Exploring QCD uncertainties when setting limits on compressed SUSY spectra

Herbert Dreiner; Jamie Tattersall; Michael Kr\"amer

REVIEW

Exploring QCD uncertainties when setting limits on compressed SUSY spectra

Herbert Dreiner, Michael Krämer, Jamie Tattersall

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 21 Nov 2012 · 65 references

Pith's verdict: The ISR/matching uncertainty study is the real contribution and it holds up; the four Table II bounds are quoted as points with no propagated recast uncertainty, which is the one thing a referee should press on.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on November 12, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 2 major objections · 8 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv ID1211.4981 (version 1)

Pith IDOA4YKDDR, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationHerbert Dreiner, Jamie Tattersall, Michael Kr\"amer. "Exploring QCD uncertainties when setting limits on compressed SUSY spectra." arXiv:1211.4981 (2012). https://pith.science/paper/OA4YKDDR

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Worth your time, with one caveat about how the numbers are quoted. The real contribution isn't the mass limits, it's Sec. II and Sec. V.E. They show that at the jet pT compressed-spectrum searches actually need, around 600 GeV, the spread across parton shower choices alone is three orders of magnitude in rate, and that matching one or two matrix-element jets collapses it. Fig. 6 is the check people usually skip: they deliberately shower matrix-element events that already contain hard jets, and the second and third jet distributions go visibly wrong while the leading jet still looks fine. The decomposition in Sec. V.E, roughly 5 GeV on the squark bound from matching and scale variation versus 110 GeV from shower choice, is the number I would actually cite. Where it is soft: the four bounds in Table II are quoted as points. Sec. IV says the Rivet reimplementations agree with the official analyses to within 20 percent, usually better, and that tolerance never appears in Table II or the conclusion. On a steeply falling cross section, 20 percent in acceptance is tens of GeV in mass, larger than the theory error they are careful about. The single-most-discriminating-region choice is a separate matter and it is conservative, so it understates reach rather than overstating it. The stress-test note is right to separate those two; the reader's report slightly conflates them. One more: the matched samples are LO in jet multiplicity and normalized to the NLO+NLL inclusive cross section, so a non-flat K-factor across jet bins would reshape exactly the ISR spectrum that sets the limit. Scale variation covers some of that, not all. Two things are acknowledged and should not be held against them: the prompt gluino decay through a third-generation squark that is not in the simulated spectrum (Sec. III.B says so outright), and the discontinuities from jumping between search regions (Sec. V.B). The abstract, though, states no limitations at all while the body is candid about several, and that mismatch is worth a line in review. Who it is for: anyone recasting 7 TeV compressed searches, and anyone still quoting a shower-only ISR prediction. Send it out.

Referee report

Significance

The methodological message is valuable and well supported: Fig. 2 and Fig. 16 show that the spread across parton-shower choices alone moves the squark bound from roughly 180 to 400 GeV, far exceeding the residual matching uncertainty, and Fig. 4 demonstrates that two independent matching schemes agree. The explicit double-counting demonstration in Fig. 6 is a useful cautionary result. The paper also deserves credit for using public tools throughout (MadGraph, Pythia 6 and 8, Herwig++, Rivet, NLL-Fast) and for decomposing the theoretical error into matching-scale, scale and shower components rather than quoting a single number. If the recast layer is validated as discussed below, the four benchmark bounds and their evolution with mass splitting will be a useful reference for the compressed-spectrum literature.

Major objections (2)

[Sec. IV, Table II, Sec. VI] Sec. IV states that the Rivet reimplementations agree with the official analyses 'within 20% but was usually much better', but no validation figure, cut flow or table is shown, and no uncertainty from this source is propagated into Table II or into the numbers quoted in Sec. VI. On a steeply falling cross section a 20% acceptance difference corresponds to a shift of tens of GeV in the extracted mass bound, which is larger than the plus or minus 5 GeV matching uncertainty that Sec. V.E emphasizes. The four headline numbers (230, 370, 530 and 680 GeV) are the paper's main export and are currently quoted to 10 GeV precision with no error attached. I ask the authors to show at least one validation comparison per analysis, or a summary table of predicted versus observed yields in the most constraining region, and to attach an estimated uncertainty band to Table II and to the conclusions.
[Sec. II and Sec. V] The matched samples are LO in the number of additional jets and are normalized to the NLO+NLL inclusive cross section from NLL-Fast. This assumes that the K-factor is flat in jet multiplicity, but the entire compressed signal lives in the one-or-more-jet bin, so a non-flat K-factor would reshape the ISR spectrum that sets the limit. The factorisation and renormalisation scale variation quoted in Sec. V.E is a proxy for this but does not test the shape of the K-factor across multiplicities. Please state the assumption explicitly and estimate its size, for example by comparing the NLO and LO cross sections in the zero-jet and one-jet bins, or by varying the normalization of the matched one-jet sample within the quoted NLO uncertainty and reporting the resulting shift in the bound.

Minor objections (8)

[Sec. I, Sec. II, Sec. V.F, Fig. 16 caption, Eq. (3), Ref. [5]] Several typographical errors should be corrected: 'philosphy' and 'possiblity' in Sec. I, 'toplogies' and 'quantitavily' in Sec. V.F, 'factorsation' in the Fig. 16 caption, 'renoma-lisation' in Sec. II, 'tranverse' in Eq. (3), and 'supersymmetery' in the title of Ref. [5].
[References [5] and [6]] These two CMS references are given only by title, without a CMS PAS number or arXiv identifier. Please supply the identifiers so that the search regions used in Table II can be traced.
[Fig. 16 caption] The caption states that the red band includes variation of the parton shower between the 'wimpy' and 'power' settings, yet the red band is quoted as plus or minus 5 GeV while the green band, which varies only the shower, is quoted as plus or minus 110 GeV. This is presumably the paper's central point, that matching removes the shower sensitivity, but the caption should say so explicitly to avoid the appearance of an inconsistency.
[Table II] The caption should explain the meaning of the '-' entries (no reliable limit) and should state more explicitly what the search-region labels refer to, since several of them are only defined in the source experimental papers.
[Eq. (1)] The Durham k-perpendicular definition as written has an unusual outer minimum with a single transverse-momentum argument. Please check Eq. (1) against the standard longitudinally invariant k-perpendicular form and correct the notation if needed.
[Abstract] The abstract states that 'all the 7 TeV hadronic SUSY and monojet searches' are considered, but the ATLAS side uses only the jets-plus-MET search and the monojet search, while five CMS analyses are included. Consider softening 'all' to 'the main' to match what is actually applied.
[Sec. III] The statement that displaced vertices or long-lived states 'would only strengthen the bounds on the model' is asserted without demonstration. Either soften it or cite the dedicated long-lived searches that support it.
[Table I] The caption sets the gluino mass to 500 GeV 'for simplicity', but the Stop model of Sec. III.B decouples the gluino. Please clarify that Table I is a perturbativity illustration for the jet cross sections and not a statement about the simplified model spectra.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

