1 / 13

Snapshot of Photon + MET Trigger Studies

Snapshot of Photon + MET Trigger Studies. Bruce Schumm, SCIPP/UCSC SUSY-EtMiss Subgroup Meeting 24 November 2010. Significant Transition: MGM to GGM. Tevatron analysis based on “Snowmass Points and Slopes” trajectory that is essentially Minimal Gauge Mediation (MGM)

noelle
Télécharger la présentation

Snapshot of Photon + MET Trigger Studies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Snapshot of Photon + MET Trigger Studies Bruce Schumm, SCIPP/UCSC SUSY-EtMiss Subgroup Meeting 24 November 2010

  2. Significant Transition: MGM to GGM • Tevatron analysis based on “Snowmass Points and Slopes” trajectory that is essentially Minimal Gauge Mediation (MGM) • MGM ties strong (gluino) and EW (neutralino) partner scales together, and leads to very massive gluino • Tevatron analyses exploited weak production (lot of data at low energy); sets limits on neutralino mass MGM not particularly well motivated  look at Generalized Gauge Mediation (GGM) which decouples strong, EW scales Re-cast in terms of limits in Mg-M plane for each of three possible neutralino species: Bino-, Wino-, Higgsino-like

  3. Bino-Like Neutralino Grid Desecrated plot thanks to Shih/Ruderman, ArXiv 0911.4130 D0 Limit For Bino-like neutralino, two photons + MET is most promising but lose coverage if hadronic activity is required (jets, HT, etc.) No visible jet activity when Mg ~ M

  4. pT of photons M bino = 200 GeV M gluino=400–700GeV (=6–0.07 pb) M bino = 150 – 580 GeV M gluino = 600GeV ( = 0.26pb ) Photon pT can be soft for M small • BR changes vs. M bino: • 90% (M bino = 150GeV) • 65% (M bino = 580GeV) • pT of photons! • BR doesn’t change ~ 80% • pT of photons ~ similar

  5. Wino - like Neutralino: |M2|<< and |M2| < |M1| Production cross-section (7TeV) Natural for photon+lepton channel Not shown: Higgsino, which has no photonic decay TRIGGERS?

  6. Back to Bino-like case… Summary for grid points we have generated so far. Results are out of 1000 events Some inefficiency for M = Mg – 30 (haven’t yet explored) What about ET dependence?

  7. Close to 2g20_loose would be close to knee (remember that current limit is below this, at 150 GeV)

  8. Tentative Conclusions for Bino-Like Case • We are probably OK for 2g20_loose, and perhaps even 2g25_loose (need to run through M = 150 case) • Tight electron trigger 90% efficient  For e control sample (background estimation), • gXX_loose  eXX_tight • where XX is value of 2g trigger above, should be fine. • What about a quick peek at non-pointing photons?

  9. GMSB2 sample: c ~ 10s of cm What about non-photon triggers? Looking into it…

  10. Summary and Conclusions • Pending a look at M = 150 GeV, proposed 2011 triggers seem workable for Bino case • Other cases (Wino, Higgsino) being looked into • Non-pointing photons don’t seem to be captured with photon triggers; what about others? Looking into that also.

  11. Sorry – that’s all folks…

More Related