Characterizing Light Higgsinos from Natural SUSY at ILC √s = 500 GeV

Characterizing Light Higgsinos from Natural SUSY at ILC √s = 500 GeV
Jacqueline Yan (KEK) On behalf of H. Baer (Univ of Oklahoma), M. Berggren, S.-L. Lehtinen, J. List (DESY), K. Fujii (KEK), T. Tanabe (Univ of Tokyo) European Linear Collider Workshop May 30 – Jun 5, 2016, Santander, Spain

Outline Motivation of study Event selection
Extraction of Higgsino mass and cross section SUSY parameter determination Goals and plans

Motivation for Searching Light Higgsinos with Small ΔM
From experimental point of view: LHC already excluded large regions with large ΔM = M(NLSP) – M(LSP) Remaining region with compressed spectrum very small visible energy release, near impossible to probe at LHC  ILC is essential From theoretical point of view: Compressed Higgsino spectra related to naturalness [e.g. arXiv: , arXiv: ] The Higgs scalar potential minimization relation relates the observed Z mass to weak scale Lagrangian parameters. to avoid large fine-tuning, all contributions on right-hand-side should be comparable to or less than MZ. That then requires mu~ GeV (<100 GeV and inos would have been seen at LEP2) mHu^2 is driven to small negative values. mHu^2 mainly feeds mass to the observed Higgs at 125 GeV while mu is supersymmetric so feeds mass to both SM and SUSY particles: for SM, it is W, Z and h while for SUSY is is higgsinos. Since W, Z, h ~100 GeV, then higgsinos not too far from that value. To maintain small electroweak fine tuning ∆EW (<〜3%), all contributions on right-hand-side should be comparable to M(Z)  requires μ ~ 100−300 GeV top and bottom squarks in the few TeV regime, gluino mass 2−4 TeV, 1st, 2nd generation squarks and sleptons in the 5−30 TeV regime μ feeds mass to both SM (W, Z, h) and SUSY particles (Higgsinos) Higgsino masses not too far from masses of W, Z, h (〜100 GeV)

Benchmarks in this Study
RNS model (Radiatively-driven natural SUSY) 4 light Higgsinos: (LSP) NUHM2 model parameters [arXiv: ] Benchmark ILC1 ILC2 M0 [GeV] 7025 5000 M1/2 [GeV] 568.3 1200 A0 [GeV] -10427 -8000 tanβ 10 15 μ [GeV] 115 150 MA [GeV] 1000 M(χ10) [GeV] 102.7 148.1 M(χ1±) [GeV] 117.3 158.3 M(χ20) [GeV] 124.0 157.8 M(χ30) [GeV] 267.0 538.8 ΔM about GeV complies with naturalness (ISR tag not needed) This study: √s = 500 GeV 　　　　　　　　Full detector simulation Currently studying ILC1 benchmark (Pe-, Pe+) (-1.0,+1.0) (+1.0,-1.0) σ(χ1+ χ1-) [fb] 1800 335 σ(χ10 χ20) [fb] 491 379 The Higgs scalar potential minimization relation relates the observed Z mass to weak scale Lagrangian parameters. to avoid large fine-tuning, all contributions on right-hand-side should be comparable to or less than MZ. That then requires mu~ GeV (<100 GeV and inos would have been seen at LEP2) mHu^2 is driven to small negative values. mHu^2 mainly feeds mass to the observed Higgs at 125 GeV while mu is supersymmetric so feeds mass to both SM and SUSY particles: for SM, it is W, Z and h while for SUSY is is higgsinos. Since W, Z, h ~100 GeV, then higgsinos not too far from that value. BR(χ1+ → χ10 qq’) 67% BR(χ1+ → χ10 lν) (l=e,μ) 22% BR(χ20 → χ10 qq’) 58% BR(χ20 → χ10 ll) (l=e,μ) 7.4% Higgs precision measurements useful for parameter determination Defined at GUT scale Defined at weak scale Observables

Goal of the Study Demonstrate measurement precision of Higgsino masses and production cross sections Masses and cross sections become input to determine SUSY parameters e.g. M1, M2, μ, tanβ Study dependence of cross section on beam polarization  Determine mixing ratio Higgsino vs. Bino vs. Wino Determine SUSY parameters Study input parameters and required precision for SUSY parameter extraction; interplay with Higgs precision measurements Existing studies (1) “Tackling light higgsinos at the ILC”, M. Berggren et al. [arXiv: ] √s= 500 GeV, ΔM 〜1 GeV  use ISR tag Based on full ILD simulation (2) “Physics at a Higgsino Factory”, H. Baer et al. [arXiv: ] √s= 250 (340) GeV for ILC1 (ILC2), ΔM = GeV Same benchmark as this study; detector effects based on resolution formula The Higgs scalar potential minimization relation relates the observed Z mass to weak scale Lagrangian parameters. to avoid large fine-tuning, all contributions on right-hand-side should be comparable to or less than MZ. That then requires mu~ GeV (<100 GeV and inos would have been seen at LEP2) mHu^2 is driven to small negative values. mHu^2 mainly feeds mass to the observed Higgs at 125 GeV while mu is supersymmetric so feeds mass to both SM and SUSY particles: for SM, it is W, Z and h while for SUSY is is higgsinos. Since W, Z, h ~100 GeV, then higgsinos not too far from that value.

How do these signals look in the detector? (1) muon pair electron pair
√s =500 GeV Neutralino mixed production with leptonic decay muon pair (track reaches muon detector) electron pair (compact EM showers) Here is the data selection I applied, with the numbers from last week Friday. First I select muon pairs based on ratio of deposit in calorimeter wrt to total energy, opposite charge, and track quality. Than I pick out the best muon pair candidates base on how close their inv mass is to real Z mass Next , comes final selection for recoil mass analysis. Here, in the order that these arei implemented I require inv mass to be between 86 and 95 GeV, Then recoil mass to be between 115 and 140 GeV Then PT of dilepton system to be between 10 GeV and 70 geV Then acoplanarity to be between 0.2 and 3 then cosine of Z production angle to be smaller than 0.91, to cut out very forward events characteristic of BG processes, Then I calculate efficieny by counting events in signal region of 123 and 135 geV Recoil mass is calculated taking into account beam x angle of 14 mrad. Last week I received a comment from Kurata san about why I have this lower limicoplanarity Ithe reason is that for some Bgprocesses, teher is a peak at very small cop values, although for the dominant 2f_Z_l, peak is at aroudn pai. However I have doubts as to whether this cut is really necessary, when I already have the other cuts before it. experimented with the outcome s when I take away the lower limit, and when I take away the cop cut altogether. I also experimented with widening the inv maass cut window.