Compressed supersymmetry can hide from the LHC, and the mass bounds one can still set depend more on how QCD radiation is simulated than on the data.

The reading

If squarks or gluinos sit almost exactly at the mass of the lightest supersymmetric particle, their decays release almost no visible energy and the LHC sees nothing. The paper's claim is that the only handle left is a hard jet radiated from the incoming partons, which kicks the invisible pair and produces missing energy; the reach of every search then rests entirely on how well that radiation is predicted. The authors show that a parton shower alone gets this badly wrong, with the predicted rate for a 600 GeV jet varying by more than three orders of magnitude between shower settings, so they match hard matrix-element emissions to the shower using two independent algorithms and treat the residual spread as the theory error. With that machinery in place they re-run every 7 TeV hadronic SUSY search and both monojet searches and extract lower mass bounds for four degenerate 'worst case' spectra. The payoff is a set of conservative bounds plus a warning: for the squark case the choice of shower shifts the bound from 180 to 400 GeV, while the matched prediction's own uncertainty is about 5 GeV.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is matrix-element plus parton-shower matching, run twice as a cross-check: MLM matching in MadGraph 5 interfaced to Pythia 6, and the CKKW-L algorithm inside Pythia 8. Matching exists to prevent the same hard emission being generated twice, once by the fixed-order matrix element and once by the shower, and the paper verifies that the two schemes agree while a naive 'matrix element plus shower' without matching visibly hardens the second and third jet distributions. The second piece of machinery is the Durham $k_^T$ (kt) jet measure with $D=0.4$, used to show that at 25 GeV jet cuts the one-jet and two-jet cross sections become comparable to the zero-jet rate, so the perturbative series can no longer be trusted and the shower must take over. The third is the 'wimpy' versus 'power' shower starting scale: setting it at the factorisation scale versus the kinematic limit $p_T = s/2$ changes the hard-jet rate by orders of magnitude, which is exactly why the matched result, not the shower default, has to set the limit.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes lower mass bounds for supersymmetric particles that are quasi-degenerate with the lightest supersymmetric particle, a configuration in which the visible decay products are too soft to trigger any conventional search. Working in four simplified spectra (a single squark eigenstate, the first two squark generations, the gluino, and all of them together), the authors find 95% confidence lower bounds of 230 GeV, 370 GeV, 530 GeV and 680 GeV respectively in the 1 GeV-splitting limit. The bounds come from reimplementing all 7 TeV ATLAS and CMS hadronic SUSY analyses plus both monojet analyses and taking, for each model, whichever single search region discriminates best. Two qualitative results carry the argument. First, monojet searches give the tightest bound at exact degeneracy but collapse as soon as the splitting exceeds roughly 30 to 70 GeV, because their third-jet veto removes the very events that extra decay radiation produces; the general SUSY searches stay stable and then improve rapidly once the splitting passes about 100 GeV, reaching 400 GeV for a single squark eigenstate and 1400 GeV for the equal-mass case with a massless LSP. Second, the matched prediction's uncertainty on the extracted bound is about $5$ GeV, whereas varying the parton shower alone spans $180$ to $400$ GeV.

Load-bearing premise

The bounds are only as good as the reimplementation of each experimental analysis and the decision to derive every limit from the single most discriminating search region, a choice the authors call conservative but never quantify.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any LHC limit quoted for a compressed spectrum should carry the spread from the radiation model as a systematic, not just the scale and parton-density variation of the hard cross section.
Monojet searches as configured at 7 TeV cannot bound compressed spectra once the mass splitting exceeds a few tens of GeV, because the third-jet veto removes signal events with additional soft radiation.
The general SUSY searches overtake the monojet searches as the splitting grows, so the two strategies are complementary rather than redundant and the best bound should be taken from whichever applies at that splitting.
The bounds evolve non-smoothly with mass splitting because each point uses only the single most discriminating search region; combining regions into one test statistic would remove the discontinuities and tighten the result.
In the degenerate limit the numbers to quote are 230 GeV for one squark eigenstate, 370 GeV for two squark generations, 530 GeV for the gluino, and 680 GeV when squarks and gluino are all degenerate.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the shower-choice spread really is an order of magnitude wider than the matched-prediction spread, then the historical practice of quoting shower-default compressed-spectrum limits without a matching cross-check probably overstated the reach of some searches by a factor of order two in mass, which is testable by re-running older limits through a matched generator.
The authors' proposal to replace the monojet third-jet veto with an azimuthal containment cut, or with an $R=2.5$ jet that sums all radiation, is a cheap experimental change whose payoff would show up directly as a slower collapse of the monojet bound with increasing splitting.
Because the whole method rests on initial-state radiation, the same machinery should transfer almost unchanged to other compressed hidden sectors, such as dark matter pair production or a compressed Higgsino, where the visible signature is likewise one hard jet against missing energy.
The discontinuities from single-region limit setting suggest that a published combination of all search regions, rather than a per-region best, would both smooth the exclusion curve and give a stronger bound at no cost in luminosity.

