2013:groups:np:susysms
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Last revision Both sides next revision | ||
|
2013:groups:np:susysms [2013/06/20 16:14] sabine.kraml |
2013:groups:np:susysms [2013/06/21 08:58] sezen.sekmen |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ====== Simplified models in the SUSY context ====== | ====== Simplified models in the SUSY context ====== | ||
| - | Interested people: Suchita, Wolfgang, Sabine, Aoife .... (please add your name!) | + | Interested people: Suchita, Wolfgang, Sabine, Aoife, Sofio, Tobias .... (please add your name!) |
| {{:2013:participants:sms_wishlist_kulkarni.pdf | SMS wishlist talk}} | {{:2013:participants:sms_wishlist_kulkarni.pdf | SMS wishlist talk}} | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| - **Avoid too restrictive assumptions**\\ When presenting an SMS interpretation result, the underlying physics considered should be as generic as possible. Instead of fixing certain aspects of the scenario, it would be more helpful to discuss "default" and extreme cases. For example: | - **Avoid too restrictive assumptions**\\ When presenting an SMS interpretation result, the underlying physics considered should be as generic as possible. Instead of fixing certain aspects of the scenario, it would be more helpful to discuss "default" and extreme cases. For example: | ||
| * Same-sign leptons plus jets from gluino and squark production: in [[https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/CONFNOTES/ATLAS-CONF-2013-007/fig_16.png|Fig. 16]] of ATLAS-CONF-2013-007, two mass parameters are fixed (see point 2. above), and flavor-democratic slepton decays are assumed --> Suchita's nightmare analysis. | * Same-sign leptons plus jets from gluino and squark production: in [[https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/CONFNOTES/ATLAS-CONF-2013-007/fig_16.png|Fig. 16]] of ATLAS-CONF-2013-007, two mass parameters are fixed (see point 2. above), and flavor-democratic slepton decays are assumed --> Suchita's nightmare analysis. | ||
| - | * On the other hand, the CMS search for electroweak production of charginos, neutralinos and sleptons using leptonic final states, [[https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/CMSPublic/PhysicsResultsSUS12022|SUS12022]], discusses several extreme cases for slepton decays, which is a more helpful approach.\\ | + | * On the other hand, the CMS search for electroweak production of charginos, neutralinos and sleptons using leptonic final states, [[https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/CMSPublic/PhysicsResultsSUS12022|SUS12022]], discusses several extreme cases for slepton decays, which is a more helpful approach.\\ \\ |
| - | - **For topologies involving different decays on each leg, parametrize results in terms of branching fractions.**\\ A typical example is stop1 pair production with one stop decaying into top+neutralino1 and the other one into bottom+chargino1. The final state is tb+MET, but the constraints on the cross section depend on 3 masses (stop1, chargino1, neutralino1) as well as the 2 branching ratios. If only the two decay channels are open, BR(stop1 --> bottom+chargino1) = 1-BR(stop1 --> top+neutralino1), leaving us with 4 free parameters. It would be useful to present results in, e.g., the stop1 versus neutralino1 mass plane for different values of branching ratios.\\ | + | - **For topologies involving different decays on each leg, parametrize results in terms of branching fractions.**\\ A typical example is stop1 pair production with one stop decaying into top+neutralino1 and the other one into bottom+chargino1. The final state is tb+MET, but the constraints on the cross section depend on 3 masses (stop1, chargino1, neutralino1) as well as the 2 branching ratios. If only the two decay channels are open, BR(stop1 --> bottom+chargino1) = 1-BR(stop1 --> top+neutralino1), leaving us with 4 free parameters. It would be useful to present results in, e.g., the stop1 versus neutralino1 mass plane for different values of branching ratios.\\ \\ |
| - | - **Give expected upper limits on sigma x BR in addition to the observed ones**\\ The expected upper limits are needed in order to identify the most sensitive topology. This is crucial for a correct statistical treatment of complex spectrum decompositions, which may be constrained by more than topology.\\ | + | - **Give expected upper limits on sigma x BR in addition to the observed ones**\\ The expected upper limits are needed in order to identify the most sensitive topology. This is crucial for a correct statistical treatment of complex spectrum decompositions, which may be constrained by more than topology.\\ |
| + | |||
| + | - **Incorporate likelihoods from the new physics searches**\\ Incorporate likelihoods from LHC new physics searches in SModels using Roofit/Roostats framework to facilitate a more precise interpretation of full models using simplified model spectra (SMSs.\\ | ||
| Let us also point out that **efficiency maps** provided by the experimental collaborations would be very useful for enlarging the scope of SMS interpretations. | Let us also point out that **efficiency maps** provided by the experimental collaborations would be very useful for enlarging the scope of SMS interpretations. | ||
2013/groups/np/susysms.txt · Last modified: 2013/10/30 11:12 by sabine.kraml
Page Tools
Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: Public Domain
