the signals of the model at the current and future experiments such
as cosmic ray observations and the LHC experiments. In particular, we show
that the parameter space which is consistent with the thermal leptogenesis
can be fully surveyed experimentally in the foreseeable future.
arXiv:1202.2253v1 [hep-ph] 10 Feb 2012
The pure gravity mediation model investigated in Ref. is a surprisingly simple
model of the supersymmetric Standard Model (SSM). There, the scalar bosons obtain
supersymmetry (SUSY) breaking masses from a SUSY breaking sector via tree-level
interactions in supergravity. The Higgs mixing mass parameters, µ-term and B-
term, are also generated via tree-level interactions of supergravity. Due to the
tree-level mediation, the scalar boson masses and the Higgs mixing mass parameters
are expected to be of the order of the gravitino mass, m3/2. The gaugino masses are,
on the other hand, generated at the one-loop level[4, 5, 6]. Thus, the pure gravity
mediation model predicts a hierarchical spectrum. The greatest benefit of the pure
gravity mediation is that the model requires no additional fields to realize the above
spectrum. Therefore, the pure gravity mediation model is the bare-bones model of
the supersymmetric Standard Model.
The pure gravity mediation model is particularly successful when the gravitino
mass is in the range of m3/2= 10–100TeV. The first advantage is the alleviation
of the cosmological gravitino problem[7, 8]. Especially, the model does not suffer
from the gravitino problem even for a very high reheating temperature after inflation,
TR?√3×109GeV, which is essential for the successful thermal leptogenesis. The
second advantage is that the model has a good candidate for dark matter. For the
above gravitino mass range, the lightest superparticle (LSP) which is neutral wino
in the pure gravity mediation obtains a mass in hundreds GeV to TeV range. The
neutral wino in this mass range is a good candidate of weakly interacting particle
dark matter[10, 11]. Moreover, as emphasized in Ref.[12, 1], the relic density of the
neutral wino can be consistent with the observed value when we assume the thermal
leptogenesis. Therefore, the pure gravity mediation model goes quite well with the
thermal leptogenesis. Another but an important advantage in cosmology is that the
model does not suffer from the cosmological Polonyi problem since no singlet
SUSY breaking fields are required in the model.1In addition to those advantages
in cosmology, the problems of flavor-changing neutral currents and CP violation in
the SSM are highly ameliorated thanks to the large masses for squarks and sleptons.
The unification of the gauge coupling constants at the very high energy scale also
provides a strong motivation to the model.2
1See also Ref. for the Polonyi problem in dynamical supersymmetry breaking models.
2In fact, the gauge coupling constants unify at around 1016GeV at a few percent level even for
In Ref., two of the authors (M.I. and T.T.Y) discussed the lightest Higgs boson
mass of the minimal SSM (MSSM) based on the pure gravity mediation model.
There, we showed that the lightest Higgs boson mass is required to be below about
128GeV if we assume the thermal leptogenesis. This requirement has been shown to
be consistent with the most recent experimental constraints on the Higgs boson mass,
mh> 115.5GeV and mh< 127GeV at 95%C.L. reported by ATLAS and CMS
collaborations. Furthermore, as shown in Ref., the pure gravity mediation
model can easily explain the rather heavy Higgs boson mass around 125GeV which
is tantalizingly hinted by ATLAS and CMS collaborations.
In this letter, we discuss phenomenological, cosmological and astrophysical as-
pects of the pure gravity mediation model. In particular, in this paper, we concen-
trate ourselves on the the parameter space of the model which is consistent with the
thermal leptogenesis. As we will show, such a parameter space can be fully tested by
the observation of the cosmic rays, especially by the observation of the anti-proton
flux in the foreseeable future. We also discuss the strategies of the discoveries and
the measurements of the gauginos at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) experiments.
There, the distinctive gaugino mass spectrum in the pure gravity mediation model
plays important roles.
The organization of the paper is as follows. In section2, we review the model with
pure gravity mediation. There, we discuss the details of the gaugino spectrum. In
section3, we discuss the phenomenological, cosmological and astrophysical aspects
on the model. The final section is devoted to our conclusions.
2 Pure gravity mediation model
In the pure gravity mediation model, the only new ingredient other than the MSSM
fields is a (dynamical) SUSY breaking sector. There, the scalar bosons obtain the soft
SUSY breaking squared masses mediated by tree-level interactions in supergravity.
