{"id":"4d105a3f-115a-4f64-8c01-6016c1fb062c","arxiv_id":"1303.2985","paper_version":2,"verdict":"ACCEPT","confidence":"HIGH","novelty_score":4.0,"correctness_risk":"low","formal_verification":"none","parameter_count":0,"one_line_summary":"CMS finds no supersymmetric excess in 11.7 fb^-1 of 8 TeV data, excluding gluinos below 950-1125 GeV and squarks below 450-600 GeV within simplified models.","lead":"A search for supersymmetry in 8 TeV proton collisions at the LHC found no excess of events over standard model expectations, and sets lower mass limits on hypothetical gluinos and squarks. It is a careful exclusion measurement that narrows which SUSY scenarios remain viable.","discovery_kind":"unclear","skeptic_critique":{"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","headline":"The least-validated step is the background extrapolation into the high-b-tag signal region (nb >= 3), but the assigned b-tagging systematics and closure tests bound its impact on the headline gluino limits.","rationale":"The reader's weakest_assumption correctly identifies the transfer-factor extrapolation as the main structural soft spot and explicitly mentions the high-b-tag signal region. I agree with that assessment and sharpen it to the most specific instance: the nb >= 3 background prediction via the binomial model of Eq. 5, which is the least-validated step feeding the headline G2 and G3 gluino limits. The paper is transparent about this gap (Section 5.3 notes the importance of f_c and f_q for nb >= 3; Section 5.4 states the closure tests cover only 0->1 and 1->2 b tags) and assigns conservative b-tagging systematics (10.1% for G2, 19.4% for G3). The concern is real but bounded: the observed G3 limit sits a factor of ~2 below the theoretical cross section, so a 20-30% background shift would not remove the exclusion, and the nb = 2 category (which is validated by the 1->2 b-tag closure test) likely dominates the G3 signal yield. The paper's other potential soft spots are either acknowledged (no interpretation for mparent - mLSP < 175 GeV; the 1-2 sigma weaker-than-expected observed limits attributed to upward fluctuations and examined for non-physical behavior) or well-controlled (the multijet normalization is left free and found compatible with zero; the alphaT extrapolation is validated to ~5% by the circle closure test in Table 3). No circularity, missing reference, or omitted proof is present. The verdict should remain ACCEPT with the reader's HIGH confidence, since the concern does not rise to the level of changing the central claim.","tokens_in":46165,"tokens_out":9237,"duration_ms":163768,"concrete_test":"Extend the b-tag closure test of Table 3 to the 2 b tags -> 3 b tags transition using the mu+jets control sample (or a ttbar-enriched sample), comparing the binomial-model prediction of Eq. 5 to the observed 3-b-tag yield. If the closure residual exceeds the assigned b-tagging systematic (19.4% for G3, Table 7), inflate that uncertainty and re-derive the G3 limit; if the 950 GeV exclusion survives, the concern is bounded.","verdict_should_be":"UNCHANGED","load_bearing_attack":"The central claim (null result plus 950-1125 GeV gluino exclusions) depends on the background prediction in the nb >= 2, 3, and >=4 categories, which drive the G2 and G3 limits. For nb <= 2, the transfer-factor method (Eq. 4) is validated by closure tests in Table 3, including the 0->1 and 1->2 b-tag transitions. For nb >= 3, however, the prediction relies on the binomial model of Eq. 5, whose inputs (mistag rates f_c and f_q) are validated against simulation, not against data, in the high-b-tag tail. The paper states that 'precise measurements of f_c and f_q are particularly important for events with nb >= 3' and that the predicted yields agree with direct simulation 'in the bins with a significant population,' but no closure test extends to 2->3 or 3->4 b tags because the control samples lack statistics. The highest-b-tag bins have O(1) expected events (Table 4: SM 0.9, 0.3, 0.6 in the first three HT bins for nb >= 4), so a modest mis-modeling of the mistag tail could shift the background by a large factor. The assigned b-tagging systematics (10.1% for G2, 19.4% for G3, Table 7) are derived from data/MC corrections to the same simulation inputs, so they may not capture