1. Basic Philosophy of SUSY Photons+MET Selection Bruce Schumm, SCIPP/UCSC SUSY 2011 Data Workshop 17 March 2011 n.b.: We are becoming a general photon + MET signature study, merged with the exotics effort. Probably no impact on the following though…

2. Bino-Like Neutralino Grid No visible jet activity when M g ~ M  Desecrated plot thanks to Shih/Ruderman, ArXiv 0911.4130 Tevatron Limit In order to be sensitive to full parameter space (esp. m g  m B ), do not require hadronic activity.

3. p T of photons M bino = 150 – 580 GeV M gluino = 600GeV (  = 0.26pb ) M bino = 200 GeV M gluino=400–700GeV (  =6–0.07 pb) BR doesn’t change ~ 80% p T of photons ~ similar BR changes vs. M bino: 90% (M bino = 150GeV) 65% (M bino = 580GeV) p T of photons! Photon p T can be soft for M  small

4. Production cross-section (7TeV) Wino - like Neutralino: |M2|<<  and |M2| < |M1| Natural for photon+lepton channel Not shown: Higgsino, which has no photonic decay TRIGGERS?

5. Back to Bino-like case… Summary for grid points we have generated so far. Results are out of 1000 events Some inefficiency for M  = M g – 30 (haven’t yet explored) What about E T dependence?

8. Close to 2g20_loose would be close to knee (remember that current limit is below this, at 150 GeV)

9. Tentative Conclusions for Bino-Like Case We are probably OK for 2g20_loose, and perhaps even 2g25_loose (need to run through M  = 150 case) Tight electron trigger 90% efficient  For e  control sample (background estimation), gXX_loose  eXX_tight where XX is value of 2g trigger above, should be fine. What about a quick peek at non-pointing photons?

10. GMSB2 sample:  c   ~ 10s of cm What about non-photon triggers? Looking into it…

11. Summary and Conclusions Pending a look at M  = 150 GeV, proposed 2011 triggers seem workable for Bino case Other cases (Wino, Higgsino) being looked into Non-pointing photons don’t seem to be captured with photon triggers; what about others? Looking into that also.

12. Sorry – that’s all folks…