How do these signals look in the detector? (2)
√s =500 GeV Chargino pair production with semileptonic decay quark jets lepton Here is the data selection I applied, with the numbers from last week Friday. First I select muon pairs based on ratio of deposit in calorimeter wrt to total energy, opposite charge, and track quality. Than I pick out the best muon pair candidates base on how close their inv mass is to real Z mass Next , comes final selection for recoil mass analysis. Here, in the order that these arei implemented I require inv mass to be between 86 and 95 GeV, Then recoil mass to be between 115 and 140 GeV Then PT of dilepton system to be between 10 GeV and 70 geV Then acoplanarity to be between 0.2 and 3 then cosine of Z production angle to be smaller than 0.91, to cut out very forward events characteristic of BG processes, Then I calculate efficieny by counting events in signal region of 123 and 135 geV Recoil mass is calculated taking into account beam x angle of 14 mrad. Last week I received a comment from Kurata san about why I have this lower limicoplanarity Ithe reason is that for some Bgprocesses, teher is a peak at very small cop values, although for the dominant 2f_Z_l, peak is at aroudn pai. However I have doubts as to whether this cut is really necessary, when I already have the other cuts before it. experimented with the outcome s when I take away the lower limit, and when I take away the cop cut altogether. I also experimented with widening the inv maass cut window. quark jets lepton

Event Selection signal Neutralino mixed production with leptonic decay
Reconstruct two leptons (ee or μμ) which originate from Z* emission in decay of χ20 to χ10 Major residual bkg. are 4f processes accompanied by large missing energy (ννll) 2-γ processes are removed by BeamCal veto, cuts on lepton track pT, and coplanarity ννll 2-γ Chargino pair production with semileptonic decay Here is the data selection I applied, with the numbers from last week Friday. First I select muon pairs based on ratio of deposit in calorimeter wrt to total energy, opposite charge, and track quality. Than I pick out the best muon pair candidates base on how close their inv mass is to real Z mass Next , comes final selection for recoil mass analysis. Here, in the order that these arei implemented I require inv mass to be between 86 and 95 GeV, Then recoil mass to be between 115 and 140 GeV Then PT of dilepton system to be between 10 GeV and 70 geV Then acoplanarity to be between 0.2 and 3 then cosine of Z production angle to be smaller than 0.91, to cut out very forward events characteristic of BG processes, Then I calculate efficieny by counting events in signal region of 123 and 135 geV Recoil mass is calculated taking into account beam x angle of 14 mrad. Last week I received a comment from Kurata san about why I have this lower limicoplanarity Ithe reason is that for some Bgprocesses, teher is a peak at very small cop values, although for the dominant 2f_Z_l, peak is at aroudn pai. However I have doubts as to whether this cut is really necessary, when I already have the other cuts before it. experimented with the outcome s when I take away the lower limit, and when I take away the cop cut altogether. I also experimented with widening the inv maass cut window. Reconstruct two jets which originate from W* emission in decay of χ1± to χ10 Use lepton (e or μ) from the other chargino as tag BeamCal veto, cuts on missing pT, # of tracks, # of leptons, and coplanarity remove almost all bkg. (signal significance > 100) signal

Extraction of Higgsino Mass
Neutralino mixed production with leptonic decay Extraction of Higgsino Mass [work in progress] The position of the kinematic edges of the dilepton energy (Ell) and invariant mass (Mll) are functions of CM energy and the two neutralino masses. The maximum values Ell,max and Mll,max are extracted by a fit to obtain the neutralino masses after correcting for detector/reconstruction effects` Similar for case of chargino pair production (ll  jj) di-electron energy di-electron mass Here is the data selection I applied, with the numbers from last week Friday. First I select muon pairs based on ratio of deposit in calorimeter wrt to total energy, opposite charge, and track quality. Than I pick out the best muon pair candidates base on how close their inv mass is to real Z mass Next , comes final selection for recoil mass analysis. Here, in the order that these arei implemented I require inv mass to be between 86 and 95 GeV, Then recoil mass to be between 115 and 140 GeV Then PT of dilepton system to be between 10 GeV and 70 geV Then acoplanarity to be between 0.2 and 3 then cosine of Z production angle to be smaller than 0.91, to cut out very forward events characteristic of BG processes, Then I calculate efficieny by counting events in signal region of 123 and 135 geV Recoil mass is calculated taking into account beam x angle of 14 mrad. Last week I received a comment from Kurata san about why I have this lower limicoplanarity Ithe reason is that for some Bgprocesses, teher is a peak at very small cop values, although for the dominant 2f_Z_l, peak is at aroudn pai. However I have doubts as to whether this cut is really necessary, when I already have the other cuts before it. experimented with the outcome s when I take away the lower limit, and when I take away the cop cut altogether. I also experimented with widening the inv maass cut window. Cuts have been designed so as not to destroy upper edge Use toy MC (generated from MC data fit) to evaluate statistical uncertainty We have began process of kinematic edge extraction　

di-muon energy di-muon mass di-electron energy di-electron mass
Neutralino mixed production with leptonic decay Polarization (Pe-,Pe+) = (-0.8, +0.3) di-muon energy di-muon mass Bkg distr are ragged in some channels due to deficiency in MC statistics,; generating more Here is the data selection I applied, with the numbers from last week Friday. First I select muon pairs based on ratio of deposit in calorimeter wrt to total energy, opposite charge, and track quality. Than I pick out the best muon pair candidates base on how close their inv mass is to real Z mass Next , comes final selection for recoil mass analysis. Here, in the order that these arei implemented I require inv mass to be between 86 and 95 GeV, Then recoil mass to be between 115 and 140 GeV Then PT of dilepton system to be between 10 GeV and 70 geV Then acoplanarity to be between 0.2 and 3 then cosine of Z production angle to be smaller than 0.91, to cut out very forward events characteristic of BG processes, Then I calculate efficieny by counting events in signal region of 123 and 135 geV Recoil mass is calculated taking into account beam x angle of 14 mrad. Last week I received a comment from Kurata san about why I have this lower limicoplanarity Ithe reason is that for some Bgprocesses, teher is a peak at very small cop values, although for the dominant 2f_Z_l, peak is at aroudn pai. However I have doubts as to whether this cut is really necessary, when I already have the other cuts before it. experimented with the outcome s when I take away the lower limit, and when I take away the cop cut altogether. I also experimented with widening the inv maass cut window. di-electron energy di-electron mass

