Interested people: Suchita, Wolfgang, Sabine, Aoife …. (please add your name!)

SMS wishlist talk

SUSY simplified model results are a generic and powerful way to constrain MSSM parameter space. Various simplified models topologies are considered by both ATLAS and CMS collaborations. These topologies often include more than two free parameters eg. the mass of intermediate particle(s) in addition to the mass of the mother and LSP in case of cascade decays. It is possible to Interpolate between the 95% CL upper limit results for different mass(es) of intermediate particle(s) in order to obtain generic result for any intermediate masse(es). In this way, the SMS results can be applied to more generic

The following wish list is based on this principle and aims towards making the simplified models results more accessible and useful. For each of the points on the wish list, we list one potential candidate where the existing SMS results can be improved.

1. Digitize… digitize… digitize….
   Please provide the information contained in the cross section limit plots in electronic form, either as simple ascii file or a Root file. This is increasingly done by CMS, a good example is SUS13011, ATLAS is still dragging behind.
   
   
2. For topologies involving cascade decays, provide results for more than one (at least 3) intermediate mass values.
   Results on processes involving 2-step decays (e.g. trileptons from EWino decays via sleptons) crucially depend on the intermediate mass value, because this determines the kinematics of the events. If results are given for only one mass fraction value, we cannot use them, because we cannot interpolate. This is for example the case for the 3taus+MET results from CMS, SUS12022, which are available for x=0.5 only. Such results which have only one value of x are in fact completely useless for our purpose. In order to allow interpolation for different intermediate mass values, least three mass fraction are needed. We recommend to provide the results for x = 0.05, 0.5, 0.95 (or if possibe x = 0.05, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 0.95).
   
   

• eg. although for other cases of slepton mediated weakino decays more values of x are considered
• It should be possible to reliably interpolate upper limits between two different points in a SMS result plot
• eg. https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/CONFNOTES/ATLAS-CONF-2013-035/figaux_01a.png large changes in the UL, such as ones represented in this example, can not be interpolated
• 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 might be more helpful to discuss “default” and extreme cases:
• eg. https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/CONFNOTES/ATLAS-CONF-2013-007/fig_16.png: two mass parameters are fixed (see item one in our wishlist), and democratic slepton decays are assumed. On the other hand, https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/CMSPublic/PhysicsResultsSUS12022 discusses several extreme cases for slepton decays, which is a more helpful approach.
• Expected upper limits on sigma X BR are needed in order to identify the most sensitive topology
• For every 95% CL observed UL plot, the expected UL plot is desirable (as additional material in digital format)
• Efficiency maps should be made available from experimental collaborations