SLIDE 1
Workshop
- 35 fantastic talks (plus this summary)
- large th/ex interaction
- ex: amazingly thorough, detailed work
- th: remarkably upbeat; innovative ideas
Summary and Outlook Graham Kribs IAS / Oregon SUSY at the Near - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Summary and Outlook Graham Kribs IAS / Oregon SUSY at the Near - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Summary and Outlook Graham Kribs IAS / Oregon SUSY at the Near Energy Frontier Fermilab Workshop 35 fantastic talks (plus this summary) large th/ex interaction ex: amazingly thorough, detailed work th: remarkably
SLIDE 2
SLIDE 3
Summary
SUSY does not exist in nature
SLIDE 4
Summary
(after 20 fb-1 LHC @ 8 TeV) SUSY does not exist in nature
SLIDE 5
Higgs
Yet: Higgs boson discovered ≈ 125 GeV
SLIDE 6
Higgs
- Including this and other corrections,
97,98 one can obtain only a considerably weaker, but still very
interesting, bound mh0 < ∼ 130 GeV (7.42)
A SUPERSYMMETRY PRIMER
STEPHEN P. MARTIN a Randall Physics Laboratory, University of Michigan Ann Arbor MI 48109-1120 USA
arXiv:hep-ph/9709356v1 16 Sep 1997
SLIDE 7
125 GEV HIGGS AND SUSY
m2
h = m2 Zc2 2β
+ 3m4
t
4⌅2v2
- log
M 2
S
m2
t
⇥ + X2
t
M 2
S
- 1 −
X2
t
12M 2
S
⇥⇥
h h ˜ t + h h ˜ t
Haber, Hempfling ’91
more: Haber, Hempfling, Hoang, Ellis, Ridolfi, Zwirner, Casas, Espinosa, Quiros, Riotto, Carena, Wagner, Degrassi, Heinemeyer, Hollik, Slavich, Weiglein
MSSM must be tuned to fit 125 GeV: Higgs at 125 GeV Beyond MSSM, natural: new D-terms? NMSSM? MSSM, tuned with heavy scalars
Reece
125 GeV “tension”
SLIDE 8
SUSY possibilities
Dead Hospital Hiding
SLIDE 9
SUSY possibilities
Dead* Hospital Hiding *SM all the way up to Planck scale
SLIDE 10
SUSY possibilities
Dead Hospital* Hiding *Varying degrees of seriousness
SLIDE 11
SUSY possibilities
Dead Hospital Hiding* *Nature’s SUSY is not your advisor’s SUSY
SLIDE 12
Dead
th ex Universe meta-stability precise measurements
- f mh, mt, αs
Instability 107 109 1010 1012 115 120 125 130 135 165 170 175 180 Higgs mass Mh in GeV Pole top mass Mt in GeV 1,2,3 s Instability Stability Meta-stability
1205.6497
SLIDE 13
Dead
th ex DM is (obviously) non-supersymmetric ISR tagging e.g., monojet
Mo
Same&strategy&as&& in&the&&7&TeV&analysis&
HCP2012&
Mo
&&&&&8&
NEW!
Martinez Perez talk
SLIDE 14
Dead
th ex DM is (obviously) non-supersymmetric ISR tagging e.g., monojet
Mo
Same&strategy&as&& in&the&&7&TeV&analysis&
HCP2012&
Mo
&&&&&8&
NEW!