Original abstract

If Supersymmetry (SUSY) has a compressed spectrum the current limits from the LHC can be drastically reduced. We take possible `worst case' scenarios where combinations of the stop, squark and gluino masses are degenerate with the mass of the lightest SUSY particle. To accurately derive limits in the model, care must be taken when describing QCD radiation and we examine this in detail. Lower mass bounds are then produced by considering all the 7 TeV hadronic SUSY and monojet searches. The evolution of the limits as the mass splitting is varied is also presented.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,184 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.29 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.06 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.09 · compares with prior results 0.29 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

If Supersymmetry (SUSY) has a compressed spectrum the current limits from the LHC can be drastically reduced. We take possible `worst case' scenarios where combinations of the stop, squark and gluino masses are degenerate with the mass of the lightest SUSY particle. To accurately derive limits in the model, care must be taken when describing QCD radiation and we examine this in detail. Lower mass bounds are then produced by considering all the 7 TeV hadronic SUSY and monojet searches. The evolution of the limits as the mass splitting is varied is also presented.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	If Supersymmetry (SUSY) has a compressed spectrum the current limits from the LHC can be drastically reduced.	background 0.99	0.06	0.22	hedged possibility 0.65
s1	We take possible `worst case' scenarios where combinations of the stop, squark and gluino masses are degenerate with the mass of the lightest SUSY particle.	method 0.72	0.64	0.05	hedged possibility 0.72
s2	To accurately derive limits in the model, care must be taken when describing QCD radiation and we examine this in detail.	method 0.68	0.71	0.08	asserted 0.94
s3	Lower mass bounds are then produced by considering all the 7 TeV hadronic SUSY and monojet searches.	method 0.66	0.87	0.24	asserted 1.00
s4	The evolution of the limits as the mass splitting is varied is also presented.	result 0.73	0.88	0.09	asserted 0.95

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: simulation study 0.72 · evidence from analysis of existing data 0.88.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1. Example event topologies of squark production in

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Comparison of the uncertainty associated with 1 jet matched to the parton shower generated events and that of various

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Comparison of the uncertainty associated with 1 jet and 2 jet MLM matching. The uncertainty is found by varying

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4. Comparison of the uncertainties between MLM matching in the integrated MadGraph/Pythia 6 algorithm and CKKW

**Figure 5.** FIG. 5. Comparison between 2 jet MLM matching and the default parton shower settings with no matrix element emission for

**Figure 6.** FIG. 6. Comparison between 2 jet MLM matching and adding the parton shower to a matrix element that already contains a

**Figure 7.** FIG. 7. The spectra for the simplified models studied in this paper. For the ‘Stop’ scenario we place the stop (or a single

**Figure 8.** FIG. 8. Limits from the monojet and SUSY searches for stops (or a single eigenstate squark) in the limit of quasi-degeneracy

**Figure 9.** FIG. 9. Limits from the monojet and SUSY searches for stops (or a single eigenstate squark) as the mass splitting to the LSP

**Figure 10.** FIG. 10. Limits from the monojet and SUSY searches for first and second generation squarks in the limit of quasi-degeneracy

**Figure 11.** FIG. 11. Limits from the monojet and SUSY searches for first and second generation squarks as the mass splitting to the LSP

**Figure 12.** FIG. 12. Limits from the monojet and SUSY searches for gluinos in the limit of quasi-degeneracy with the LSP.

**Figure 13.** FIG. 13. Limits from the monojet and SUSY searches for gluinos as the mass splitting to the LSP is increased.

**Figure 14.** FIG. 14. Limits from the monojet and SUSY searches for the equal mass squark, gluino scenario in the limit of quasi-degeneracy

**Figure 15.** FIG. 15. Limits from the monojet and SUSY searches for the equal mass squark, gluino scenario as the mass splitting to the

**Figure 16.** FIG. 16. Comparison of the limit found when using matching with that when only using different parton shower choices.

Figures reproduced from arXiv:1211.4981 by the authors.

References

Works cited (65)

[1]

S. P. Martin, “A Supersymmetry primer,” arXiv:hep-ph (1997) 9709356, arXiv:hep-ph/9709356 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997
[2]

M. Drees, R. Godbole, and P. Roy, “Theory and phenomenology of sparticles: An account of four-dimensional N=1 supersymmetry in high energy physics,”

View on Pith
[3]

A TLAS Collaboration Collaboration, G. Aad et al., “Search for squarks and gluinos with the ATLAS detector in ﬁnal states with jets and missing transverse momentum using 4.7 fb−1 of sqrt(s) = 7 TeV proton-proton collision data,” arXiv:1208.0949 [hep-ex]. 17

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[4]

CMS Collaboration Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., “Search for supersymmetry in hadronic ﬁnal states using MT2 in pp collisions at√s = 7 TeV,” JHEP 1210 (2012) 018, arXiv:1207.1798 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[5]

CMS Collaboration Collaboration, “Search for supersymmetery in ﬁnal states with missing transverse momentum and 0, 1, 2, or ≥ 3 b jets with CMS,”

View on Pith
[6]

CMS Collaboration Collaboration, “Search for supersymmetry with the razor variables at CMS,”

View on Pith
[7]

CMS Collaboration Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., “Search for new physics in the multijet and missing transverse momentum ﬁnal state in proton-proton collisions at√s = 7 TeV,” arXiv:1207.1898 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[8]

H. K. Dreiner, “An Introduction to explicit R-parity violation,” arXiv:hep-ph/9707435 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[9]

R. Barbier, C. Berat, M. Besancon, M. Chemtob, A. Deandrea, et al., “R-parity violating supersymmetry,” Phys.Rept. 420 (2005) 1–202, arXiv:hep-ph/0406039 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[10]

B. Allanach, A. Dedes, and H. Dreiner, “R parity violating minimal supergravity model,” Phys.Rev. D69 (2004) 115002, arXiv:hep-ph/0309196 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[11]

J. M. Butterworth, J. R. Ellis, A. R. Raklev, and G. P. Salam, “Discovering baryon-number violating neutralino decays at the LHC,” Phys.Rev.Lett. 103 (2009) 241803, arXiv:0906.0728 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[12]

CMS Collaboration Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., “Search for three-jet resonances in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV,” arXiv:1208.2931 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[13]

J. T. Ruderman, T. R. Slatyer, and N. Weiner, “A Collective Breaking of R-Parity,” arXiv:1207.5787 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[14]