the full extrapolation uncertainty beyond nb = 2. If the true uncertainty is larger, the G3 limit (950 GeV) could weaken, though the factor-of-two deficit between the observed limit (46.2 fb) and the theoretical cross section (97 fb) suggests the exclusion is not marginal.","agreement_with_reader":"agree"},"referee_report":{"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","summary":"The paper reports an inclusive CMS search for supersymmetry in pp collisions at √s = 8 TeV using 11.7 fb⁻¹, in final states with two or more energetic jets and missing transverse energy. The discriminating variable is αT, which suppresses multijet production without relying directly on a missing-energy measurement, and events are further classified by jet multiplicity (2–3 versus ≥4), by the scalar sum HT of jet transverse energies in eight bins, and by the number of b-tagged jets (nb = 0, 1, 2, 3, ≥4). The non-multijet backgrounds are estimated from three independent data control samples (μ+jets, μμ+jets, γ+jets) extrapolated into the signal region with transfer factors taken from simulation (Eq. 4), while the multijet contribution is modelled as an exponential in HT (Section 6). A simultaneous binned likelihood fit over signal and control regions finds the data consistent with the standard model, with a minimum p-value of 0.1 across the eight (njet, nb) categories. Exclusion limits at 95% CL are set in the parameter space of the simplified models of Table 1: gluino masses of 950–1125 GeV for gluino-mediated squark production, 750 GeV for eightfold-degenerate first- and second-generation squarks (450 GeV for a single light squark), and 600 GeV for directly produced bottom squarks, with no observed exclusion for directly produced top squarks.","tokens_in":46520,"tokens_out":6761,"duration_ms":122179,"significance":"The result is a substantial and well-executed extension of the 7 TeV αT analysis to 8 TeV and 11.7 fb⁻¹, and the gain in reach is documented rather than asserted: the expected sensitivity improves by up to 225 GeV in parent mass and 150 GeV in LSP mass relative to Ref. [24]. The methodological contributions are real. The binning simultaneously in njet, HT, and nb is a genuine advance over the earlier inclusive treatment, and it is what makes the third-generation and compressed-spectrum interpretations possible. The binomial model of Eq. (5), which predicts the nb distribution from generator-level flavour content folded with measured tagging and mistag efficiencies, is a sensible device for extracting statistical power from the high-b-tag tail. Most importantly, the background estimate is data-driven and its extrapolation is stress-tested by thirteen sets of closure tests (Fig. 2, Table 3), with the residuals quantified and propagated into explicit HT-dependent systematic uncertainties of 10–30%. The results are falsifiable, are quoted against NLO+NLL cross sections with theoretical uncertainties, and are presented in a form (parent versus LSP mass planes, Fig. 8) that can be reused","major_comments":[{"comment":"The prediction of the high-b-tag tail rests on the binomial model of Eq. (5), whose inputs are the per-jet tagging efficiency ϵ and the mistag probabilities f_c and f_q. The manuscript states that the predicted yields agree with the yields obtained directly from simulation 'in the bins with a significant population', but no quantitative comparison is shown, and the bins that enter the G2 and G3 interpretations (nb = 3 and nb ≥ 4, Table 5) are precisely the ones with O(1) expected events (Table 4: 0.9, 0.3, 0.6 in the first three HT bins for nb ≥ 4) and therefore the ones excluded from that validation. The authors acknowledge the point in Section 5.3 ('precise measurements of f_c and f_q are particularly important for events with nb ≥ 3'), and the closure tests of Table 3 cover the 0→1 and 1→2 b-tag transitions but not 2→3 or 3→4. Since the b-tagging systematic uncertainties quoted in Table 7 (10.1% for G2, 19.4% for G3) are propagated from data-to-simulation corrections applied to the same inputs, they may not capture the full extrapolation uncertainty beyond nb = 2. I would ask for a quantitative statement of the level of agreement between Eq. (5) and the direct simulation yield as a function of nb and HT, for example a table or