 better S/B ratio w.r.t. left-handed polarization
Neutralino mixed production with leptonic decay Polarization (Pe-, Pe+) = (+0.8, -0.3)  better S/B ratio w.r.t. left-handed polarization di-muon energy di-muon mass Here is the data selection I applied, with the numbers from last week Friday. First I select muon pairs based on ratio of deposit in calorimeter wrt to total energy, opposite charge, and track quality. Than I pick out the best muon pair candidates base on how close their inv mass is to real Z mass Next , comes final selection for recoil mass analysis. Here, in the order that these arei implemented I require inv mass to be between 86 and 95 GeV, Then recoil mass to be between 115 and 140 GeV Then PT of dilepton system to be between 10 GeV and 70 geV Then acoplanarity to be between 0.2 and 3 then cosine of Z production angle to be smaller than 0.91, to cut out very forward events characteristic of BG processes, Then I calculate efficieny by counting events in signal region of 123 and 135 geV Recoil mass is calculated taking into account beam x angle of 14 mrad. Last week I received a comment from Kurata san about why I have this lower limicoplanarity Ithe reason is that for some Bgprocesses, teher is a peak at very small cop values, although for the dominant 2f_Z_l, peak is at aroudn pai. However I have doubts as to whether this cut is really necessary, when I already have the other cuts before it. experimented with the outcome s when I take away the lower limit, and when I take away the cop cut altogether. I also experimented with widening the inv maass cut window. di-electron energy di-electron mass 11

Chargino pair production with semileptonic decay
Polarization (Pe-,Pe+) = (-0.8, +0.3) SM and SUSY backgrounds almost fully eliminated di-jet energy w/ muon tag di-jet mass w/ muon tag Here is the data selection I applied, with the numbers from last week Friday. First I select muon pairs based on ratio of deposit in calorimeter wrt to total energy, opposite charge, and track quality. Than I pick out the best muon pair candidates base on how close their inv mass is to real Z mass Next , comes final selection for recoil mass analysis. Here, in the order that these arei implemented I require inv mass to be between 86 and 95 GeV, Then recoil mass to be between 115 and 140 GeV Then PT of dilepton system to be between 10 GeV and 70 geV Then acoplanarity to be between 0.2 and 3 then cosine of Z production angle to be smaller than 0.91, to cut out very forward events characteristic of BG processes, Then I calculate efficieny by counting events in signal region of 123 and 135 geV Recoil mass is calculated taking into account beam x angle of 14 mrad. Last week I received a comment from Kurata san about why I have this lower limicoplanarity Ithe reason is that for some Bgprocesses, teher is a peak at very small cop values, although for the dominant 2f_Z_l, peak is at aroudn pai. However I have doubts as to whether this cut is really necessary, when I already have the other cuts before it. experimented with the outcome s when I take away the lower limit, and when I take away the cop cut altogether. I also experimented with widening the inv maass cut window. di-jet energy w/ electron tag di-jet mass w/ electron tag

Chargino pair production with semileptonic decay
Polarization (Pe-, Pe+) = (+0.8, -0.3) distribution similar to left-handed pol., but smaller signal di-jet energy w/ muon tag di-jet mass w/ muon tag Here is the data selection I applied, with the numbers from last week Friday. First I select muon pairs based on ratio of deposit in calorimeter wrt to total energy, opposite charge, and track quality. Than I pick out the best muon pair candidates base on how close their inv mass is to real Z mass Next , comes final selection for recoil mass analysis. Here, in the order that these arei implemented I require inv mass to be between 86 and 95 GeV, Then recoil mass to be between 115 and 140 GeV Then PT of dilepton system to be between 10 GeV and 70 geV Then acoplanarity to be between 0.2 and 3 then cosine of Z production angle to be smaller than 0.91, to cut out very forward events characteristic of BG processes, Then I calculate efficieny by counting events in signal region of 123 and 135 geV Recoil mass is calculated taking into account beam x angle of 14 mrad. Last week I received a comment from Kurata san about why I have this lower limicoplanarity Ithe reason is that for some Bgprocesses, teher is a peak at very small cop values, although for the dominant 2f_Z_l, peak is at aroudn pai. However I have doubts as to whether this cut is really necessary, when I already have the other cuts before it. experimented with the outcome s when I take away the lower limit, and when I take away the cop cut altogether. I also experimented with widening the inv maass cut window. di-jet energy w/ electron tag di-jet mass w/ electron tag 13

Extraction of Cross Section
[work in progress] Strategy: Fit overall shape to estimate total number of signal events Neutralino mixed production with leptonic decay Here is the data selection I applied, with the numbers from last week Friday. First I select muon pairs based on ratio of deposit in calorimeter wrt to total energy, opposite charge, and track quality. Than I pick out the best muon pair candidates base on how close their inv mass is to real Z mass Next , comes final selection for recoil mass analysis. Here, in the order that these arei implemented I require inv mass to be between 86 and 95 GeV, Then recoil mass to be between 115 and 140 GeV Then PT of dilepton system to be between 10 GeV and 70 geV Then acoplanarity to be between 0.2 and 3 then cosine of Z production angle to be smaller than 0.91, to cut out very forward events characteristic of BG processes, Then I calculate efficieny by counting events in signal region of 123 and 135 geV Recoil mass is calculated taking into account beam x angle of 14 mrad. Last week I received a comment from Kurata san about why I have this lower limicoplanarity Ithe reason is that for some Bgprocesses, teher is a peak at very small cop values, although for the dominant 2f_Z_l, peak is at aroudn pai. However I have doubts as to whether this cut is really necessary, when I already have the other cuts before it. experimented with the outcome s when I take away the lower limit, and when I take away the cop cut altogether. I also experimented with widening the inv maass cut window. The results of Higgsino mass and cross section become input to the parameter fit to extract SUSY parameters (e.g. Wino and Bino masses, tanβ, etc.)