J. F. Gunion and S. Mrenna, “A Study of SUSY signatures at the Tevatron in models with near mass degeneracy of the lightest chargino and neutralino,” Phys.Rev. D62 (2000) 015002, arXiv:hep-ph/9906270 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[15]

J. Alwall, M.-P. Le, M. Lisanti, and J. G. Wacker, “Searching for Directly Decaying Gluinos at the Tevatron,” Phys.Lett. B666 (2008) 34–37, arXiv:0803.0019 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[16]

J. Alwall, M.-P. Le, M. Lisanti, and J. G. Wacker, “Model-Independent Jets plus Missing Energy Searches,” Phys.Rev. D79 (2009) 015005, arXiv:0809.3264 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[17]

E. Izaguirre, M. Manhart, and J. G. Wacker, “Bigger, Better, Faster, More at the LHC,” JHEP 1012 (2010) 030, arXiv:1003.3886 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[18]

T. J. LeCompte and S. P. Martin, “Large Hadron Collider reach for supersymmetric models with compressed mass spectra,” Phys.Rev. D84 (2011) 015004, arXiv:1105.4304 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[19]

T. J. LeCompte and S. P. Martin, “Compressed supersymmetry after 1/fb at the Large Hadron Collider,” Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 035023, arXiv:1111.6897 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[20]

H. K. Dreiner, M. Kramer, and J. Tattersall, “How low can SUSY go? Matching, monojets and compressed spectra,” Europhys.Lett. 99 (2012) 61001, arXiv:1207.1613 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[21]

B. Bhattacherjee and K. Ghosh, “Degenerate SUSY search at the 8 TeV LHC,” arXiv:1207.6289 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[22]

M. A. Ajaib, T. Li, and Q. Shaﬁ, “Stop-Neutralino Coannihilation in the Light of LHC,” Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 055021, arXiv:1111.4467 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[23]

B. He, T. Li, and Q. Shaﬁ, “Impact of LHC Searches on NLSP Top Squark and Gluino Mass,” JHEP 1205 (2012) 148, arXiv:1112.4461 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[24]

M. Drees, M. Hanussek, and J. S. Kim, “Light Stop Searches at the LHC with Monojet Events,” Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 035024, arXiv:1201.5714 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[25]

Z.-H. Yu, X.-J. Bi, Q.-S. Yan, and P.-F. Yin, “Detecting light stop pairs in coannihilation scenarios at the LHC,” arXiv:1211.2997 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[26]

G. Belanger, M. Heikinheimo, and V. Sanz, “Model-Independent Bounds on Squarks from Monophoton Searches,” arXiv (2012) 1205.1463, arXiv:1205.1463 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[27]

K. Rolbiecki and K. Sakurai, “Constraining compressed supersymmetry using leptonic signatures,” arXiv (2012) 1206.6767, arXiv:1206.6767 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[28]

which was implemented within MadGraph [29, 30] and is interfaced with the Pythia 6 shower [31]. In Fig. 2 we show the large reduction in uncertainty that occurs in the prediction of jet radiation when the matching of a matrix element jet to the parton shower is performed. Here, the uncertainty in the matched prediction is es- timated by varying the matchi...

View on Pith 1900
[29]

M. L. Mangano, M. Moretti, F. Piccinini, and M. Treccani, “Matching matrix elements and shower evolution for top-quark production in hadronic collisions,” JHEP 0701 (2007) 013, arXiv:hep-ph/0611129 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[30]

J. Alwall, S. de Visscher, and F. Maltoni, “QCD radiation in the production of heavy colored particles at the LHC,” JHEP 0902 (2009) 017, arXiv:0810.5350 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[31]

J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, and T. Stelzer, “MadGraph 5 : Going Beyond,” JHEP 1106 (2011) 128, arXiv:1106.0522 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[32]

T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, “PYTHIA 6.4 Physics and Manual,” JHEP 0605 (2006) 026, arXiv:hep-ph/0603175 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006
[33]

S. Catani, F. Krauss, R. Kuhn, and B. Webber, “QCD matrix elements + parton showers,” JHEP 0111 (2001) 063, arXiv:hep-ph/0109231 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[34]

L. Lonnblad, “Correcting the color dipole cascade model with ﬁxed order matrix elements,” JHEP 0205 (2002) 046, arXiv:hep-ph/0112284 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002
[35]

T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, “A Brief Introduction to PYTHIA 8.1,” Comput.Phys.Commun. 178 (2008) 852–867, arXiv:0710.3820 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[36]

L. Lonnblad and S. Prestel, “Matching Tree-Level Matrix Elements with Interleaved Showers,” JHEP 1203 (2012) 019, arXiv:1109.4829 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[37]

N. Brown and W. J. Stirling, “Finding jets and summing soft gluons: A New algorithm,” Z.Phys. C53 (1992) 629–636

View on Pith 1992
[38]

S. Catani, Y. L. Dokshitzer, M. Olsson, G. Turnock, and B. Webber, “New clustering algorithm for multi - jet cross-sections in e+ e- annihilation,” Phys.Lett. B269 (1991) 432–438

View on Pith 1991
[39]

S. Catani, Y. L. Dokshitzer, M. Seymour, and B. Webber, “Longitudinally invariant Kt clustering algorithms for hadron hadron collisions,” Nucl.Phys. B406 (1993) 187–224

View on Pith 1993
[40]

T. Plehn, D. Rainwater, and P. Z. Skands, “Squark and gluino production with jets,” Phys.Lett. B645 (2007) 217–221, arXiv:hep-ph/0510144 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007
[41]

W. Beenakker, R. H¨ opker, M. Spira, and P. Zerwas, “Squark and gluino production at hadron colliders,” Nucl.Phys. B492 (1997) 51–103, arXiv:hep-ph/9610490 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997
[42]

S. Frixione, E. Laenen, P. Motylinski, B. R. Webber, and C. D. White, “Single-top hadroproduction in 18 association with a W boson,” JHEP 0807 (2008) 029, arXiv:0805.3067 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[43]

M. Bahr et al., “Herwig++ Physics and Manual,” Eur. Phys. J. C58 (2008) 639–707, arXiv:0803.0883 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008
[44]

