Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 99 references

Revisiting the LHC Constraints on Gauge-Mediated Supersymmetry Breaking Scenarios

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The ATLAS mono-photon bound on GGM supersymmetry is weakened once direct gravitino decays of the gluino and heavier electroweakinos are included.

desk verdict A solid recast paper with a real point: the ATLAS GGM mono-photon limit overstates exclusions where non-NLSP gravitino decays win, but the headline numbers need an independent check of the modified decay tables. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09650 v1 pith:WPG5WP3D submitted 2024-11-14 hep-ph

Kirtiman Ghosh , Katri Huitu , Rameswar Sahu This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords Gauge-mediatedsupersymmetrybreakingGeneralgaugemediationgravitinoLSPmono-photonsearchATLASconstraintsgluinomasslimitsneutralinoNLSPbranching-ratiorecast
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Supersymmetry with gauge mediation predicts a very light gravitino, and collider searches usually assume that only the lightest neutralino decays into it. This paper argues that in a realistic General Gauge Mediation model, the gluino, the next two neutralinos, and the lightest chargino can also decay directly to a gravitino, especially when the spectrum is compressed or the Higgsino mass parameter $\mu$ is negative. Because those direct decays bypass the lightest neutralino and often produce no energetic photon, the mono-photon final state used by the ATLAS search is depleted, so the published exclusion region is too aggressive. Recasting the $139~\text{fb}^{-1}$ ATLAS search with all gravitino decays included lowers the most stringent gluino bound from about 2.4 TeV to about 2.3 TeV for negative $\mu$ and shrinks the region where the overall 2.2 TeV bound applies. If correct, the paper changes what counts as excluded on the gluino-NLSP mass plane and points future searches toward boosted $W$, $Z$, Higgs, and top-quark signatures.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the set of gravitino partial widths for neutralinos, charginos, and the gluino, computed analytically in terms of the neutralino mixing matrix and masses. These widths are added to the spectrum generator's decay tables, where they compete with the standard cascade decays. The branching fractions are set by phase space: compressed spectra and negative $\mu$ suppress the cascade channels, so the direct-to-gravitino modes dominate. This competition is what removes photons from the final state and relaxes the exclusion limits.

What would settle it

Take a benchmark point in the disputed region, for example $m_{\tilde g}=2.3$ TeV and $m_{\tilde\chi_1^0}=1.35$ TeV with $\mu<0$, and compute the mono-photon signal yield with and without the added gravitino decays; if the suppression is smaller than the 95% CL uncertainty quoted by ATLAS, the claimed relaxation of the bound does not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the assumption behind the ATLAS mono-photon search—that the gravitino LSP is reached only through the lightest neutralino—fails over a substantial part of the GGM parameter space. Using gravitino partial widths computed from the analytic formulas and inserted into the spectrum generator's decay tables, the authors find that for positive $\mu$ the assumption mostly holds, while for negative $\mu$ the second and third neutralinos and the lightest chargino decay to gravitinos with large branching fractions; in quasi-degenerate gluino-NLSP regions the gluino itself decays directly to a gravitino plus a gluon. The consequence is a photon-deficient final state. Recasting the ATLAS signal regions with these decays, the authors find that the published 2.4 TeV most-stringent gluino bound does not survive for negative $\mu$: the updated limit is roughly 2.3 TeV for neutralino masses between 1.3 and 1.4 TeV, and the overall 2.2 TeV bound holds only for neutralino masses below 1500 GeV (positive $\mu$) or 1300 GeV (negative $\mu$), plus the below-150 GeV neutralino region, with discrepancies of up to 300 GeV compared with the original limit.