SUSY Parameter Determination
[S.-L. Lehtinen] SUSY Parameter Determination To get information about unobserved sparticles To test GUT-scale models Global χ2 fit of SUSY parameters to observables using Fittino [hep-ph/ ] Fit GUT scale (NUHM2) parameters Why? How? Reminder: Observables and assumed precision for ILC2 benchmark Benchmark ILC2 M0 [GeV] 5000 M1/2 [GeV] 1200 A0 [GeV] -8000 tanβ 15 μ [GeV] 150 MA [GeV] 1000 Here is the data selection I applied, with the numbers from last week Friday. First I select muon pairs based on ratio of deposit in calorimeter wrt to total energy, opposite charge, and track quality. Than I pick out the best muon pair candidates base on how close their inv mass is to real Z mass Next , comes final selection for recoil mass analysis. Here, in the order that these arei implemented I require inv mass to be between 86 and 95 GeV, Then recoil mass to be between 115 and 140 GeV Then PT of dilepton system to be between 10 GeV and 70 geV Then acoplanarity to be between 0.2 and 3 then cosine of Z production angle to be smaller than 0.91, to cut out very forward events characteristic of BG processes, Then I calculate efficieny by counting events in signal region of 123 and 135 geV Recoil mass is calculated taking into account beam x angle of 14 mrad. Last week I received a comment from Kurata san about why I have this lower limicoplanarity Ithe reason is that for some Bgprocesses, teher is a peak at very small cop values, although for the dominant 2f_Z_l, peak is at aroudn pai. However I have doubts as to whether this cut is really necessary, when I already have the other cuts before it. experimented with the outcome s when I take away the lower limit, and when I take away the cop cut altogether. I also experimented with widening the inv maass cut window. Uncertainty to be updated with results from simulation study Study required precision that allows for full parameter determination Defined at GUT scale Defined at weak scale

Fits of NUHM2 Parameters
[S.-L. Lehtinen] Fits of NUHM2 Parameters ILC2 All 6 parameters are simultaneously varied. Initial values are set to be near the model values. Each blue point corresponds to a set of parameter values. The χ2 value is computed for each point. Using the χ10, χ20, χ1± masses and production cross sections, M1/2 can be determined. Adding Higgs mass and BR as measured at the ILC fixes μ and possibly constrains other parameters In addition, if χ30 can be observed in χ20χ30, tanβ can be constrained as well. (ILC1) Here is the data selection I applied, with the numbers from last week Friday. First I select muon pairs based on ratio of deposit in calorimeter wrt to total energy, opposite charge, and track quality. Than I pick out the best muon pair candidates base on how close their inv mass is to real Z mass Next , comes final selection for recoil mass analysis. Here, in the order that these arei implemented I require inv mass to be between 86 and 95 GeV, Then recoil mass to be between 115 and 140 GeV Then PT of dilepton system to be between 10 GeV and 70 geV Then acoplanarity to be between 0.2 and 3 then cosine of Z production angle to be smaller than 0.91, to cut out very forward events characteristic of BG processes, Then I calculate efficieny by counting events in signal region of 123 and 135 geV Recoil mass is calculated taking into account beam x angle of 14 mrad. Last week I received a comment from Kurata san about why I have this lower limicoplanarity Ithe reason is that for some Bgprocesses, teher is a peak at very small cop values, although for the dominant 2f_Z_l, peak is at aroudn pai. However I have doubts as to whether this cut is really necessary, when I already have the other cuts before it. experimented with the outcome s when I take away the lower limit, and when I take away the cop cut altogether. I also experimented with widening the inv maass cut window. Diamond = model point Star = best fit point Outlook Test gaugino mass unification by fitting weak scale parameters M1 and M2

Summary Precision measurement of light Higgsinos with small ΔM (10-20 GeV) Motivated by both experiment (complementary to LHC) and theory (naturalness) Full ILD detector simulation, assuming L=500 fb-1 at √s = 500 GeV and (Pe-, Pe+) = (-0.8,+0.3) and (+0.8, -0.3) Analysis of neutralino mixed production (χ10 χ20) and chargino pair production (χ1+ χ1-) Data selection yields good S/B ratio ; almost no background for chargino Fit kinematic edges to extract Higgsino masses Fit to overall distribution to extract production cross sections SUSY parameter determination [S.-L. Lehtinen] To test GUT-scale physics and SUSY-breaking mechanism Global chi-squared fit of SUSY parameters Expected precisions of Higgsino measurements [to be updated with full simulation study], enable determining some NUHM2 parameters. Precise measurements of the light Higgs constrain the parameter space further in progress Here is the data selection I applied, with the numbers from last week Friday. First I select muon pairs based on ratio of deposit in calorimeter wrt to total energy, opposite charge, and track quality. Than I pick out the best muon pair candidates base on how close their inv mass is to real Z mass Next , comes final selection for recoil mass analysis. Here, in the order that these arei implemented I require inv mass to be between 86 and 95 GeV, Then recoil mass to be between 115 and 140 GeV Then PT of dilepton system to be between 10 GeV and 70 geV Then acoplanarity to be between 0.2 and 3 then cosine of Z production angle to be smaller than 0.91, to cut out very forward events characteristic of BG processes, Then I calculate efficieny by counting events in signal region of 123 and 135 geV Recoil mass is calculated taking into account beam x angle of 14 mrad. Last week I received a comment from Kurata san about why I have this lower limicoplanarity Ithe reason is that for some Bgprocesses, teher is a peak at very small cop values, although for the dominant 2f_Z_l, peak is at aroudn pai. However I have doubts as to whether this cut is really necessary, when I already have the other cuts before it. experimented with the outcome s when I take away the lower limit, and when I take away the cop cut altogether. I also experimented with widening the inv maass cut window. in progress

