CNMSSM是否比CMSSM更可信？
Is the CNMSSM more credible than the CMSSM?
摘要：
贝叶斯统计，我们调查的约束下的“下一个最小”超对称标准模型（CNMSSM）的自然先验，这是在以前的工作中得出的完整的参数空间。在过去，大多数的CNMSSM贝叶斯分析忽略了自然的电弱（EW）规模的参数定义在EW规模的偏见假设。我们测试的CNMSSM对CMSSM与贝叶斯证据，其中，与自然先验，纳入了罚款微调的EW规模。有了这些证据，我们衡量了所有测量的可信度，包括EW尺度和LHC直接搜索。我们发现，支持CNMSSM与CMSSM的证据是“积极的”到“强有力的”，但如果忽略$μ$ -问题，证据是“几乎不值一提”到“积极的”。“$μ$ -问题显著影响了我们的发现。除非考虑$μ$ -问题，否则支持CNMSSM与CMSSM的证据充其量是“积极的”，比“非常强”低两个等级。“此外，我们确定了CMSSM和CNMSSM参数空间的最可能区域，并研究了强子对撞机未来发现的前景。
英文摘要：
With Bayesian statistics, we investigate the full parameter space of the constrained "next-to-minimal" supersymmetric Standard Model (CNMSSM) with naturalness priors, which were derived in a previous work. In the past, most Bayesian analyses of the CNMSSM ignored naturalness of the electroweak (EW) scale by making prejudicial assumptions for parameters defined at the EW scale. We test the CNMSSM against the CMSSM with Bayesian evidence, which, with naturalness priors, incorporates a penalty for fine-tuning of the EW scale. With the evidence, we measure credibility with respect to all measurements, including the EW scale and LHC direct searches. We find that the evidence in favor of the CNMSSM versus the CMSSM is "positive" to "strong" but that if one ignores the $μ$-problem, the evidence is "barely worth mentioning" to "positive." The $μ$-problem significantly influences our findings. Unless one considers the $μ$-problem, the evidence in favor of the CNMSSM versus the CMSSM is at best "positive," which is two grades below "very strong." We, furthermore, identify the most probable regions of the CMSSM and CNMSSM parameter spaces and examine prospects for future discovery at hadron colliders.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