With a generic K¨ ahler potential, all the soft squared masses of the scalar bosons are
a rather large µ-term of 10–100TeV. It should be noted that the scale of the coupling unification
is slightly lower than the conventional SSM for m3/2= 10–100TeV about a factor of two or so.
Thus, the model predicts a slightly shorter proton lifetime via the so-called dimension six operators,
τp? 1035yrs, which is within the reach of the Hyper-Kamiokande Experiment.
expected to be of the order of the gravitino mass. The soft SUSY breaking scalar
trilinear coupling, the A-terms, are, on the other hand, expected to be suppressed
in supergravity at the tree-level.
In the pure gravity mediation model, the Higgs mixing µ and B parameters can
be also generated via tree-level interactions in supergravity. In fact, if the Higgs
doublets are not charged under any special symmetries, we expect the following
K¨ ahler potential,
K ? cHuHd+
X†XHuHd+ h.c.. (1)
Here, X denotes a chiral SUSY breaking field in a (dynamical) SUSY breaking sector,
MPLis the reduced Planck scale, and c and c?are coefficients of O(1). Through the
above K¨ ahler potential, the µ- and the B-parameters[3, 18]
= cm3/2, (2)
where FXis the vacuum expectation value of the F-component of X. Therefore, the
µ- and B Higgs mixing parameters are also expected to be of O(m3/2).3
For the gaugino masses, on the other hand, tree-level contributions in the super-
gravity are extremely suppressed since we have no SUSY breaking fields which are
singlet under any symmetries. At the one-loop level, however, the gaugino masses are
generated without having singlet SUSY breaking fields, which is called the anomaly
mediated contributions[4, 5]. Besides, the gauginos also obtain contributions from
the heavy Higgsino threshold effects at the one-loop level. Putting these one-loop
contributions together, the gaugino masses at the energy scale of the scalar boson
masses, MSUSY= O(m3/2), are given by[4, 10]
M3 = −3(6)
Here, the subscripts Ma, (a = 1,2,3) correspond to the gauge groups of the Standard
Model U(1)Y, SU(2)Land SU(3), respectively. In the above expressions, the terms
3If the SUSY breaking sector has a singlet Polonyi field, the so-called Giudice-Masiero mecha-
nism can also generate the µ and B Higgs mixing parameters of O(m3/2). In that case, however,
the model suffers from the Polonyi problem.
 K. Abe, T. Abe, H. Aihara, Y. Fukuda, Y. Hayato, K. Huang, A. K. Ichikawa
and M. Ikeda et al., arXiv:1109.3262 [hep-ex].
 ATLAS report, ATLAS-CONF-2011-163.
 CMS Collaboration, arXiv:1202.1487 [hep-ex].
 M. Ibe, T. Moroi and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B 644, 355 (2007) [arXiv:hep-
 G. F. Giudice and A. Masiero, Phys. Lett. B 206, 480 (1988).
 N. Arkani-Hamed and S. Dimopoulos,JHEP 0506, 073 (2005) [hep-
 G. F. Giudice and A. Romanino, Nucl. Phys. B 699, 65 (2004) [Erratum-ibid.
B 706, 65 (2005)] [hep-ph/0406088].
 N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, G. F. Giudice and A. Romanino, Nucl. Phys.
B 709, 3 (2005) [hep-ph/0409232].
 K. -I. Izawa, T. Kugo and T. T. Yanagida, Prog. Theor. Phys. 125, 261 (2011)
 J. D. Wells, Phys. Rev. D 71, 015013 (2005) [hep-ph/0411041].
 L. J. Hall and Y. Nomura, arXiv:1111.4519 [hep-ph].
 See e.g. Amar C. Vutha, Wesley C. Campbell, Yulia V. Gurevich, Nicholas R.
Hutzler, Maxwell Parsons, David Patterson, Elizabeth Petrik, Benjamin Spaun,
John M. Doyle, Gerald Gabrielse, David DeMille, arXiv:0908.2412[physics].
 A. Heister et al. [ALEPH Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 533, 223 (2002) [hep-
 ATLAS reprot, ATLAS-CONF-2011-155
 Y. Okada, M. Yamaguchi and T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B 262, 54 (1991).
 N. Bernal, A. Djouadi and P. Slavich, JHEP 0707, 016 (2007) [arXiv:0705.1496
 G. F. Giudice and A. Strumia, Nucl. Phys. B 858, 63 (2012) [arXiv:1108.6077
 M. Lancaster [Tevatron Electroweak Working Group and for the CDF and D0
Collaborations], arXiv:1107.5255 [hep-ex].