Thank you for listening

Additional Material Here is the data selection I applied, with the numbers from last week Friday. First I select muon pairs based on ratio of deposit in calorimeter wrt to total energy, opposite charge, and track quality. Than I pick out the best muon pair candidates base on how close their inv mass is to real Z mass Next , comes final selection for recoil mass analysis. Here, in the order that these arei implemented I require inv mass to be between 86 and 95 GeV, Then recoil mass to be between 115 and 140 GeV Then PT of dilepton system to be between 10 GeV and 70 geV Then acoplanarity to be between 0.2 and 3 then cosine of Z production angle to be smaller than 0.91, to cut out very forward events characteristic of BG processes, Then I calculate efficieny by counting events in signal region of 123 and 135 geV Recoil mass is calculated taking into account beam x angle of 14 mrad. Last week I received a comment from Kurata san about why I have this lower limicoplanarity Ithe reason is that for some Bgprocesses, teher is a peak at very small cop values, although for the dominant 2f_Z_l, peak is at aroudn pai. However I have doubts as to whether this cut is really necessary, when I already have the other cuts before it. experimented with the outcome s when I take away the lower limit, and when I take away the cop cut altogether. I also experimented with widening the inv maass cut window.

ILC1 Cross sections (pure beam polarizations)
√s=500 GeV with TDR beam parameters Branching ratios BR(χ1+ → χ10 qq’) 67% BR(χ1+ → χ10 lν) (l=e,μ) 22% BR(χ20 → χ10 qq’) 58% BR(χ20 → χ10 ll) (l=e,μ) 7.4% (Pe-, Pe+) (-1.0,+1.0) (+1.0,-1.0) σ(χ1+ χ1-) [fb] 1800 335 σ(χ10 χ20) [fb] 491 379 σ(χ20 χ30) [fb] 11.0 8.42 σ(χ10 χ10) [fb] 2.03 1.56 σ(χ20 χ20) [fb] 0.53 0.41 σ(χ10 χ30) [fb] 0.28 0.20

[S.-L. Lehtinen] tanβ constrained if we add χ30 mass and χ10χ30 production cross section Here is the data selection I applied, with the numbers from last week Friday. First I select muon pairs based on ratio of deposit in calorimeter wrt to total energy, opposite charge, and track quality. Than I pick out the best muon pair candidates base on how close their inv mass is to real Z mass Next , comes final selection for recoil mass analysis. Here, in the order that these arei implemented I require inv mass to be between 86 and 95 GeV, Then recoil mass to be between 115 and 140 GeV Then PT of dilepton system to be between 10 GeV and 70 geV Then acoplanarity to be between 0.2 and 3 then cosine of Z production angle to be smaller than 0.91, to cut out very forward events characteristic of BG processes, Then I calculate efficieny by counting events in signal region of 123 and 135 geV Recoil mass is calculated taking into account beam x angle of 14 mrad. Last week I received a comment from Kurata san about why I have this lower limicoplanarity Ithe reason is that for some Bgprocesses, teher is a peak at very small cop values, although for the dominant 2f_Z_l, peak is at aroudn pai. However I have doubts as to whether this cut is really necessary, when I already have the other cuts before it. experimented with the outcome s when I take away the lower limit, and when I take away the cop cut altogether. I also experimented with widening the inv maass cut window.

Major Residual bkg in region of higher kinematic edge of Minv and Edl
4f_leptonic processes involving missing energy μμ : f_ZZWWMix_l, 4f_singleZnunu_l ee : 4f_singleZeorsingleW_l 4f_leptonic BG drop to 1/10 for right pol 4f_sznu_leptonic 4f_szeorsw_leptonic 4f_sze_leptonic Here is the data selection I applied, with the numbers from last week Friday. First I select muon pairs based on ratio of deposit in calorimeter wrt to total energy, opposite charge, and track quality. Than I pick out the best muon pair candidates base on how close their inv mass is to real Z mass Next , comes final selection for recoil mass analysis. Here, in the order that these arei implemented I require inv mass to be between 86 and 95 GeV, Then recoil mass to be between 115 and 140 GeV Then PT of dilepton system to be between 10 GeV and 70 geV Then acoplanarity to be between 0.2 and 3 then cosine of Z production angle to be smaller than 0.91, to cut out very forward events characteristic of BG processes, Then I calculate efficieny by counting events in signal region of 123 and 135 geV Recoil mass is calculated taking into account beam x angle of 14 mrad. Last week I received a comment from Kurata san about why I have this lower limicoplanarity Ithe reason is that for some Bgprocesses, teher is a peak at very small cop values, although for the dominant 2f_Z_l, peak is at aroudn pai. However I have doubts as to whether this cut is really necessary, when I already have the other cuts before it. experimented with the outcome s when I take away the lower limit, and when I take away the cop cut altogether. I also experimented with widening the inv maass cut window. These are not all the diagrams

lepton type (μμ or ee) : the two leptonic channels of N1N2 analysis
Cuts for N1N2 lepton type (μμ or ee) : the two leptonic channels of N1N2 analysis nTrack = 2 : number of charged tracks no hit in BeamCal : veto γγ2f BG Pt_lep1,2 > 6 GeV and |cosθlep1,2| < 0.95: Coplanarity < 1.0 rad : angle between leptons in x-y plane Evis – Eγmax < 40 GeV : visible energy (very small for signal) Emis > 300 GeV : missing energy (very large for signal) |cosθmissing| < : θ of missing energy events |cosθZ| < : Z* production angle Pt_dl < 80 GeV : transverse momentum of dilepton Minv<50 GeV : dilepton invariant mass: determines ΔM last of all observe distributions of Minv and dilepton energy (E_dl) Kinematic edge is a function of Higgsino mass and ΔM Here is the data selection I applied, with the numbers from last week Friday. First I select muon pairs based on ratio of deposit in calorimeter wrt to total energy, opposite charge, and track quality. Than I pick out the best muon pair candidates base on how close their inv mass is to real Z mass Next , comes final selection for recoil mass analysis. Here, in the order that these arei implemented I require inv mass to be between 86 and 95 GeV, Then recoil mass to be between 115 and 140 GeV Then PT of dilepton system to be between 10 GeV and 70 geV Then acoplanarity to be between 0.2 and 3 then cosine of Z production angle to be smaller than 0.91, to cut out very forward events characteristic of BG processes, Then I calculate efficieny by counting events in signal region of 123 and 135 geV Recoil mass is calculated taking into account beam x angle of 14 mrad. Last week I received a comment from Kurata san about why I have this lower limicoplanarity Ithe reason is that for some Bgprocesses, teher is a peak at very small cop values, although for the dominant 2f_Z_l, peak is at aroudn pai. However I have doubts as to whether this cut is really necessary, when I already have the other cuts before it. experimented with the outcome s when I take away the lower limit, and when I take away the cop cut altogether. I also experimented with widening the inv maass cut window.

