Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "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."— Presentation transcript:

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 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.

2

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 generated squeezed GRL cleaning trigger MET PV skim isolation electronVeto pCut ionization

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 MET skim isolation pCut ionization

5 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)


Download ppt "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."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google