1 / 15

Snapshot of Photon + MET Trigger Studies

Snapshot of Photon + MET Trigger Studies. Bruce Schumm, SCIPP/UCSC SUSY Trigger Meeting 14 December 2010. Significant Transition: MGM to GGM. Tevatron analysis based on “Snowmass Points and Slopes” trajectory that is essentially Minimal Gauge Mediation (MGM)

coy
Download Presentation

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 Trigger Meeting 14 December 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 Tevatron 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 for two-photon trigger What about ET dependence?

  7. Close to 2g20_loose would be close to knee (remember that current limit is just below this, at ~175 GeV)

  8. Tentative Conclusions for Bino-Like Case • We are probably OK for 2g20_loose, and perhaps even 2g25_loose • As far as we know now, control samples will be accumulated naturally with 2gXX_loose triggers. • Alternatively, gXX_loose would probably be fine for XX < 70 GeV (both signal and control) • Loose (as opposed to tight) is essential for control samples (have not explored developing control sample with pre-scaled trigger but am somewhat skeptical) • 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. Triggering on GMSB with Jet Triggers (2009 study)  Assume pointing/non-pointing have same jet character Highlighted trigger is 1J60  2J20; perhaps similar to proposed 3J50?

  11. WINO-Like Case • Natural signature is photon + lepton • +e: 2gXX_loose or 1gXX_loose should work as for Bino-like case • +: Did not look into muon trigger threshold; single muon trigger may be adequate for thresholds less than ~50 GeV •    trigger best; case not made HIGGSINO-Like Case • No photons in the limit of pure Higgsino • Admixture would give photon + jets • Would have some sensitivity with 1gXX trigger •   jet trigger ideal; case not made

  12. Summary and Conclusions • BINO-Like • 2g25_loose and/or 1g70_loose look OK. • Not easy to make independent case for 2g triggers, but precedent makes us a little uneasy to give them up. • Non-pointing covered by jet triggers? • WINO-Like • 1g or 2g trigger probably fine for +e signature; probably less efficient for +. • Pure muon trigger might provide additional coverage •    clearly ideal, but no work done to make case • HIGGSINO Admixture •   jets ideal, but work to make case not done

  13. Sorry – that’s all folks…

More Related