an appendix figure, together with an explicit statement of the residual uncertainty assigned to the nb ≥ 3 bins and how it propagates to the G3 limit. I note that the G3 exclusion is not marginal (observed limit 46.2 fb against a theoretical cross section of 97 fb, Table 8), so this is a request for documentation of a bounded effect rather than a challenge to the result.","section":"Section 5.3, Eq. (5), and Table 4 (nb ≥ 3 rows)","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"Section 5.4 states that the HT-dependent transfer-factor uncertainties 'are also used for each nb category and are treated as uncorrelated among nb categories'. This is defensible for the per-category fits of Eqs. (6) and (7), which are performed separately for each (njet, nb) category, but it matters for the interpretations: Table 5 combines nb = 2, 3, and ≥4 for the G2 and G3 models, and the same closure tests, the same simulation, and largely the same underlying effects (jet energy scale, b-tag modelling, PDF) generate the uncertainty in each of those categories. Treating a common systematic as independent across the categories being combined will underestimate the combined background uncertainty and hence overstate the expected sensitivity. The manuscript should either justify the independence explicitly or repeat the G2 and G3 interpretations with the transfer-factor nuisance parameters correlated across nb categories, and quote the resulting shift in the expected and observed limits. Given the factor-of-two margin on the G3 exclusion this is unlikely to change the qualitative conclusion, but the size of the effect should be stated.","section":"Section 5.4 (final paragraph) and Section 8, Table 5","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null}],"minor_comments":[{"comment":"The description of how the decay constant k is measured is ambiguous. R_αT(HT) is defined as the ratio of events above and below an αT threshold, yet the text says the measurement of k is made in a sample selected with αT < 0.55. Presumably the ratio is formed between nested αT windows inside that sample, but the manuscript does not say which thresholds are used or how the result is translated to the αT = 0.55 boundary. Since the multijet contribution is negligible this does not affect the result, but the procedure as written is not reproducible and should be spelled out.","section":"Section 6","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The γ+jets control sample is selected with HT > 375 GeV, so it provides no constraint in the two lowest signal-region HT bins (275–325 and 325–375 GeV). The manuscript should state explicitly how the Z→νν+jets estimate is obtained in those bins, presumably from the μμ+jets sample alone, and whether the transfer factors for those bins are defined at all.","section":"Section 5.2 and Section 5.3","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"Several entries have strongly asymmetric uncertainties and O(1) expectations, for example the nb ≥ 4 rows (0.9 +0.4−0.7, 0.3 +0.2−0.2, 0.6 +0.3−0.3). The caption should state whether these intervals are the output of the full likelihood fit including the log-normal nuisance parameters, and whether the Poisson treatment of the empty bins is as expected.","section":"Table 4","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The abstract contains a stray macro, 'increasing to 600 GeV for bottom squarks', which renders as '600 GeV' in the arXiv listing. This should be corrected to plain 'GeV'.","section":"Abstract (arXiv version)","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The title of Ref. [24] reads 'Search for supersymmetery in final states...'; this is a typographical error for 'supersymmetry' and should be corrected.","section":"References, Ref. [24]","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The D3 row of Table 9 quotes '– (520)' for mbest_parent. The dash should be explained in the caption as meaning that no observed exclusion is obtained while the expected reach is 520 GeV, consistent with the statement in the text that the expected exclusion covers 300–520 GeV for mLSP = 0. As written, a reader encountering the table before the text may misread the entry.","section":"Section 8, Table 9 and Fig. 9","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The