Cuts for C1C1 lepton type (μ or e tag) and # of lepton =1
Pt_mis > 10 GeV Jet Coplanarity < 1.0 rad |cosθjet1,2| < 0.95: nTrack(in jet) >1 : no hit in BeamCal : cosθjet1-lep < 0.2, cosθjet2-lep < 0 angle between jets and leptons Evis – Eγmax < 60 GeV : Emis > 400 GeV : |cosθmissing| < : |cosθZ| < : Pt_jj < 50 GeV : Minv<30 GeV : last of all observe distributions of Minv and dijet energy (Ejj) Kinematic edge is a function of Higgsino mass and ΔM Here is the data selection I applied, with the numbers from last week Friday. First I select muon pairs based on ratio of deposit in calorimeter wrt to total energy, opposite charge, and track quality. Than I pick out the best muon pair candidates base on how close their inv mass is to real Z mass Next , comes final selection for recoil mass analysis. Here, in the order that these arei implemented I require inv mass to be between 86 and 95 GeV, Then recoil mass to be between 115 and 140 GeV Then PT of dilepton system to be between 10 GeV and 70 geV Then acoplanarity to be between 0.2 and 3 then cosine of Z production angle to be smaller than 0.91, to cut out very forward events characteristic of BG processes, Then I calculate efficieny by counting events in signal region of 123 and 135 geV Recoil mass is calculated taking into account beam x angle of 14 mrad. Last week I received a comment from Kurata san about why I have this lower limicoplanarity Ithe reason is that for some Bgprocesses, teher is a peak at very small cop values, although for the dominant 2f_Z_l, peak is at aroudn pai. However I have doubts as to whether this cut is really necessary, when I already have the other cuts before it. experimented with the outcome s when I take away the lower limit, and when I take away the cop cut altogether. I also experimented with widening the inv maass cut window.

Definitions left pol : (Pe-, Pe+) = (-80%, + 30%)
right pol: (Pe-, Pe+) = (+80%, - 30%) Assumed inteLumi = 500 fb-1 N1 : χ N2: χ C1: χ1± N1N2 analysis: e+e-  N1N2  N1 + l l (l : e or μ) (N2  N1 + Z*, Z*  l l (leptonic mode) C1+C1- analysis: e+e-  C+C- , C1  N1 + W*, W*dijet, W*  lν (l : e or μ)　　　semileptonic mode Here is the data selection I applied, with the numbers from last week Friday. First I select muon pairs based on ratio of deposit in calorimeter wrt to total energy, opposite charge, and track quality. Than I pick out the best muon pair candidates base on how close their inv mass is to real Z mass Next , comes final selection for recoil mass analysis. Here, in the order that these arei implemented I require inv mass to be between 86 and 95 GeV, Then recoil mass to be between 115 and 140 GeV Then PT of dilepton system to be between 10 GeV and 70 geV Then acoplanarity to be between 0.2 and 3 then cosine of Z production angle to be smaller than 0.91, to cut out very forward events characteristic of BG processes, Then I calculate efficieny by counting events in signal region of 123 and 135 geV Recoil mass is calculated taking into account beam x angle of 14 mrad. Last week I received a comment from Kurata san about why I have this lower limicoplanarity Ithe reason is that for some Bgprocesses, teher is a peak at very small cop values, although for the dominant 2f_Z_l, peak is at aroudn pai. However I have doubts as to whether this cut is really necessary, when I already have the other cuts before it. experimented with the outcome s when I take away the lower limit, and when I take away the cop cut altogether. I also experimented with widening the inv maass cut window.

lepton type (μμ or ee) : the two leptonic channels of N1N2 analysis
Cuts for N1N2 lepton type (μμ or ee) : the two leptonic channels of N1N2 analysis nTrack = 2 : number of charged tracks no hit in BeamCal : veto γγ2f BG Pt_lep1,2 > 6 GeV and |cosθlep1,2| < 0.95: Coplanarity < 1.0 rad : angle between leptons in x-y plane Evis – Eγmax < 40 GeV : visible energy (very small for signal) Emis > 300 GeV : missing energy (very large for signal) |cosθmissing| < : θ of missing energy events |cosθZ| < : Z* production angle Pt_dl < 80 GeV : transverse momentum of dilepton Minv<50 GeV : dilepton invariant mass: determines ΔM last of all observe distributions of Minv and dilepton energy (E_dl) Kinematic edge is a function of Higgsino mass and ΔM Here is the data selection I applied, with the numbers from last week Friday. First I select muon pairs based on ratio of deposit in calorimeter wrt to total energy, opposite charge, and track quality. Than I pick out the best muon pair candidates base on how close their inv mass is to real Z mass Next , comes final selection for recoil mass analysis. Here, in the order that these arei implemented I require inv mass to be between 86 and 95 GeV, Then recoil mass to be between 115 and 140 GeV Then PT of dilepton system to be between 10 GeV and 70 geV Then acoplanarity to be between 0.2 and 3 then cosine of Z production angle to be smaller than 0.91, to cut out very forward events characteristic of BG processes, Then I calculate efficieny by counting events in signal region of 123 and 135 geV Recoil mass is calculated taking into account beam x angle of 14 mrad. Last week I received a comment from Kurata san about why I have this lower limicoplanarity Ithe reason is that for some Bgprocesses, teher is a peak at very small cop values, although for the dominant 2f_Z_l, peak is at aroudn pai. However I have doubts as to whether this cut is really necessary, when I already have the other cuts before it. experimented with the outcome s when I take away the lower limit, and when I take away the cop cut altogether. I also experimented with widening the inv maass cut window.