- Mono$X&final&states&demonstrated&to&be&rather&
sensi;ve&channels&in&several&searches&for&physics& beyond&SM&&including&
– Dark$Ma\er,$Extra$Dimensions,$SUSY,$Higgs…$
Martinez Perez talk
SLIDE 15
Merging at NLO Merging and matching: ME+PS NLOwPS New Loop techniques BSM framework Fully Automatic NLOwPS 2002 2011 2008 2009 2012 PREDICTIVE MC (SIMPLIFIED) PROGRESS
Tools to Make Progress
Maltoni
SLIDE 16
Hospital
th ex (minor) pMSSM Ismail
LHC searches
Models survive due to non-degenerate squarks, massive LSPs
Gluino mass (GeV) Lightest 1st/2nd generation squark mass (GeV) Simplified model limit ATLAS-CONF-2013-047 20 fb-1 jets + MET
10Light squark pathology
dR (498 GeV) χ3
0 (434 GeV)χ2
0 (164 GeV)χ1
0 (156 GeV)χ1
+ (161 GeV)d (84%) d (3%) d (13%)
t1 at 999 GeV, all other colored sparticles above 1.8 TeV Production cross section lower than with 8 degenerate squarks Squark prefers compressed decay due to gaugino composition! Bino decays to Higgsinos through W (29%), Z (14%), h (12%), stau (22%), stau neutrino (23%) Bino Higgsinos
Model 2762364
SLIDE 17
Hospital
th ex (minor) pMSSM Gunion
- CMS data (and ATLAS also) is significantly impacting the pMSSM parameter
space, excluding most, but certainly not all, of the high σ models.
- In the case of unexcluded high-σ models, small mass splittings are primarily to
blame for lack of sensitivity. ⇒ might gain sensitivity using more refined analyses
- f current data.
But, there are many low-σ models that can only be explored with more energy and luminosity at the LHC. ⇒ both are coming!
SLIDE 18
Hospital
th ex (disease) Amputate -- “natural supersymmetry” Higgsinos stops,sbottoms gluinos
SLIDE 19
Natural Supersymmetry
Requirements: EWino searches, stop, sbottom searches Crucial to test... But also: Higgs sector beyond MSSM
Luty
SLIDE 20
Natural Supersymmetry
The Natural Sparticles
(though not the only ones to think about)
1000 events
Strassler
SLIDE 21
Natural Supersymmetry
stops
⇒ a Sto LSP G
W
Pataraia ATLAS
SLIDE 22
Natural Supersymmetry
stops Martinez CMS
stop mass [GeV] 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 LSP mass [GeV] 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
W
= m
1χ ∼
- m
t ~
m
t
= m
1χ ∼
- m
t ~
m
SUSY 2013 = 8 TeV s CMS Preliminary
1
- 1
SUS-13-004 0-lep+1-lep (Razor) 19.3 fb
- 1
SUS-13-011 1-lep (leptonic stop)19.5 fb
Observed Expected
t
= m
1χ ∼
- m
t ~
m
stop mass [GeV] LSP mass [GeV]
BDT analysis
1
χ ∼ t → t ~ *, t ~ t ~ → pp
SLIDE 23
Natural Supersymmetry
gluinos
ATLAS CONF-2013-061
Thompson ATLAS g->bb CMS g->tt
SLIDE 24
Razor
Rogan
Razor kinematic variables
mega-jet invisible?
! Assign every reconstructed object to one of two mega-jets ! Analyze the event as a ‘canonical’ open final state:
- two variables: MR (mass scale) , R (scale-less event imbalance)
! An inclusive approach to searching for a large class of new physics possibilities with open final states
invisible? mega-jet
MR ∼ √ ˆ s
Two distinct mass scales in event Two pieces of complementary information
R = M R
T
MR ∼ M∆ √ ˆ s
SLIDE 25
HIGGSINOS
q ¯ q g γ/Z⇤ ˜ H0
2
˜ H0
1
Z⇤ ˜ H0
1
A natural spectrum should have light higgsinos, but the wino and bino might be significantly heavier. It’s important to try to directly probe the higgsino states. Monojet or VBF to tag the event, plus soft leptons from off- shell Z or W could be useful. No strong constraints so far. Important to fill in!
˜ H0
2
W ∗ W ∗ Z∗ ˜ H± ˜ H0
1
µ }δm ∼
m2
Z
M2
Slightly different masses: split by a dim-5 operator.