figure shows a simulated multijet curve alongside the data-driven background estimate. The caption should state explicitly that the multijet curve is illustrative and is not the estimate used in the fit, since Section 6 makes clear that the multijet contribution is obtained from the exponential model applied to an αT < 0.55 data sideband.","section":"Fig. 1","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null}],"recommendation":"minor_revision","confidential_remarks":"The manuscript is already published in EPJC (doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2568-6), so these comments are offered for the record and for any future corrigendum rather than as a barrier to publication. The analysis is sound and the physics conclusions are robust; the two major points concern documentation of a bounded extrapolation uncertainty in the high-b-tag tail and the correlation treatment in the combined interpretations, neither of which appears likely to overturn the quoted limits."},"author_rebuttal":null,"desk_editor":{"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","letter":"Bottom line: this is a competent CMS null-result paper that does what it advertises. 11.7 fb^-1 at 8 TeV, alphaT plus jet-multiplicity and b-tag-multiplicity binning, and exclusion limits that genuinely extend the collaboration's 7 TeV analysis. It deserves referee time. The one soft spot that matters is narrow and the authors are mostly aware of it. The reader's ACCEPT at soundness 8 is about right; the stress-test note lands, but only partially, and I'd put it at the level of a referee question rather than a load-bearing flaw. The paper's own claim [abstract:s4] is a null result, and the limits [abstract:s6, abstract:s7] follow from a background estimate that is data-driven in the bulk and simulation-anchored only in the tail. That is the honest description of what was done. What is actually new: the jet-multiplicity split (2-3 vs >=4) and the b-tag bins are a real methodological increment over Ref. [24], not just a luminosity rescale. The wide HT range down to 275 GeV with scaled jet thresholds is a sensible way to keep acceptance for compressed spectra, and the binomial b-tag prediction of Eq. 5 is a clever way to buy statistical power in the nb >= 2 bins where direct simulation is thin. The closure-test program (thirteen sets, Table 3) is more than most searches bother with, and the fact that the multijet normalization is left free and comes out compatible with zero is a good sign, not a weakness. Where it is soft: the stress-test concern about nb >= 3 is real. Eq. 5's inputs (f_c, f_q) are validated against simulation, and the closure tests in Table 3 stop at the 1->2 b-tag transition because the control samples run out of statistics above that. The paper says so indirectly (agreement 'in the bins with a significant population') but does not flag it as a limitation. The b-tagging systematics of 10-19% (Table 7) are derived from data/MC corrections to the same simulation inputs, so they may understate the true extrapolation uncertainty. That said, the G3 observed limit (46.2 fb) sits at roughly half the theoretical cross section (97 fb), so a factor-of-two background shift would not overturn the headline gluino number. The G2 limit is tighter and would be more exposed. Two smaller points: the abstract's emphasis on compressed spectra is a bit generous, since the paper explicitly declines to interpret mparent - mLSP < 175 GeV; and the observed limits are 1-2 sigma weaker than expected, which the authors disclose and attribute to upward fluctuations in specific bins. Both are fine, just worth knowing. Who should read it: anyone setting SUSY limits in the jets+MET channel, and model builders who need the current gluino and squark reach. Yes to peer review.","headline":"A solid, honest 8 TeV alphaT search with real but bounded soft spots in the high-b-tag background extrapolation; worth refereeing.","tokens_in":47159,"tokens_out":1358,"would_cite":true,"duration_ms":27389,"reading_group":"maybe","serious_thinker":"yes","would_accept_peer_review":true},"pith_extraction":{"msc":[],"pacs":["12.60.Jv","13.85.Rm","14.80.Ly"],"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","headline":"In 11.7 fb$^{-1}$ of 8 TeV proton collisions, the CMS experiment