 H. C. Cheng, B. A. Dobrescu and K. T. Matchev, Nucl. Phys. B 543, 47 (1999)
 J. Hisano, S. Matsumoto, M. Nagai, O. Saito and M. Senami, Phys. Lett. B
646, 34 (2007) [arXiv:hep-ph/0610249].
 T. Moroi and K. Nakayama, arXiv:1112.3123 [hep-ph].
 K. Jedamzik, Phys. Rev. D 70, 083510 (2004) [arXiv:astro-ph/0405583];
J. Hisano, M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri and K. Nakayama, Phys. Rev. D 79,
063514 (2009) [Erratum-ibid. D 80, 029907 (2009)] [arXiv:0810.1892 [hep-ph]];
J. Hisano, M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri, T. Moroi and K. Nakayama, Phys. Rev. D
79, 083522 (2009) [arXiv:0901.3582 [hep-ph]].
 B. Ezhuthachan, S. Mukhi and C. Papageorgakis,JHEP 0904, 101
(2009) [arXiv:0903.0003 [hep-th]]; T. R. Slatyer, N. Padmanabhan and
D. P. Finkbeiner, Phys. Rev. D 80, 043526 (2009) [arXiv:0906.1197 [astro-
ph.CO]]; T. Kanzaki, M. Kawasaki and K. Nakayama, Prog. Theor. Phys. 123,
853 (2010) [arXiv:0907.3985 [astro-ph.CO]]; J. Hisano, M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri,
T. Moroi, K. Nakayama and T. Sekiguchi, Phys. Rev. D 83, 123511 (2011)
[arXiv:1102.4658 [hep-ph]]; S. Galli, F. Iocco, G. Bertone and A. Melchiorri,
Phys. Rev. D 84, 027302 (2011) [arXiv:1106.1528 [astro-ph.CO]].
 J. Hisano, K. Ishiwata and N. Nagata, Phys. Lett. B 690, 311 (2010)
 J. Hisano, S. Matsumoto and M. M. Nojiri, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 031303 (2004)
[arXiv:hep-ph/0307216]; J. Hisano, S. Matsumoto, M. M. Nojiri and O. Saito,
Phys. Rev. D 71, 063528 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0412403]; J. Hisano, S. Mat-
sumoto, O. Saito and M. Senami, Phys. Rev. D 73, 055004 (2006) [arXiv:hep-
 M. Ackermann et al. [Fermi-LAT collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 241302
(2011) [arXiv:1108.3546 [astro-ph.HE]].
 A. Hryczuk and R. Iengo, arXiv:1111.2916 [hep-ph].
 A. Charbonnier et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 418, 1526 (2011)
 O. Adriani et al. [PAMELA Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 121101 (2010)
 C. Evoli, I. Cholis, D. Grasso, L. Maccione and P. Ullio, arXiv:1108.0664 [astro-
 O. Adriani et al. [PAMELA Collaboration],Nature 458, 607 (2009)
 P. Grajek, G. Kane, D. Phalen, A. Pierce and S. Watson, Phys. Rev. D 79,
043506 (2009) [arXiv:0812.4555 [hep-ph]]; G. Kane, R. Lu and S. Watson, Phys.
Lett. B 681, 151 (2009) [arXiv:0906.4765 [astro-ph.HE]].
 M. Toharia and J. D. Wells, JHEP 0602, 015 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0503175];
P. Gambino, G. F. Giudice and P. Slavich, Nucl. Phys. B 726, 35 (2005)
 ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2011-155.
 S. Asai, T. Moroi, K. Nishihara and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B 653, 81
(2007) [arXiv:0705.3086 [hep-ph]].
 J. Alwall, K. Hiramatsu, M. M. Nojiri and Y. Shimizu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103,
151802 (2009) [arXiv:0905.1201 [hep-ph]]; M. M. Nojiri and K. Sakurai, Phys.
Rev. D 82, 115026 (2010) [arXiv:1008.1813 [hep-ph]].
 A. Barr, C. Lester and P. Stephens, J. Phys. G 29, 2343 (2003) [arXiv:hep-
 S. Asai, T. Moroi and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. B 664, 185 (2008)
 M. Asano et al., Phys. Rev. D 84, 115003 (2011) [arXiv:1106.1932 [hep-ph]].