# What is the experimental status of the G2-MSSM?

The G2-MSSM is supposed to be the low-energy theory of a hypothetical class of M-theory compactifications studied by some phenomenologists. It is just the MSSM, but in a particular region of parameter space. The high-energy theory is M-theory compactified on a manifold with G2 holonomy. The MSSM fields come from a specific part of that manifold, while fields in other parts break supersymmetry and stabilize the extra dimensions. The "G2 region" of MSSM parameter space is singled out by a mixture of bottom-up arguments (phenomenological necessities) and top-down arguments (nature of the high-energy theory).

Late in 2011, Kane, Kumar, Lu and Zheng came out with a claim that the G2-MSSM implies a Higgs boson mass in the range 105-129 GeV. A year later, this had become the claim that "the Higgs mass was predicted to be 126 +/- 2 GeV before the measurement". That looks more like a retrodiction to me.

Also, the abstract to the second paper states "The derivation has some assumptions not related to the Higgs mass, but involves no free parameters", which means there are no quantitative fudge factors; but perhaps those "assumptions" are acting as qualitative fudge factors. The argument is far from transparent, and one has to wonder whether these authors are retrospectively discovering the refinement of their qualitative assumptions that is needed to single out the desired mass.

But it's true that there were supersymmetric arguments for a Higgs mass in the mid-120s or less than 130, years before this. So let us at least suppose that Kane et al have produced a valid example of such an argument, made in an M-theory context.

However, unlike Higgs mass predictions based e.g. on metastability or near-criticality of the SM vacuum, this one comes packaged with supersymmetry. For example, we are told to expect particular signatures of gluino pair production at the LHC. And this brings me to my real question:

How is the G2-MSSM doing, as one supersymmetric model among many, amid the ongoing falsification of "pre-LHC expectations" regarding supersymmetry?

The biggest problem with this scenario is that it predicts a large amount of light wino dark matter from moduli decays, which is ruled out by gamma ray data. The constraints push the moduli heavier than desired, and also would tend to push them to a region where the "moduli-induced gravitino problem" becomes another worry. (Full disclosure: that link is a self-citation.) That constraint can be avoided if there's a significant amount of $R$-parity violation, or perhaps some other modifications to the model.