finds no excess of jets-plus-missing-energy events over the standard model, and converts that null result into 95% confidence lower bounds on gluino and squark masses within a","keywords":["supersymmetry","CMS","LHC","missing transverse energy","alphaT","b-quark jets","simplified models","gluino mass limits"],"falsifier":"A statistically significant excess of events in any high-$H_T$, high-$n_b$ signal-region bin — for instance the $n_{jet} geq 4$, $n_b geq 2$ categories where the observed counts already run slightly above expectation — matching the shape predicted for one of the reference models would overturn the null result; conversely, an independent data-driven determination of the transfer factors in a signal-depleted $alpha_T$ sideband that disagreed with the simulated ratios would move the quoted mass limits.","tokens_in":47511,"feed_emoji":"⚛️","tokens_out":3350,"duration_ms":62237,"temperature":0.7,"pith_summary":"The paper asks a direct question: are pairs of heavy coloured supersymmetric particles — squarks and gluinos — being produced in LHC proton collisions and decaying into hadronic jets plus invisible particles that carry energy away unseen? R-parity-conserving supersymmetry predicts exactly this, so the experimental signature is a lot of jet energy balanced against genuine missing transverse energy, and the hard part is proving the missing energy is real rather than a calorimeter mismeasurement in an ordinary multijet event. The authors' answer is a dimensionless variable, $alpha_T$, built only from jet transverse energies and their relative azimuthal angles, which sits near 0.5 for well-measured dijet events and rises above it only when jets recoil against genuine missing energy. Combining $alpha_T > 0.55$ with counting of jets, of the scalar sum $H_T$, and of b-tagged jets, they observe yields consistent with standard-model expectations across every bin, and read off mass limits: gluinos below 950–1125 GeV depending on decay flavour, first- and second-generation squarks below 750 GeV under an eightfold mass degeneracy (450 GeV if only one squark is light), and bottom squarks below 600 GeV. A sympathetic reader should care because these are among the tightest direct constraints on the coloured superpartners that naturalness arguments put near the TeV scale, and because the top-squark case, the one most tied to the 125 GeV Higgs, comes out unexcluded.","feed_headline":"LHC data rule out gluinos below about 1 TeV","feed_subtitle":"No excess of jets-plus-missing-energy events appeared in 11.7 inverse femtobarns of 8 TeV proton collisions.","key_machinery":"The load-bearing object is $alpha_T$, defined for a dijet as $E_T^{j_2}/M_T$ where $M_T$ is the transverse mass of the two-jet system, and generalised to any number of jets by clustering them into two pseudo-jets that minimise the transverse-energy imbalance $Delta H_T$: $$alpha_T = frac{1}{2} cdot frac{1 - $\\Delta$ H_T / H_T}{sqrt{1 - ($H_T^{{miss}}$/H_T)^2}}.$$ Its virtue is that it never uses a direct missing-energy measurement, only jet energies and relative angles, so a jet whose energy is mismeasured pulls $alpha_T$ below 0.5 rather than above it. Two supporting pieces of machinery carry the rest of the argument. First, the background estimate: transfer factors, defined as the ratio of simulated signal-region to control-region yields and applied to observed $mu$+jets, $mu mu$+jets, and $gamma$+jets control samples, extrapolate into the signal region, with the b-tag multiplicity predicted from generator-level flavour counts combined with measured tagging and mistag efficiencies. Second, the multijet estimate: the ratio of yields above and below $alpha_T = 0.55$ is modelled as a falling exponential in $H_T$, $R_{alpha_T}(H_T) = A e^{-k H_T}$, with the decay constant $k$ fixed from a multijet-enriched sideband.","core_discovery":"The central claim is a null result with teeth. Using 11.7 $fb^{-1}$ of $sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV pp collisions, the CMS collaboration bins events with two or more energetic jets, $H_T > 275$ GeV, and $alpha_T > 0.55$ by jet multiplicity ($2$–$3$ versus $geq 4$), by $H_T$ (eight bins up to an open $H_T > 875$ GeV bin), and by the number of b-tagged jets ($n_b = 0, 1, 2, 3, geq 4$). The observed counts agree with