H. Dreiner, S. Grab, D. Koschade, M. Kramer, B. O’Leary, et al., “Rare meson decays into very light neutralinos,” Phys.Rev. D80 (2009) 035018, arXiv:0905.2051 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[45]

J. Conley, H. Dreiner, and P. Wienemann, “Measuring a Light Neutralino Mass at the ILC: Testing the MSSM Neutralino Cold Dark Matter Model,” Phys.Rev. D83 (2011) 055018, arXiv:1012.1035 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[46]

S. Choi, S. Scopel, N. Fornengo, and A. Bottino, “Search at the CERN LHC for a light neutralino of cosmological interest,” Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 035009, arXiv:1108.2190 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[47]

H. K. Dreiner, J. S. Kim, and O. Lebedev, “First LHC Constraints on Neutralinos,” Phys.Lett. B715 (2012) 199–202, arXiv:1206.3096 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[48]

A TLAS Collaboration Collaboration, G. Aad et al., “Searches for heavy long-lived sleptons and R-Hadrons with the ATLAS detector in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV,” arXiv:1211.1597 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[49]

CMS Collaboration Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., “Search for heavy long-lived charged particles in pp collisions at sqrt(s)=7 TeV,” Phys.Lett. B713 (2012) 408–433, arXiv:1205.0272 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[50]

J. Fan, M. Reece, and J. T. Ruderman, “A Stealth Supersymmetry Sampler,” JHEP 1207 (2012) 196, arXiv:1201.4875 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[51]

K.-i. Hikasa and M. Kobayashi, “Light Scalar Top at e+ e- Colliders,” Phys.Rev. D36 (1987) 724

View on Pith 1987
[52]

C. Boehm, A. Djouadi, and Y. Mambrini, “Decays of the lightest top squark,” Phys.Rev. D61 (2000) 095006, arXiv:hep-ph/9907428 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000
[53]

M. Muhlleitner and E. Popenda, “Light Stop Decay in the MSSM with Minimal Flavour Violation,” JHEP 1104 (2011) 095, arXiv:1102.5712 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[54]

G. D. Kribs and A. Martin, “Supersoft Supersymmetry is Super-Safe,” arXiv (2012) 1203.4821, arXiv:1203.4821 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[55]

CMS Collaboration Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., “Search for dark matter and large extra dimensions in monojet events in pp collisions at sqrt(s)= 7 TeV,” JHEP 1209 (2012) 094, arXiv:1206.5663 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012
[56]

The A TLAS Collaboration Collaboration, G. Aad et al., “Search for dark matter candidates and large extra dimensions in events with a jet and missing transverse momentum with the ATLAS detector,” arXiv:1210.4491 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[57]

A. Buckley, J. Butterworth, L. Lonnblad, H. Hoeth, J. Monk, et al., “Rivet user manual,” arXiv (2010) 1003.0694, arXiv:1003.0694 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[58]

B. C. Allanach, A. J. Barr, A. Daﬁnca, and C. Gwenlan, “Discovery reach for generic supersymmetry at the LHC: MT2 versus missing transverse momentum selections for pMSSM searches,” JHEP 1107 (2011) 104, arXiv:1105.1024 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[59]

W. A. Rolke and A. M. Lopez, “Conﬁdence intervals and upper bounds for small signals in the presence of background noise,” Nucl.Instrum.Meth. A458 (2001) 745–758, arXiv:hep-ph/0005187 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001
[60]

W. A. Rolke, A. M. Lopez, and J. Conrad, “Limits and conﬁdence intervals in the presence of nuisance parameters,” Nucl.Instrum.Meth. A551 (2005) 493–503, arXiv:physics/0403059 [physics]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[61]

J. Lundberg, J. Conrad, W. Rolke, and A. Lopez, “Limits, discovery and cut optimization for a Poisson process with uncertainty in background and signal eﬃciency: TRolke 2.0,” Comput.Phys.Commun. 181 (2010) 683–686, arXiv:0907.3450 [physics.data-an]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010
[62]

“https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/CMSPublic/ RazorLikelihoodHowTo,”

View on Pith
[63]

W. Beenakker, S. Brensing, M. Kramer, A. Kulesza, E. Laenen, et al., “Soft-gluon resummation for squark and gluino hadroproduction,” JHEP 0912 (2009) 041, arXiv:0909.4418 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009
[64]

W. Beenakker, S. Brensing, M. Kramer, A. Kulesza, E. Laenen, et al., “Squark and gluino hadroproduction,” Int.J.Mod.Phys. A26 (2011) 2637–2664, arXiv:1105.1110 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011
[65]

P. M. Nadolsky, H.-L. Lai, Q.-H. Cao, J. Huston, J. Pumplin, et al., “Implications of CTEQ global analysis for collider observables,” Phys.Rev. D78 (2008) 013004, arXiv:0802.0007 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

Forward citations

Cited by 8 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

SUSY Simplified Models at 14, 33, and 100 TeV Proton Colliders
hep-ph 2013-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Simulated projections show a 100 TeV proton collider with 3000 inverse femtobarns could discover gluinos decaying to light quarks up to about 11 TeV, versus about 2.3 TeV at the 14 TeV LHC.
Very Light Scalar Top Quarks at the LHC
hep-ph 2012-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Under minimal flavour violation, the four-body stop decay can dominate over the flavour-violating two-body mode, and existing 7 TeV LHC searches exclude light stops below roughly 200 GeV in either channel.
The ABC of RPV III: Classification of R-parity Violating Signatures from LQD Couplings and their Coverage at the LHC
hep-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

The LHC currently excludes gluino and squark LSPs decaying via LQD couplings up to masses above 2 TeV and 1.8 TeV respectively, while direct slepton LSP production and tau-rich electroweakino scenarios remain largely ...
Opening up the compressed region of stop searches at 13 TeV LHC
hep-ph 2015-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

The ratio of missing transverse energy to the hardest jet's transverse momentum peaks near the neutralino-to-stop mass ratio, giving a handle on compressed stop scenarios that conventional searches miss.
Les Houches 2013: Physics at TeV Colliders: New Physics Working Group Report
hep-ph 2014-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Twenty contributed studies from the 2013 Les Houches New Physics working group cover Higgs coupling fits, vector-like quark and composite Higgs benchmarks, SUSY constraints, flavour observables and dark matter, includ...