Cuts for C1C1 lepton type (μ or e tag) and # of lepton =1
Pt_mis > 10 GeV Jet Coplanarity < 1.0 rad |cosθjet1,2| < 0.95: nTrack(in jet) >1 : no hit in BeamCal : cosθjet1-lep < 0.2, cosθjet2-lep < 0 angle between jets and leptons Evis – Eγmax < 60 GeV : Emis > 400 GeV : |cosθmissing| < : |cosθZ| < : Pt_jj < 50 GeV : Minv<30 GeV : last of all observe distributions of Minv and dijet energy (Ejj) Kinematic edge is a function of Higgsino mass and ΔM Here is the data selection I applied, with the numbers from last week Friday. First I select muon pairs based on ratio of deposit in calorimeter wrt to total energy, opposite charge, and track quality. Than I pick out the best muon pair candidates base on how close their inv mass is to real Z mass Next , comes final selection for recoil mass analysis. Here, in the order that these arei implemented I require inv mass to be between 86 and 95 GeV, Then recoil mass to be between 115 and 140 GeV Then PT of dilepton system to be between 10 GeV and 70 geV Then acoplanarity to be between 0.2 and 3 then cosine of Z production angle to be smaller than 0.91, to cut out very forward events characteristic of BG processes, Then I calculate efficieny by counting events in signal region of 123 and 135 geV Recoil mass is calculated taking into account beam x angle of 14 mrad. Last week I received a comment from Kurata san about why I have this lower limicoplanarity Ithe reason is that for some Bgprocesses, teher is a peak at very small cop values, although for the dominant 2f_Z_l, peak is at aroudn pai. However I have doubts as to whether this cut is really necessary, when I already have the other cuts before it. experimented with the outcome s when I take away the lower limit, and when I take away the cop cut altogether. I also experimented with widening the inv maass cut window.

Cut table N1N2 , μμ (Pe-, Pe+) = (-80,+30)
sig bkg 4f_l aa_2f ae_3f SUSY bkg xsec 300.8 3.00E6 2.68E6 261580 1065.2 N_gen 150395 1.50E9 5.28E6 1.34E9 1.31E8 532585 Lep_type nTrack=2 1974 9.1E8 444255 8.9E8 2.2E7 2426 BCAL veto 1950 6.0E6 149871 5.5E6 965354 2411 Pt_lep,1,2 1675 2.0E6 105721 1.4E6 295459 1986 cosθ_lep 1624 1.3E6 56001 910330 167734 coplanarity 1407 48366 5272 3509 33067 22 Evis 1404 14325 2465 2248 4743 Emis, cosθmis 1393 1063 929 34 9 19 cosZ, Pt_ll, Minv 545 429 Here is the data selection I applied, with the numbers from last week Friday. First I select muon pairs based on ratio of deposit in calorimeter wrt to total energy, opposite charge, and track quality. Than I pick out the best muon pair candidates base on how close their inv mass is to real Z mass Next , comes final selection for recoil mass analysis. Here, in the order that these arei implemented I require inv mass to be between 86 and 95 GeV, Then recoil mass to be between 115 and 140 GeV Then PT of dilepton system to be between 10 GeV and 70 geV Then acoplanarity to be between 0.2 and 3 then cosine of Z production angle to be smaller than 0.91, to cut out very forward events characteristic of BG processes, Then I calculate efficieny by counting events in signal region of 123 and 135 geV Recoil mass is calculated taking into account beam x angle of 14 mrad. Last week I received a comment from Kurata san about why I have this lower limicoplanarity Ithe reason is that for some Bgprocesses, teher is a peak at very small cop values, although for the dominant 2f_Z_l, peak is at aroudn pai. However I have doubts as to whether this cut is really necessary, when I already have the other cuts before it. experimented with the outcome s when I take away the lower limit, and when I take away the cop cut altogether. I also experimented with widening the inv maass cut window.

Cut table C1C1 , μtag (Pe-, Pe+) = (-80,+30)
sig bkg 4f_l aa_2f ae_3f SUSY bkg Xsec [fb] 1065.2 3.00E6 2.68E6 261580 300.8 N_gen 532585 1.50E9 5.28E6 1.34E9 1.31E8 150395 nLep=1 BCAL veto 57983 1.5E9 443296 1.2E6 860530 1135 Ptmis 38240 2.7E6 377010 465397 519308 964 Jet_coplanarity 26085 1.5E6 86399 83683 109325 531 Jet_cosθ nTrack (per jet) > 1 14612 305870 3066 555 2234 22 cosθjet-lep Evis 14308 3753 791 100 41 Emis, cosθmis 14231 83 57 3 Pt_jj, M_jj 14173 51 31 Here is the data selection I applied, with the numbers from last week Friday. First I select muon pairs based on ratio of deposit in calorimeter wrt to total energy, opposite charge, and track quality. Than I pick out the best muon pair candidates base on how close their inv mass is to real Z mass Next , comes final selection for recoil mass analysis. Here, in the order that these arei implemented I require inv mass to be between 86 and 95 GeV, Then recoil mass to be between 115 and 140 GeV Then PT of dilepton system to be between 10 GeV and 70 geV Then acoplanarity to be between 0.2 and 3 then cosine of Z production angle to be smaller than 0.91, to cut out very forward events characteristic of BG processes, Then I calculate efficieny by counting events in signal region of 123 and 135 geV Recoil mass is calculated taking into account beam x angle of 14 mrad. Last week I received a comment from Kurata san about why I have this lower limicoplanarity Ithe reason is that for some Bgprocesses, teher is a peak at very small cop values, although for the dominant 2f_Z_l, peak is at aroudn pai. However I have doubts as to whether this cut is really necessary, when I already have the other cuts before it. experimented with the outcome s when I take away the lower limit, and when I take away the cop cut altogether. I also experimented with widening the inv maass cut window.