the fitted standard-model expectation in all eight $n_{jet}$–$n_b$ categories, with p-values uniformly distributed and a minimum of 0.1, and no candidate event shows non-physical behaviour. Interpreting this in simplified models, the paper excludes at 95% CL gluino masses up to 950–1125 GeV for gluino-pair production followed by $tilde{g} to q bar{q} tilde{chi}^0_1$ with light, bottom, or top quarks in the final state, with the strongest gluino limits in the bottom-quark channel; excludes masses up to 750 GeV for eightfold-degenerate first- and second-generation squarks and 450 GeV for a single light $tilde{u}_L$; and excludes bottom squarks up to 600 GeV. For direct top-squark pair production no observed exclusion survives, but the expected reach extends to about 500 GeV in top squark mass and 100 GeV in LSP mass.","pith_inferences":["Because $alpha_T$ depends only on jet energies and relative angles, the same discriminator transfers almost unchanged to higher centre-of-mass energies; the natural next step is to ask how far the 950–1125 GeV gluino boundary moves when the same selection is applied to 13 TeV data, where the production cross sections grow by roughly an order of magnitude.","The paper declines to interpret the kinematic region with $m_{parent} - m_{LSP} < 175$ GeV or $m_{parent} < 300$ GeV, citing initial-state-radiation modelling; that leaves a soft-radiation-sensitive corner where monojet-style or soft-lepton observables, rather than $alpha_T$, would be the appropriate handle.","The b-tag multiplicity is predicted from generator-level flavour counts combined with measured efficiencies, a template that could be reused to forecast the sensitivity of future high-luminosity runs without regenerating full detector simulations for every mass point.","Since the background extrapolation is validated only by closure tests among control samples, an independent cross-check would be to measure the transfer factors in a signal-depleted $alpha_T$ sideband and confirm they match the simulated ratios there."],"forward_implications":["For gluino-mediated squark production, gluino masses in the range 950–1125 GeV are excluded at 95% CL for the three decay flavours considered, so any model placing a gluino below roughly 1 TeV and decaying through an off-shell squark to a light LSP is ruled out in this topology.","Directly pair-produced first- and second-generation squarks are excluded below 750 GeV under an eightfold mass degeneracy, and below 450 GeV if only a single light squark exists, tightening the reach of the earlier 7 TeV analysis by as much as 225 GeV in parent mass.","Bottom squarks decaying to $b tilde{chi}^0_1$ are excluded below 600 GeV, with no exclusion possible once the LSP exceeds about 200 GeV.","Direct top-squark pair production is not excluded by the observed data, but the expected sensitivity reaches roughly 500 GeV in top-squark mass and 100 GeV in LSP mass, so the naturalness-motivated region stays open.","The limits on LSP mass, 300–650 GeV depending on channel, remain valid for compressed spectra with parent–LSP splittings as small as about 200 GeV."],"supporting_citations":[{"why":"Supplies the definition and the earlier 7 TeV application of the $alpha_T$ variable, plus the exponential multijet model that this analysis reuses.","marker":"[26]"},{"why":"Original proposal of $alpha_T$ as a dijet discriminator for supersymmetry at the LHC.","marker":"[35]"},{"why":"The preceding 7 TeV $alpha_T$ search with b-tag categories that this analysis extends and against which its sensitivity gain is measured.","marker":"[24]"},{"why":"Provides the Combined Secondary Vertex b-tagging algorithm, its efficiency, and the mistag probability used to predict the $n_b$ distribution.","marker":"[41]"},{"why":"Source of the theoretical uncertainties on missing-transverse-energy predictions that feed into the transfer-factor systematics.","marker":"[52]"},{"why":"Defines the CL$_s$ method used to compute all quoted exclusion limits.","marker":"[53]"},{"why":"Gives the asymptotic formulae for the profile-likelihood-ratio test statistic used to build the sampling distributions.","marker":"[55]"},{"why":"Provide the NLO+NLL squark and gluino production cross sections against which the observed upper limits are compared to derive mass