Abstract: We construct lists of supersymmetric models with extended gauge groups at intermediate steps, all of which are inspired by SO(10) unification. We consider three different kinds of setups: (i) the model has exactly one additional intermediate scale with a left-right (LR) symmetric group; (ii) SO(10) is broken to the LR group via an intermediate Pati-Salam scale; and (iii) the LR group is broken into SU(3)(c) X SU(2)(L) X U(1)(R) X U(1)(B-L), before breaking to the standard model (SM) group. We use sets of conditions, which we call the “sliding mechanism,” which yield unification with the extended gauge group(s) allowed at arbitrary intermediate energy scales. All models thus can have new gauge bosons within the reach of the LHC, in principle. We apply additional conditions, such as perturbative unification, renormalizability and anomaly cancellation and find that, despite these requirements, for the ansatz (i) with only one additional scale still around 50 different variants exist that can have a LR symmetry below 10 TeV. For the more complicated schemes (ii) and (iii) literally thousands of possible variants exist, and for scheme (ii) we have also found variants with very low Pati-Salam scales. We also discuss possible experimental tests of the models from measurements of supersymmetry masses. Assuming mSugra boundary conditions we calculate certain combinations of soft terms, called “invariants,” for the different classes of models. Values for all the invariants can be classified into a small number of sets, which contain information about the class of models and, in principle, the scale of beyond-minimal supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model physics, even in case the extended gauge group is broken at an energy beyond the reach of the LHC.

Abstract: Supersymmetric mass spectra within two variants of the seesaw mechanism, commonly known as type-II and type-III seesaw, are calculated using full 2-loop RGEs and minimal Supergravity boundary conditions. The type-II seesaw is realized using one pair of 15 and (15) over bar superfields, while the type-III is realized using three copies of 24(M) superfields. Using published, estimated errors on SUSY mass observables attainable at the LHC and in a combined LHC+ILC analysis, we calculate expected errors for the parameters of the models, most notably the seesaw scale. If SUSY particles are within the reach of the ILC, pure mSugra can be distinguished from mSugra plus type-II or type-III seesaw for nearly all relevant values of the seesaw scale. Even in the case when only the much less accurate LHC measurements are used, we find that indications for the seesaw can be found in favourable parts of the parameter space. Since our conclusions crucially depend on the reliability of the theoretically forecasted error bars, we discuss in some detail the accuracies which need to be achieved for the most important LHC and ILC observables before an analysis, such as the one presented here, can find any hints for type-II or type-III seesaw in SUSY spectra.

Abstract: The specific shape of the squark, slepton and gaugino mass spectra, if measured with sufficient accuracy, can provide invaluable information not only about the dynamics underpinning their origin at some very high scale such as the unification scale M(G), but also about the intermediate scale physics encountered throughout their renormalization group equations evolution down to the energy scale accessible for the LHC. In this work, we study general features of the TeV scale soft supersymmetry breaking parameters stemming from a generic mSugra configuration within certain classes of supersymmetry SO(10) GUTs with different intermediate symmetries below M(G). We show that particular combinations of soft masses show characteristic deviations from the mSugra limit in different models and thus, potentially, allow to distinguish between these, even if the new intermediate scales are outside the energy range probed at accelerators. We also compare our results to those obtained for the three minimal seesaw models with mSugra boundary conditions and discuss the main differences between those and our SO(10) based models.