Cut table C1C1 e tag (Pe-, Pe+) = (-80,+30)
Here is the data selection I applied, with the numbers from last week Friday. First I select muon pairs based on ratio of deposit in calorimeter wrt to total energy, opposite charge, and track quality. Than I pick out the best muon pair candidates base on how close their inv mass is to real Z mass Next , comes final selection for recoil mass analysis. Here, in the order that these arei implemented I require inv mass to be between 86 and 95 GeV, Then recoil mass to be between 115 and 140 GeV Then PT of dilepton system to be between 10 GeV and 70 geV Then acoplanarity to be between 0.2 and 3 then cosine of Z production angle to be smaller than 0.91, to cut out very forward events characteristic of BG processes, Then I calculate efficieny by counting events in signal region of 123 and 135 geV Recoil mass is calculated taking into account beam x angle of 14 mrad. Last week I received a comment from Kurata san about why I have this lower limicoplanarity Ithe reason is that for some Bgprocesses, teher is a peak at very small cop values, although for the dominant 2f_Z_l, peak is at aroudn pai. However I have doubts as to whether this cut is really necessary, when I already have the other cuts before it. experimented with the outcome s when I take away the lower limit, and when I take away the cop cut altogether. I also experimented with widening the inv maass cut window.

Cut table N1N2 μμ Effective cuts on 4f : coplanarity and Emis Effective cut for C1C1 coplanarity Cut table for C1C1 Effective cuts on N1N2, aa2f, ae3f, 4f Jet_copl nTrack(per jet) > 1  almost all gone

Cut table μμ (Pe-, Pe+) = (-80,+30)

Cut table μμ (Pe-, Pe+) = (+80,-30)

Cut table ee (Pe-, Pe+) = (-80,+30)

Eμμ, left pol Mμμ, Eee, left pol Mee,
check effect of cuts on upper edge of Minv and Edl Eμμ, left pol Mμμ, Pt>6GeV Eee, left pol Here is the data selection I applied, with the numbers from last week Friday. First I select muon pairs based on ratio of deposit in calorimeter wrt to total energy, opposite charge, and track quality. Than I pick out the best muon pair candidates base on how close their inv mass is to real Z mass Next , comes final selection for recoil mass analysis. Here, in the order that these arei implemented I require inv mass to be between 86 and 95 GeV, Then recoil mass to be between 115 and 140 GeV Then PT of dilepton system to be between 10 GeV and 70 geV Then acoplanarity to be between 0.2 and 3 then cosine of Z production angle to be smaller than 0.91, to cut out very forward events characteristic of BG processes, Then I calculate efficieny by counting events in signal region of 123 and 135 geV Recoil mass is calculated taking into account beam x angle of 14 mrad. Last week I received a comment from Kurata san about why I have this lower limicoplanarity Ithe reason is that for some Bgprocesses, teher is a peak at very small cop values, although for the dominant 2f_Z_l, peak is at aroudn pai. However I have doubts as to whether this cut is really necessary, when I already have the other cuts before it. experimented with the outcome s when I take away the lower limit, and when I take away the cop cut altogether. I also experimented with widening the inv maass cut window. Mee, Pt>4 GeV

Toy MC Toy Events (500) generated from fitted MC data
Float bkg normalization Example N1N2, Edl_ee, left MC data MC data Checked pull distribution for fitted edges Ex) N1N2 Edl ee left Mean: 0.55, pull rms : 1.5 Edl_ee M_ee 36 Toy Data Toy Data Here is the data selection I applied, with the numbers from last week Friday. First I select muon pairs based on ratio of deposit in calorimeter wrt to total energy, opposite charge, and track quality. Than I pick out the best muon pair candidates base on how close their inv mass is to real Z mass Next , comes final selection for recoil mass analysis. Here, in the order that these arei implemented I require inv mass to be between 86 and 95 GeV, Then recoil mass to be between 115 and 140 GeV Then PT of dilepton system to be between 10 GeV and 70 geV Then acoplanarity to be between 0.2 and 3 then cosine of Z production angle to be smaller than 0.91, to cut out very forward events characteristic of BG processes, Then I calculate efficieny by counting events in signal region of 123 and 135 geV Recoil mass is calculated taking into account beam x angle of 14 mrad. Last week I received a comment from Kurata san about why I have this lower limicoplanarity Ithe reason is that for some Bgprocesses, teher is a peak at very small cop values, although for the dominant 2f_Z_l, peak is at aroudn pai. However I have doubts as to whether this cut is really necessary, when I already have the other cuts before it. experimented with the outcome s when I take away the lower limit, and when I take away the cop cut altogether. I also experimented with widening the inv maass cut window.

Toy MC Toy Events (500) generated from fitted MC data
Float bkg normalization Example C1C1, muon tag, left MC data MC data 37 E_jj M_jj Here is the data selection I applied, with the numbers from last week Friday. First I select muon pairs based on ratio of deposit in calorimeter wrt to total energy, opposite charge, and track quality. Than I pick out the best muon pair candidates base on how close their inv mass is to real Z mass Next , comes final selection for recoil mass analysis. Here, in the order that these arei implemented I require inv mass to be between 86 and 95 GeV, Then recoil mass to be between 115 and 140 GeV Then PT of dilepton system to be between 10 GeV and 70 geV Then acoplanarity to be between 0.2 and 3 then cosine of Z production angle to be smaller than 0.91, to cut out very forward events characteristic of BG processes, Then I calculate efficieny by counting events in signal region of 123 and 135 geV Recoil mass is calculated taking into account beam x angle of 14 mrad. Last week I received a comment from Kurata san about why I have this lower limicoplanarity Ithe reason is that for some Bgprocesses, teher is a peak at very small cop values, although for the dominant 2f_Z_l, peak is at aroudn pai. However I have doubts as to whether this cut is really necessary, when I already have the other cuts before it. experimented with the outcome s when I take away the lower limit, and when I take away the cop cut altogether. I also experimented with widening the inv maass cut window. Toy Data Toy Data

E_μμ, left E_ee, left M_ee, left Mμμ, left

Characterizing Light Higgsinos from Natural SUSY at ILC √s = 500 GeV

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Characterizing Light Higgsinos from Natural SUSY at ILC √s = 500 GeV"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Characterizing Light Higgsinos from Natural SUSY at ILC √s = 500 GeV

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Characterizing Light Higgsinos from Natural SUSY at ILC √s = 500 GeV"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback