4.4 Article

W Z plus missing-ET signal from gaugino pair production at LHC7

期刊

JOURNAL OF HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS
卷 -, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/JHEP03(2012)092

关键词

Supersymmetry Phenomenology

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy [DE-FG02-04ER41305, DE-FG02-04ER41291, DE-FG02-95ER40896]
  2. IN2P3 of France under PICS FR-USA [5872]
  3. Fundacao de Apoio a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

LHC searches for supersymmetry currently focus on strongly produced sparticles, which are copiously produced if gluinos and squarks have masses of a few hundred GeV. However, in supersymmetric models with heavy scalars, as favored by the decoupling solution to the SUSY flavor and CP problems, and m((g) over tilde) greater than or similar to 500 GeV as indicated by recent LHC results, chargino-neutralino ((W) over tilde (+/-)(1)(Z) over tilde (2)) production is the dominant cross section for m((W) over tilde1) similar to m((Z) over tilde2) < m(<(g)over tilde>)/3 at LHC with root s = 7 TeV (LHC7). Furthermore, if m((Z) over tilde1) + (m (Z) over tilde) less than or similar to m((Z) over tilde2) less than or similar to m((Z) over tilde1) + m(h), then (Z) over tilde (2) dominantly decays via (Z) over tilde (2) -> (Z) over tilde (1)Z, while (W) over tilde (1) decays via (W) over tilde (1) -> (Z) over tilde W-1. We investigate the LHC7 reach in the W Z + (sic)T channel (for both leptonic and hadronic decays of the W boson) in models with and without the assumption of gaugino mass universality. In the case of the mSUGRA/CMSSM model with heavy squark masses, the LHC7 discovery reach in the W Z+ (sic)T channel becomes competetive with the reach in the canonical (sic)T + jets channel for integrated luminosities similar to 30 fb(-1). We also present the LHC7 reach for a simplified model with arbitrary m((Z) over tilde1) and m((W) over tilde1) similar to m((Z) over tilde2). Here, we find a reach of up to m((W) over tilde1) similar to 200 (250) GeV for 10 (30) fb(-1).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据