1. 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-0.044 massScaleFacto r0.92 200 GeV500 GeV800 GeV Rel.EffAbs.Eff Rel.EffAbs.Eff Rel.EffAbs.Eff trigger 0.110.1100.180.1810.210.206 MET 0.570.0620.800.1450.890.182 skim 0.550.0340.680.0980.710.130 isolation 0.920.0320.920.0900.910.118 pCut 0.900.0290.980.0880.980.114 ionization 0.370.0110.770.0670.910.103 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.

3. 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 generated50000 20000 squeezed93870.190.18832840.160.164 GRL93871.000.18832841.000.164 cleaning93701.000.18732811.000.164 trigger90850.970.18232130.980.161 MET82810.910.16630480.950.152 PV82671.000.16530411.000.152 skim59450.720.11921640.710.108 isolation49670.840.09916020.740.080 electronVeto49531.000.09915971.000.080 pCut45810.920.09214520.910.073 ionization7850.170.0165890.410.029

4. 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 0.710.713 MET 0.870.623 skim 0.190.119 isolation 0.840.099 pCut 0.920.092 ionization 0.180.017

5. Confronto con Susy kinked (Shimpei) 150 GeV, 1 ns Rel.EffAbs.Eff trigger 0.710.713 MET 0.870.623 skim 0.190.119 isolation 0.840.099 pCut 0.920.092 ionization 0.180.017 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)