exclusions.","marker":"[56–61]"},{"why":"Define the simplified-model framework in which the exclusion limits are interpreted.","marker":"[28–30]"}],"fun_headline_variants":["CMS finds no sign of supersymmetry in 8 TeV jets plus missing energy","No SUSY excess in 11.7 inverse femtobarns of LHC data at 8 TeV","Gluinos below 950 to 1125 GeV excluded in CMS jets-plus-missing-energy search","Bottom squarks ruled out below 600 GeV in CMS 8 TeV search","AlphaT search finds no excess, sets simplified-model squark and gluino limits"],"cache_read_input_tokens":0,"weakest_assumption_plain":"The whole background estimate rests on the assumption that the simulation correctly predicts the ratio of signal-region to control-region yields, a ratio that is checked only by closure tests among the control samples themselves and never directly in the signal region.","fun_headline_variants_meta":{"raw":{"variants":["CMS finds no sign of supersymmetry in 8 TeV jets plus missing energy","No SUSY excess in 11.7 inverse femtobarns of LHC data at 8 TeV","Gluinos below 950 to 1125 GeV excluded in CMS jets-plus-missing-energy search","Bottom squarks ruled out below 600 GeV in CMS 8 TeV search","AlphaT search finds no excess, sets simplified-model squark and gluino limits"]},"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","effort":"low","attempts":1,"cost_usd":0.0,"raw_usage":{"total_tokens":1225,"prompt_tokens":1121,"completion_tokens":104,"prompt_tokens_details":null,"completion_tokens_details":{"reasoning_tokens":0}},"tokens_in":1121,"tokens_out":104,"duration_ms":3395,"image_pages":[],"temperature":1.0,"reasoning_budget":50,"reasoning_tokens":null,"transport_provider":"selfhosted","cache_read_input_tokens":0,"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"created_at":"2026-10-29T07:53:40.681706+00:00","model_set":{"reader":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash"},"falsifier":"A statistically significant excess of events in any high-$H_T$, high-$n_b$ signal-region bin — for instance the $n_{jet} geq 4$, $n_b geq 2$ categories where the observed counts already run slightly above expectation — matching the shape predicted for one of the reference models would overturn the null result; conversely, an independent data-driven determination of the transfer factors in a signal-depleted $alpha_T$ sideband that disagreed with the simulated ratios would move the quoted mass limits.","supporting_citations":[{"cited_title":"Search for supersymmetry in pp collisions at 7 TeV in events with jets and missing transverse energy","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Supplies the definition and the earlier 7 TeV application of the $alpha_T$ variable, plus the exponential multijet model that this analysis reuses."},{"cited_title":"Dijet Searches for Supersymmetry at the LHC","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Original proposal of $alpha_T$ as a dijet discriminator for supersymmetry at the LHC."},{"cited_title":"Search for supersymmetery in final states with missing transverse energy and 0, 1, 2, or≥3 b-quark jets in 7 TeV pp collisions using the αT variable","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"The preceding 7 TeV $alpha_T$ search with b-tag categories that this analysis extends and against which its sensitivity gain is measured."},{"cited_title":"Identification of b-quark jets with the CMS experiment","cited_arxiv_id":"1211.4462","evidence_quote":"Provides the Combined Secondary Vertex b-tagging algorithm, its efficiency, and the mistag probability used to predict the $n_b$ distribution."},{"cited_title":"Driving missing data at next-to-leading order","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Source of the theoretical uncertainties on missing-transverse-energy predictions that feed into the transfer-factor systematics."},{"cited_title":"Presentation of search results: the <i> CL <sub>s</sub> </i> technique","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Defines the CL$_s$ method used to compute all quoted exclusion limits."},{"cited_title":"Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics","cited_arxiv_id":"1007.1727","evidence_quote":"Gives the asymptotic formulae for the profile-likelihood-ratio test statistic used to build the sampling distributions."}],"review_version":1}