Show 3 more citing papers

Compressed electroweakino spectra at the LHC
hep-ph 2013-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Monojet plus missing-energy searches, extended with soft-lepton bins, can probe compressed electroweakino spectra at the 14 TeV LHC, with reach set almost entirely by the assumed background systematic error.
Contact Interactions Probe Effective Dark Matter Models at the LHC
hep-ph 2013-03 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Translating LHC quark contact-interaction limits through the shared mediator coupling gives a stronger bound on dark matter production than mono-jet searches, for mediator masses between about 1 and 7 TeV.
Signatures of Majorana dark matter with t-channel mediators
hep-ph 2015-03 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

A review of Majorana dark matter with a scalar t-channel mediator shows how direct, indirect, and collider searches cover complementary parts of the thermal-relic parameter space.

How the literature uses it

32 arXiv papers cite this in 52 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 40 sentences without a confident label

Uses its data or values 1 paper

These studies set bounds on the gluino of $m_g̃ ≥1150$ GeV in the case of a light ($m_χ̃^0_1≲$ 100 GeV) LSP, but this can be reduced to, $m_g̃ ≥500$ GeV in the limit that the gluino becomes degenerate with the LSP [ref] .

Naughty or Nice? The Role of the `N' in the Natural NMSSM for the LHC · Introduction · 0.88

Compares with it 2 papers

Our results are consistent with results in the literature [ref] to the extent they can be compared.

Mixing stops at the LHC · Razor analysis · 1.00
Our results for the FV mode appear to be compatible with previous analyses of this channel in the monojet and jets+$$ channels [ref] , although Ref. [ref] obtains a somewhat stronger limit from the jets+$$ channel than we do.

Very Light Scalar Top Quarks at the LHC · FV mode · 1.00

Cites it as support 2 papers

Motivated by this lack of coverage several external analyses [ref] have shown that LHC is sensitive to a broader region of the parameter space than the one explored by the public analyses.

Mixing stops at the LHC · LHC sensitivity to a light stop NLSP with large flavor mixing · 0.98
However, the jets or charged leptons produced in their decay are too soft to be detected, [ref] . therefore the final state is completely invisible to the detector and the monojet or monophoton constraints give again the strongest limits on the model parameters.

Signatures of Majorana dark matter with t-channel mediators · Collider signatures · 0.98

Cites it as background 5 papers

It was initially thought that the best way to look for compressed SUSY was to focus on the mono-jet +$$ signal [ref] .

A revisit to a compressed supersymmetric spectrum with 125 GeV Higgs · Introduction · 0.88
Several novel methods were proposed to search for the compressed region at the collider [ref] .

Demystifying the compressed top squark region with kinematic variables · Introduction · 0.97
While this option has been widely studied phenomenologically (see for example, [ref] ), its theoretical justifications based on the explicit models of supersymmetry breaking are very limited.

Indirect Searches of the Degenerate MSSM · SUSY Models with weak scale degeneracy · 0.93

What it cites · 48 sentences without a confident label

Uses the method or tool of 13 papers

The final topology based search we consider uses the $M_T2$ variable [ref] .

Search for supersymmetry in hadronic final states using MT2 in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV · Topology based searches · 0.92
The first is the `MLM' matching scheme [ref] that has been implemented into MadGraph 5 [ref] and interfaced with the Pythia 6 parton shower [ref] .

QCD radiation in the production of heavy colored particles at the LHC · Introduction · 1.00
The first is the `MLM' matching scheme [ref] that has been implemented into MadGraph 5 [ref] and interfaced with the Pythia 6 parton shower [ref] .

MadGraph 5 : Going Beyond · Introduction · 1.00

Cites as background 10 papers

Other methods to search for compressed spectra are for example using a monophoton instead of a monojet [ref] or looking for soft leptons [ref] .

Model-Independent Bounds on Squarks from Monophoton Searches · Introduction · 0.85
This possibility was first investigated as a possible SUSY search mode at the Tevatron [ref] but large variations in the ISR prediction from parton showers made the mass reach uncertain.

A study of SUSY signatures at the Tevatron in models with near mass degeneracy of the lightest chargino and neutralino · Introduction · 0.85
Other methods to search for compressed spectra are for example using a monophoton instead of a monojet [ref] or looking for soft leptons [ref] .

Constraining compressed supersymmetry using leptonic signatures · Introduction · 0.85

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [1]

S. P. Martin, “A Supersymmetry primer,” arXiv:hep-ph (1997) 9709356, arXiv:hep-ph/9709356 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997

[2] [2]

M. Drees, R. Godbole, and P. Roy, “Theory and phenomenology of sparticles: An account of four-dimensional N=1 supersymmetry in high energy physics,”

View on Pith

[3] [3]

A TLAS Collaboration Collaboration, G. Aad et al., “Search for squarks and gluinos with the ATLAS detector in ﬁnal states with jets and missing transverse momentum using 4.7 fb−1 of sqrt(s) = 7 TeV proton-proton collision data,” arXiv:1208.0949 [hep-ex]. 17

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[4] [4]

CMS Collaboration Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., “Search for supersymmetry in hadronic ﬁnal states using MT2 in pp collisions at√s = 7 TeV,” JHEP 1210 (2012) 018, arXiv:1207.1798 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[5] [5]

CMS Collaboration Collaboration, “Search for supersymmetery in ﬁnal states with missing transverse momentum and 0, 1, 2, or ≥ 3 b jets with CMS,”

View on Pith

[6] [6]

CMS Collaboration Collaboration, “Search for supersymmetry with the razor variables at CMS,”

View on Pith

[7] [7]

CMS Collaboration Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., “Search for new physics in the multijet and missing transverse momentum ﬁnal state in proton-proton collisions at√s = 7 TeV,” arXiv:1207.1898 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[8] [8]

H. K. Dreiner, “An Introduction to explicit R-parity violation,” arXiv:hep-ph/9707435 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[9] [9]

R. Barbier, C. Berat, M. Besancon, M. Chemtob, A. Deandrea, et al., “R-parity violating supersymmetry,” Phys.Rept. 420 (2005) 1–202, arXiv:hep-ph/0406039 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[10] [10]