Natural Supersymmetry
Reece
SLIDE 26
Natural Supersymmetry
Higgsinos
7.5 GeV 1 G e V 12.5 GeV
LEP Excluded
200 400 600 800 1000 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 M1HGeVL M2HGeVL mc2
0-mc1 ±: m=110 GeV, tb=10
5 GeV 10 GeV 1 5 G e V
LEP Excluded
200 400 600 800 1000 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 M1HGeVL M2HGeVL mc1
±-mc1 0: m=110 GeV, tb=10
eV eV eV eV
Excluded
200 400 600 800 1000 200 400 600 800 1000 eVL eVL m
0-m
: m=150 GeV, t =10
10 1 5 20
Excluded
200 400 600 800 1000 200 400 600 800 1000 eVL eVL m
- m
0: m=150 GeV, t =10
[Han, GK, Martin, Menon in progress]
SLIDE 27
27
Sources of fine-tuning
Stop mass terms also important, but even with strong coupling, loop-induced gluino contribution is less than wino FT
Number of models Largest source of fine-tuning
Higgsino mass term is dominant contribution to fine-tuning
Ismail
Natural Supersymmetry
SLIDE 28
Natural Supersymmetry
interpretations involving Higgsinos (with gluinos) Strassler
SLIDE 29
Natural Supersymmetry
interpretations involving Higgsinos (without gluinos)
400 600 800 1000 100 200 300 400 500 mt
é
1 HGeVL
mc1 HGeVL
[GK, Martin, Menon]
SLIDE 30
SUMMARY
Searches for stops & gluinos have put strong bounds on natural SUSY. Higgs coupling measurements are also beginning to be important constraints. Various things I’d like to see more of:
- Strong effort to find Higgsino LSPs.
- Set limits on simplified models with hidden sectors (e.g.
Natural Supersymmetry
Reece
SLIDE 31
mass splitting
10 GeV 1 GeV 0.1 GeV
standard searches long-lived searches
splitting is too small to give enough energy into intra-decay objects ... and too large to find displaced vertices
Narrow Splittings?
SLIDE 32
Among the “harder” SUSY particles to find due to lower (EW) production rates. Most searches look for leptons from on-shell W/Z (or require high BRs to leptons, i.e., light sleptons).
(GeV)
2
χ ∼
=m
± 1
χ ∼
m
100 150 200 250 300 350 400
(GeV)
1
χ ∼
m
50 100 150 200
95% C.L. upper limit on cross section (fb)
2
10
3
10
Z
< m
1
χ ∼
- m
2
χ ∼
m
= 8 TeV s ,
- 1
= 19.5 fb
int
CMS Preliminary L
95% C.L. CLs NLO Exclusions
- nly
l Observed 3
experiment
σ 1 ± l Expected 3
experiment
σ
- 2
l Expected 3
± 1
χ ∼
2
χ ∼ → pp
1
χ ∼ Z →
2
χ ∼
1
χ ∼ W →
± 1
χ ∼
Gaugino Bounds
SLIDE 33
Gori
150-130 150-100 WZ bkgd 20 40 60 80 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 minHmSFOSLHGeVL fraction
Smallest invariant mass [GeV]
- f SFOS lepton combination
20 GeV 50 GeV 150
˜ B ˜ W +,0,−
Small (gaugino) splittings
SLIDE 34
SLIDE 35
LHC8 21êfb Tight pT cuts
2.3 1.5 1.0 1.1 1.5 2.2
100 120 140 160 180 60 80 100 120 140 mΧHGeVL mLSPHGeVL L
Gori
SLIDE 36
5!
Decay of heavy neutralino and chargino
- χ10 h
χ10 χ1± χ20 χ10 W± χ10 Z χ1± χ20 χ10 χ10 h χ10 Z χ1± W
A rich mixture of (W/Z/h)(W/Z/h)+MET final states!
χ10 χ1± χ20 χ30 χ2± χ10 h χ10 Z χ1± W χ10 W χ1± h χ1± Z
More EWinos
Han
SLIDE 37
- Neutralino/Chargino search: Wh/Zh Channels
Unique signal ! Wh complementary to WZ channels ! WH ZH
Han
EWinos
SLIDE 38
Rogan
EWinos w/ kinematic variables
[GeV]
±
χ ∼
m
100 150 200 250 300 350
[GeV]
χ ∼
m
50 100 150 200 250 300
σ N
1 2 3 4 5
] χ ∼ ) ν l W( χ ∼ ) ν l [W( →
±
χ ∼
±
χ ∼ + Razor selection
R
θ cos ×
β R
φ Δ ×
Δ R
M
- 1
= 20 fb L dt
∫
= 8 TeV s MadGraph+PGS
95% C.L. excl
χ ∼
= m
±
χ ∼
m
From arXiv:1310.4827 [hep-ph]
SLIDE 39
EWinos
19
𝜓
- 𝜓
- ±
𝜓
- 𝜓
- ±
ATLAS Gabizon Golf / Shchutska
[GeV]
2
χ ∼
= m
± 1
χ ∼
m
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
[GeV]
1
χ ∼
m
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Observed limits Expected limits
) ν ∼ /
L
l ~ , (via
± 1
χ ∼
2
χ ∼ → pp ) ν ∼ /
L
l ~ , (via
- 1
χ ∼
+ 1
χ ∼ → pp )
R
l ~ , (via
± 1
χ ∼
2
χ ∼ → pp )
R
τ ∼ , (via
± 1
χ ∼
2
χ ∼ → pp )
1
χ ∼ )(W
1
χ ∼ (Z →
± 1
χ ∼
2
χ ∼ → pp )
1
χ ∼ )(W
1
χ ∼ (H →
± 1
χ ∼
2
χ ∼ → pp
- 1
= 19.5 fb
int
= 8 TeV, L s CMS Preliminary
1χ ∼
+ 0.5m
± 1χ ∼
= 0.5m
l ~
m
1χ ∼
= m
± 1χ ∼
m
Z
+ m
1χ ∼
= m
± 1χ ∼
m
H
+ m
1χ ∼
= m
± 1χ ∼
m SUS-13-006 SUS-13-017
CMS
SLIDE 40
EWinos
1
3`
(GeV)
2
χ ∼
=m
± 1
χ ∼
m
100 150 200 250 300 350 400
(GeV)
1
χ ∼
m
50 100 150 200
95% C.L. upper limit on cross section (fb)
2
10
3
10
Z
< m
1
χ ∼
- m
2
χ ∼
m
= 8 TeV s ,
- 1
= 19.5 fb
int
CMS Preliminary L
95% C.L. CLs NLO Exclusions
- nly
l Observed 3
experiment
σ 1 ± l Expected 3
experiment
σ
- 2
l Expected 3
± 1
χ ∼
2
χ ∼ → pp
1
χ ∼ Z →
2
χ ∼
1
χ ∼ W →
± 1
χ ∼
SLIDE 41
(GeV)
χ ∼
=m
±
χ ∼
m
100 150 200 250 300 350
1
50 100 150 200
Z
< m
1
χ ∼
- m
2
χ ∼
m
experiment
σ 1 ± l Expected 3
experiment
σ
- 2
l Expected 3
1
Z
2 1
χ ∼ W →
± 1
χ ∼
SLIDE 42
Hospital
th ex FCNC Flavor-blind supersymmetry (negligible effects on flavor)
SLIDE 43
Implications for pheno
- Of course, GMSB already had “natural SUSY” signals (e.g., stau/
higgsino NLSP), but often with universal squark/gluino production. Likewise, other 3rd-generation NLSPs, cascades are both interesting.
- There is some coverage of “natural GMSB” cascades at LHC already
- -e.g. ATLAS “NGM”, CMS “natural Higgsino NLSP” searches,
focused on tau/Z final states. (Ask me offline for a natural model with heavy higgsinos.)
- But there are new topologies to consider. For example, a stop-bino
simplified model with final state tt̄+γγ+MET. To my knowledge this is not (optimally) covered at ATLAS or CMS. This is just one hole; I am optimistic we can collectively come up with more ideas for new
- searches. E.g., natural production plus displaced NLSP decay?
