Stable chargino cut_Etmiss100 cut_ptmin80 cut_pmin150 cut_pmin1.00E+06 cut_pt1 cut_DR_10.25 cut_scthits6 cut_p1_eta-0.11 cut_p2_eta0.17 cut_p3_eta massScaleFacto r GeV500 GeV800 GeV Rel.EffAbs.Eff Rel.EffAbs.Eff Rel.EffAbs.Eff trigger MET skim isolation pCut ionization Direi che siamo compatibili con la selezione 1 candidato Tight di Troels &co a 500 GeV, see next. La grossa differenza la fa il trigger, immagino che potremmo ampliarla anche noi volendo.

Metastable Same cuts as stable and as Rhadrons analysis A partire dalle squeezed, troviamo 1.6 e 2.9% per 150 e 300 GeV, 1 ns lifetime 150 GeV, 1ns 300 GeV, 1 ns generated squeezed GRL cleaning trigger MET PV skim isolation electronVeto pCut ionization

Metastable da non filtered Solo 150 GeV, 1 ns, ma siccome l’efficienza viene uguale a prima (dovrebbe essere cambiato solo il cleaning), possiamo assumere eff 3% sul 300 GeV. 150 GeV, 1 ns Rel.EffAbs.Eff trigger MET skim isolation pCut ionization

Confronto con Susy kinked (Shimpei) 150 GeV, 1 ns Rel.EffAbs.Eff trigger MET skim isolation pCut ionization Signal: 150 GeV, 1 ns Event selection: 5.5% vs 62.3% Track selection: 15.4% vs 2.7% Overall: 0.85% vs 1.7% Kinked selection is more efficient at the track level, but it is penalized by the event cuts. (btw, allora andrebbe alla grande con FTK che toglie il bias di evento)