B. Allanach, A. Dedes, and H. Dreiner, “R parity violating minimal supergravity model,” Phys.Rev. D69 (2004) 115002, arXiv:hep-ph/0309196 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[11] [11]

J. M. Butterworth, J. R. Ellis, A. R. Raklev, and G. P. Salam, “Discovering baryon-number violating neutralino decays at the LHC,” Phys.Rev.Lett. 103 (2009) 241803, arXiv:0906.0728 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[12] [12]

CMS Collaboration Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., “Search for three-jet resonances in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV,” arXiv:1208.2931 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[13] [13]

J. T. Ruderman, T. R. Slatyer, and N. Weiner, “A Collective Breaking of R-Parity,” arXiv:1207.5787 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[14] [14]

J. F. Gunion and S. Mrenna, “A Study of SUSY signatures at the Tevatron in models with near mass degeneracy of the lightest chargino and neutralino,” Phys.Rev. D62 (2000) 015002, arXiv:hep-ph/9906270 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[15] [15]

J. Alwall, M.-P. Le, M. Lisanti, and J. G. Wacker, “Searching for Directly Decaying Gluinos at the Tevatron,” Phys.Lett. B666 (2008) 34–37, arXiv:0803.0019 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[16] [16]

J. Alwall, M.-P. Le, M. Lisanti, and J. G. Wacker, “Model-Independent Jets plus Missing Energy Searches,” Phys.Rev. D79 (2009) 015005, arXiv:0809.3264 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[17] [17]

E. Izaguirre, M. Manhart, and J. G. Wacker, “Bigger, Better, Faster, More at the LHC,” JHEP 1012 (2010) 030, arXiv:1003.3886 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[18] [18]

T. J. LeCompte and S. P. Martin, “Large Hadron Collider reach for supersymmetric models with compressed mass spectra,” Phys.Rev. D84 (2011) 015004, arXiv:1105.4304 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[19] [19]

T. J. LeCompte and S. P. Martin, “Compressed supersymmetry after 1/fb at the Large Hadron Collider,” Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 035023, arXiv:1111.6897 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[20] [20]

H. K. Dreiner, M. Kramer, and J. Tattersall, “How low can SUSY go? Matching, monojets and compressed spectra,” Europhys.Lett. 99 (2012) 61001, arXiv:1207.1613 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[21] [21]

B. Bhattacherjee and K. Ghosh, “Degenerate SUSY search at the 8 TeV LHC,” arXiv:1207.6289 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[22] [22]

M. A. Ajaib, T. Li, and Q. Shaﬁ, “Stop-Neutralino Coannihilation in the Light of LHC,” Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 055021, arXiv:1111.4467 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[23] [23]

B. He, T. Li, and Q. Shaﬁ, “Impact of LHC Searches on NLSP Top Squark and Gluino Mass,” JHEP 1205 (2012) 148, arXiv:1112.4461 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[24] [24]

M. Drees, M. Hanussek, and J. S. Kim, “Light Stop Searches at the LHC with Monojet Events,” Phys.Rev. D86 (2012) 035024, arXiv:1201.5714 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[25] [25]

Z.-H. Yu, X.-J. Bi, Q.-S. Yan, and P.-F. Yin, “Detecting light stop pairs in coannihilation scenarios at the LHC,” arXiv:1211.2997 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[26] [26]

G. Belanger, M. Heikinheimo, and V. Sanz, “Model-Independent Bounds on Squarks from Monophoton Searches,” arXiv (2012) 1205.1463, arXiv:1205.1463 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[27] [27]

K. Rolbiecki and K. Sakurai, “Constraining compressed supersymmetry using leptonic signatures,” arXiv (2012) 1206.6767, arXiv:1206.6767 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[28] [28]

which was implemented within MadGraph [29, 30] and is interfaced with the Pythia 6 shower [31]. In Fig. 2 we show the large reduction in uncertainty that occurs in the prediction of jet radiation when the matching of a matrix element jet to the parton shower is performed. Here, the uncertainty in the matched prediction is es- timated by varying the matchi...

View on Pith 1900

[29] [29]

M. L. Mangano, M. Moretti, F. Piccinini, and M. Treccani, “Matching matrix elements and shower evolution for top-quark production in hadronic collisions,” JHEP 0701 (2007) 013, arXiv:hep-ph/0611129 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[30] [30]

J. Alwall, S. de Visscher, and F. Maltoni, “QCD radiation in the production of heavy colored particles at the LHC,” JHEP 0902 (2009) 017, arXiv:0810.5350 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[31] [31]

J. Alwall, M. Herquet, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, and T. Stelzer, “MadGraph 5 : Going Beyond,” JHEP 1106 (2011) 128, arXiv:1106.0522 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[32] [32]

T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, “PYTHIA 6.4 Physics and Manual,” JHEP 0605 (2006) 026, arXiv:hep-ph/0603175 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2006

[33] [33]

S. Catani, F. Krauss, R. Kuhn, and B. Webber, “QCD matrix elements + parton showers,” JHEP 0111 (2001) 063, arXiv:hep-ph/0109231 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[34] [34]

L. Lonnblad, “Correcting the color dipole cascade model with ﬁxed order matrix elements,” JHEP 0205 (2002) 046, arXiv:hep-ph/0112284 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2002

[35] [35]

T. Sjostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Z. Skands, “A Brief Introduction to PYTHIA 8.1,” Comput.Phys.Commun. 178 (2008) 852–867, arXiv:0710.3820 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[36] [36]

L. Lonnblad and S. Prestel, “Matching Tree-Level Matrix Elements with Interleaved Showers,” JHEP 1203 (2012) 019, arXiv:1109.4829 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[37] [37]

N. Brown and W. J. Stirling, “Finding jets and summing soft gluons: A New algorithm,” Z.Phys. C53 (1992) 629–636

View on Pith 1992

[38] [38]

S. Catani, Y. L. Dokshitzer, M. Olsson, G. Turnock, and B. Webber, “New clustering algorithm for multi - jet cross-sections in e+ e- annihilation,” Phys.Lett. B269 (1991) 432–438

View on Pith 1991

[39] [39]