Craig Implications for pheno
Λ = 110 TeV M = 220 TeV λu = 1.1 stau NLSP stops significantly lighter than
- ther squarks
800 1600 2400 3200 4000 4800 Mass / GeV
h0 A0 H0 H± ˜ qR ˜ qL ˜ b1 ˜ t2 ˜ b2 ˜ t1 ˜ R ˜ νL ˜ L ˜ τ1 ˜ ντ ˜ τ2 ˜ g ˜ χ0
1˜ χ0
2˜ χ±
1˜ χ0
3˜ χ0
4˜ χ±
2Heavy higgsinos, inevitably stau NLSP . But tuning is ~0.1% at best. Works best for low messenger scales, so prompt NLSP .
Part 2: Natural SUSY is (often) GMSB
- Need to make stops light but keep flavor
protection for first two generations. Most easily accomplished in GMSB-based models.
- Need to lower the radiative cutoff to avoid
linking gluino, stop masses too closely.
Two powerful reasons for natural SUSY to be low-scale: Even if the models are not precisely GMSB, they often have a goldstino at the bottom of the spectrum. Signals are GMSB-esque. We typically factorize “natural SUSY” simplified models from “GMSB”. But...
Higgs mass & GMSB
- 1. Increase tree-level quartic: nothing particularly unique
for GMSB; singlet masses require extra engineering.
- 2. Heavy stops: nothing particularly unique for GMSB,
beyond scaling up the sparticle masses.
- 3. Large A-terms: new lessons for GMSB.
How do the options for the Higgs mass inflect upon GMSB? Options (1) and (2) don’t really force us to shape our expectations for GMSB phenomenology, and can be seen as Higgs mass modules. Option (3) does provide new insight for GMSB phenomenology.
GMSB
SLIDE 44
GMSB
16
Disappearing tracks: long-lived chargino
Haas
SLIDE 45
GMSB
15 Peter Thomassen, Rutgers University November 12, 2013
SUS-13-014 Interpretation: Natural Higgsino NLSP
Same topology as in SUS-13-002 Diphotons give more powerful
exclusion than multileptons
Observed limit between 360 and
410 GeV on stop mass
Thomassen
SLIDE 46
Hospital
th ex (life support) “unnatural” supersymmetry (split, mini-split, etc.) long-lived; R-hadrons; stopped gluinos; ...
SLIDE 47
Hiding
th ex
- Dirac
- RPV
- Stealth
- rates?
- unusual signatures
- jet substructure
- MET?
SLIDE 48
Dirac Gluino
400 600 800 1000 1200 104 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Mq
⌅ GeV⇥
⇤pp ⇧ colored superpartners⇥ pb⇥
MSSM, M3 ⇥ Mq
⌅
MSSM, M3 ⇥ 2 Mq
⌅
MSSM, M3⇥ 5 TeV SSSM
Am AtAt'BtCl Cm Dt Em Am AtAt'BtCl Cm Dt Em
250 500 750 1000 1250 1500
- Martin
SLIDE 49
- ATLAS-CONF-2013-047
Current Status: ATLAS (20 fb-1)
- (pb)
! 95% CL upper limit on
- 3
10
- 2
10
- 1
10 1 10 (GeV)
squark
m 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 (GeV)
LSP
m 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 exp. ! 1 ± Expected Limit
theory ! 1 ±
NLO+NLL
! c ~ + s ~ + d ~ + u ~ ,
R
q ~ +
L
q ~
- nly
L
u ~
- 1
CMS, 11.7 fb = 8 TeV s
) q ~ )>>m( g ~ ; m(
1
" # q $ q ~ , q ~ q ~ $ pp
CMS-SUS-12-028
Current Status: CMS (12 fb-1)
- Jets + MET
(low cross section) Nguyen
SLIDE 50
RPV
November 12, 2013 Matthew Walker, Rutgers University
Multijet Interpretations
8
Triplet Invariant Mass [GeV]
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
jjj) [pb] → BR(X × σ 95% CL Limit
- 2
10
- 1
10 1 10
210 Observed Limit Expected Limit σ 1 ± Expected σ 2 ± Expected
'' 223λ
- r
λ Theory Heavy-flavor RPV
= 8 TeV s at
- 1
CMS Preliminary 19.5 fb Triplet Invariant Mass [GeV]
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
jjj) [pb] → BR(X × σ 95% CL Limit
- 2
10
- 1
10 1 10 Observed Limit Expected Limit σ 1 ± Expected σ 2 ± Expected
112'' λ Theory Light-flavor RPV
= 8 TeV s at
- 1
CMS Preliminary 19.5 fb
Interpret the multijet resonance search in a model where the gluino decays via an UDD coupling to 3 jets Limits correspond to a light-flavor coupling or a heavy-flavor coupling or First limits for the heavy flavor coupling
λ
00
112 6= 0
λ
00
223 6= 0
λ
00
113
EXO-12-049
udd Walker
SLIDE 51
RPV
lle
November 12, 2013 Matthew Walker, Rutgers University
Multilepton Interpretations
Interpret the results in a model with stop-pair production and LLE couplings
17
(GeV)
t ~
m
700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
(GeV)
0* 1χ ~
m
200 400 600 800 1000 1200
CMS
- 1
= 19.5 fb t d L
∫
= 8 TeV, s
122λ Stop RPV
- bserved 95% CLs Limits
Theory uncertainty (NLO+NLL) expected 95% CLs Limits
experimentalσ 1 ± expected
(GeV)
t ~
m
700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
(GeV)
0* 1χ ~
m
200 400 600 800 1000 1200
CMS
- 1
= 19.5 fb t d L
∫
= 8 TeV, s
233λ Stop RPV
- bserved 95% CLs Limits
Theory uncertainty (NLO+NLL) expected 95% CLs Limits
experimentalσ 1 ± expected
P1 P2 ˜ tR ˜ tR ˜ χ0∗
1
t ˜ χ0∗
1
t ˜ µ ˜ µ νµ e µ W b b W µ µ νe
SUS-13-003
Walker
SLIDE 52
Blocker
RPV
DisplacedVertexlimits
11/12/2013 CraigBlocker,Brandeis 12
MH:msquark =700GeV, mLSP =494GeV ML:msquark =700GeV, mLSP =108GeV HL:msquark =1000GeV,mLSP =108GeV
Modelsareconstrainedover2to3ordersoflifetime.
lle
DisplacedVertex
11/12/2013 CraigBlocker,Brandeis 10
SmallRPVcouplingscouldgivealonglivedLSP. Thisanalysistargetsmodelswithadisplacedvertexfromparticles injetsfromLSPdecayplusahighPt muon. Usevertexmassandnumberoftracksinvertextodiscriminatefrombackground. Eventswithadisplacedvertexinhighmaterialdensityregionsarevetoed. ATLASCONF201312,cds.cern.ch/record/1595755.8TeV,20.3fb1
SLIDE 53
Jet Substructure
El Hedri
Using fat jets: an organizational principle
>12 low pT thin jets ⇒ four high pT fat jets
I Lower phase space dimensionality I Four hard objects, comparable pT I QCD fat jets weakly correlated
⇒ Data-driven backgrounds
I Find new discriminating variables
⇒ Jet substructure techniques
SLIDE 54
Jet Substructure
Tran
results, g → t + t + χ01
) [GeV] g ~ m( 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 ) [GeV]
1χ ∼ m( 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
) g ~ )>>m( t ~ ; m(
1χ ∼ t t → g ~ , g ~
- g
~
- 1
L dt = 20.3 fb
∫
Multijet Combined
ATLAS
)
expσ 1 ± Expected limit ( )
theory SUSYσ 1 ± Observed limit ( )
1χ ∼ m(t)+m( × )<2 g ~ m(
) [GeV] g ~ m( 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 ) [GeV]
1
χ ∼ m( 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A C A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A C A A A E A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A C A A A A A A A A A A C A C A C A C A C A A A C A C A A A E A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A D A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A C A A A A A A C A A A A C A A A C C A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A C A A A A A A A A A D A A A A A A A A A A A B A A A A A A A A A A D C A A A C A E A A A A C A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A C C C A A A A A A C A A A A E A A A A C A A A A A A A A A A A A
) g ~ )>>m( t ~ ; m(
1χ ∼ t t → g ~ , g ~
- g
~
- 1
L dt = 20.3 fb
∫
Multijet Analyses
ATLAS
)
1χ ∼ m(t)+m( × )<2 g ~ m(
Discussion points: Is there a reason to keep the flavor and MΣJ stream separate? Can they be used in concert? What is the effect of pre-selecting hard AK4 jets?