S. Catani, Y. L. Dokshitzer, M. Seymour, and B. Webber, “Longitudinally invariant Kt clustering algorithms for hadron hadron collisions,” Nucl.Phys. B406 (1993) 187–224

View on Pith 1993

[40] [40]

T. Plehn, D. Rainwater, and P. Z. Skands, “Squark and gluino production with jets,” Phys.Lett. B645 (2007) 217–221, arXiv:hep-ph/0510144 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2007

[41] [41]

W. Beenakker, R. H¨ opker, M. Spira, and P. Zerwas, “Squark and gluino production at hadron colliders,” Nucl.Phys. B492 (1997) 51–103, arXiv:hep-ph/9610490 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997

[42] [42]

S. Frixione, E. Laenen, P. Motylinski, B. R. Webber, and C. D. White, “Single-top hadroproduction in 18 association with a W boson,” JHEP 0807 (2008) 029, arXiv:0805.3067 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[43] [43]

M. Bahr et al., “Herwig++ Physics and Manual,” Eur. Phys. J. C58 (2008) 639–707, arXiv:0803.0883 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008

[44] [44]

H. Dreiner, S. Grab, D. Koschade, M. Kramer, B. O’Leary, et al., “Rare meson decays into very light neutralinos,” Phys.Rev. D80 (2009) 035018, arXiv:0905.2051 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[45] [45]

J. Conley, H. Dreiner, and P. Wienemann, “Measuring a Light Neutralino Mass at the ILC: Testing the MSSM Neutralino Cold Dark Matter Model,” Phys.Rev. D83 (2011) 055018, arXiv:1012.1035 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[46] [46]

S. Choi, S. Scopel, N. Fornengo, and A. Bottino, “Search at the CERN LHC for a light neutralino of cosmological interest,” Phys.Rev. D85 (2012) 035009, arXiv:1108.2190 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[47] [47]

H. K. Dreiner, J. S. Kim, and O. Lebedev, “First LHC Constraints on Neutralinos,” Phys.Lett. B715 (2012) 199–202, arXiv:1206.3096 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[48] [48]

A TLAS Collaboration Collaboration, G. Aad et al., “Searches for heavy long-lived sleptons and R-Hadrons with the ATLAS detector in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV,” arXiv:1211.1597 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[49] [49]

CMS Collaboration Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., “Search for heavy long-lived charged particles in pp collisions at sqrt(s)=7 TeV,” Phys.Lett. B713 (2012) 408–433, arXiv:1205.0272 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[50] [50]

J. Fan, M. Reece, and J. T. Ruderman, “A Stealth Supersymmetry Sampler,” JHEP 1207 (2012) 196, arXiv:1201.4875 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[51] [51]

K.-i. Hikasa and M. Kobayashi, “Light Scalar Top at e+ e- Colliders,” Phys.Rev. D36 (1987) 724

View on Pith 1987

[52] [52]

C. Boehm, A. Djouadi, and Y. Mambrini, “Decays of the lightest top squark,” Phys.Rev. D61 (2000) 095006, arXiv:hep-ph/9907428 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2000

[53] [53]

M. Muhlleitner and E. Popenda, “Light Stop Decay in the MSSM with Minimal Flavour Violation,” JHEP 1104 (2011) 095, arXiv:1102.5712 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[54] [54]

G. D. Kribs and A. Martin, “Supersoft Supersymmetry is Super-Safe,” arXiv (2012) 1203.4821, arXiv:1203.4821 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[55] [55]

CMS Collaboration Collaboration, S. Chatrchyan et al., “Search for dark matter and large extra dimensions in monojet events in pp collisions at sqrt(s)= 7 TeV,” JHEP 1209 (2012) 094, arXiv:1206.5663 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2012

[56] [56]

The A TLAS Collaboration Collaboration, G. Aad et al., “Search for dark matter candidates and large extra dimensions in events with a jet and missing transverse momentum with the ATLAS detector,” arXiv:1210.4491 [hep-ex]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[57] [57]

A. Buckley, J. Butterworth, L. Lonnblad, H. Hoeth, J. Monk, et al., “Rivet user manual,” arXiv (2010) 1003.0694, arXiv:1003.0694 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[58] [58]

B. C. Allanach, A. J. Barr, A. Daﬁnca, and C. Gwenlan, “Discovery reach for generic supersymmetry at the LHC: MT2 versus missing transverse momentum selections for pMSSM searches,” JHEP 1107 (2011) 104, arXiv:1105.1024 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[59] [59]

W. A. Rolke and A. M. Lopez, “Conﬁdence intervals and upper bounds for small signals in the presence of background noise,” Nucl.Instrum.Meth. A458 (2001) 745–758, arXiv:hep-ph/0005187 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2001

[60] [60]

W. A. Rolke, A. M. Lopez, and J. Conrad, “Limits and conﬁdence intervals in the presence of nuisance parameters,” Nucl.Instrum.Meth. A551 (2005) 493–503, arXiv:physics/0403059 [physics]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[61] [61]

J. Lundberg, J. Conrad, W. Rolke, and A. Lopez, “Limits, discovery and cut optimization for a Poisson process with uncertainty in background and signal eﬃciency: TRolke 2.0,” Comput.Phys.Commun. 181 (2010) 683–686, arXiv:0907.3450 [physics.data-an]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2010

[62] [62]

“https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/CMSPublic/ RazorLikelihoodHowTo,”

View on Pith

[63] [63]

W. Beenakker, S. Brensing, M. Kramer, A. Kulesza, E. Laenen, et al., “Soft-gluon resummation for squark and gluino hadroproduction,” JHEP 0912 (2009) 041, arXiv:0909.4418 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2009

[64] [64]

W. Beenakker, S. Brensing, M. Kramer, A. Kulesza, E. Laenen, et al., “Squark and gluino hadroproduction,” Int.J.Mod.Phys. A26 (2011) 2637–2664, arXiv:1105.1110 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2011

[65] [65]

P. M. Nadolsky, H.-L. Lai, Q.-H. Cao, J. Huston, J. Pumplin, et al., “Implications of CTEQ global analysis for collider observables,” Phys.Rev. D78 (2008) 013004, arXiv:0802.0007 [hep-ph]

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2008