A or B = flavor stream C - H = MΣJ stream
MΣJ stream better expected limits Expected limits shown where best analysis stream is highlighted
~ ~
SLIDE 55
Jet Substructure
results, g → qq + W + χ01
) [GeV] g ~ m( 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 ) [GeV]
1
χ ∼ m( 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
E D A A A B E A A A C A A B C A H A A A B C B A A A D A B A D A A D A B A A A C E A A E B A A H B A B H B A A H E B D B A A H A B A B D G A A A A A A E D A A A H D C A E A A B A E E A B A A A H A A A A B H B G A B C C H A B A E A A B B E A A D A A A A B A A E E A A A H C E D A A A B A A A A A E E A A H B A E C A E G A G
)]/2
1χ ∼ )+m( g ~ )=[m(
± 1χ ∼ ; m(
1χ ∼ qqW → g ~ , g ~
- g
~
- 1
L dt = 20.3 fb
∫
Multijet Analyses
ATLAS
)
1χ ∼ )<m( g ~ m( ) [GeV] g ~ m( 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 ) [GeV]
1χ ∼ m( 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
)]/2
1χ ∼ )+m( g ~ )=[m(
± 1χ ∼ ; m(
1χ ∼ qqW → g ~ , g ~
- g
~
- 1
L dt = 20.3 fb
∫
Multijet Combined
ATLAS
)
expσ 1 ± Expected limit ( )
theory SUSYσ 1 ± Observed limit ( )
1χ ∼ ) < m ( g ~ m (
Fractional mass splitting, x
Discussion points: How do these limits compare to single lepton + jets final state? Is a single lepton + jets final state mutually exclusive with
- bservables like MΣJ?
A or B = flavor stream C - H = MΣJ stream
Expected limits shown where best analysis stream is highlighted MΣJ stream better expected limits
~ ~
Tran
SLIDE 56
Jet Substructure
- 1-prong decays:
- discriminating between quark, gluon and pileup jets can be used to
boost sensitivity
- 2-prong decays:
- mature existing methods for identifying W/Z/H jets, can be extended to
generic 2-prong boosted jets
- 3-prong decays:
- mature existing methods for identifying top jets, can be extended to
generic 3-prong boosted jets
- 4 (or more)-prong decays:
- a new broad class of observables for studying high jet multiplicity final
states; first analysis using sum jet mass with encouraging first results
Tran
SLIDE 57
Stealth SUSY
Fan and Reece
Spectrum$and$decay$chain$
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Mass GeV⇥
Gluino g Singlino Singlet Gravitino
˜ g ˜ s ˜ G g s g g (5)
200 400 600 800 1000 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14
eV⇥ .U.
SUSY
eV eV uark 200 400 600 800 1000 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
pT GeV⇥ A.U.
Momentum Spectra for Stealth SUSY
Gluino, 600 GeV Singlino, 50 GeV Singlet, 45 GeV Gluon Gravitino
SLIDE 58
Outlook
- Retain and strengthen
theory / experiment interface (HUGE advances since Tevatron)
- Be open-minded to the vastness of
possibilities -- within and beyond SUSY
- Personally (me!) -- Higgsinos! Signals
may be tough -- highly degenerate SUSY
SLIDE 59
Outlook
39
Summary
LHC consolidation for 13+ TeV well underway
Can expect 1-2 (15-30) fb-1 by summer (end) of 2015
Experiments require 25ns bunch spacing beams to fully cope with potential peak luminosity pileup High mass searches will quickly rival/exceed Run 1 Higgs Boson measurement will likely go beyond Run 1 with the first years data Excellent prospects for the next exciting discovery in 2015
? ?
Peterson
SLIDE 60
Lykken Concluding Slide
SLIDE 61
(happily, Joe was referring to extra dimensions in 1999)
Lykken Concluding Slide
SLIDE 62