Load-bearing premise

The result stands or falls on the gravitino branching fractions for the gluino and the heavier neutralinos and charginos, which are computed by hand and added to the spectrum generator without being independently validated in the regime where they dominate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $\mu < 0$, the published ATLAS most-stringent gluino mass limit of 2.4 TeV is replaced by roughly 2.3 TeV for neutralino masses between 1.3 and 1.4 TeV.
  • The overall gluino mass bound of 2.2 TeV survives only for neutralino masses below 1500 GeV (positive $\mu$) or 1300 GeV (negative $\mu$), plus the region below 150 GeV.
  • In quasi-degenerate gluino-NLSP spectra, the gluino's direct gravitino decay suppresses the mono-photon rate, so the compressed region is largely unconstrained by the ATLAS search.
  • For negative $\mu$, the heavier neutralinos and the lightest chargino often decay straight to gravitinos, so the cascade never reaches the NLSP and no hard photon is produced.
  • In the regions where the bounds weaken, the final states contain highly boosted $W$, $Z$, Higgs, or top jets, so a fat-jet search could recover sensitivity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's scan, the same phase-space competition should affect other GMSB searches—diphoton, multilepton, and long-lived particle searches—so simplified-model limits in those channels may also need an all-particles gravitino treatment.
  • The sign of $\mu$ becomes a testable handle: a mono-photon deficit in the negative-$\mu$ plane relative to the positive-$\mu$ plane would support this mechanism over an overall cross-section suppression.
  • Quantitative shifts could change outside the paper's fixed parameter slice, but the qualitative conclusion—that ignoring non-NLSP gravitino decays overstates the excluded region—is likely robust to those choices.
  • A natural next step, not pursued here, is a recast of electroweakino pair production with the same modified decay tables, where direct gravitino decays of $\tilde\chi_2^0$ and $\tilde\chi_1^+$ should similarly weaken the limits.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reinterprets the ATLAS mono-photon + missing transverse energy search at 139 fb^-1 for simplified General Gauge Mediation, relaxing the assumption that only the lightest neutralino decays into a gravitino. The authors compute gravitino partial widths from analytic formulas in Eqs. (2.4)-(2.6), insert them into SPheno decay tables for the gluino, chi_20, chi_30, and chi_1+, and recast the ATLAS signal regions on the gluino-NLSP mass plane for both signs of mu. They find that in compressed spectra and especially for negative mu, non-NLSP gravitino decays suppress the mono-photon rate, so the ATLAS exclusion is locally weakened: the most stringent gluino mass limit changes from about 2.4 TeV to about 2.3 TeV for neutralino masses near 1.3-1.4 TeV, and the 2.2 TeV overall limit holds only in restricted neutralino-mass windows.

Significance. The paper identifies a physically plausible and useful effect: phase-space suppression of cascade decays in compressed GGM spectra allows direct gravitino decays of the gluino and of heavier electroweak-inos to compete, reducing the mono-photon yield on which the ATLAS limit is based. The analytic decay-width formulas and the decay phase diagrams in Figures 1-4 are a clear strength, and the simulation chain is standard and is validated against ATLAS acceptance x efficiency in the simplified scenario where non-NLSP gravitino decays are absent. The work is not circular: no model parameter is fitted to data, and the recast uses ATLAS background predictions and observed event counts. If the modified branching ratios are independently verified, the conclusion that the ATLAS simplified-GGM bounds are locally overestimated is a credible, modest correction to the experimental limits.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.3, Eqs. (2.4)-(2.6), Figs. 7-12] The quantitative conclusion rests on inserting gravitino partial widths for the gluino, chi_20, chi_30, and chi_1+ into the SPheno decay tables, but the validation shown in the left panels of Figs. 7-12 only tests the ATLAS scenario, in which those gravitino decay channels are absent by construction. Section 3.3 states that the default MSSM model file has no gravitino decay channels, so the acceptance x efficiency agreement in the simplified scenario validates event generation, detector simulation, and event selection, but does not test the modified branching ratios that produce the right-panel suppression and the new exclusion boundaries in Fig. 13. Because the reported shift is only about 0.1 TeV in the most stringent limit and up to about 0.3 TeV in parts of the plane, an unvalidated error of order 10-20% in BR(chi_20 -> X + G), BR(chi_1+ -> W + G), or BR(g -> g + G) could alter the claimed limits. Please add an independent cross-check of the modified decay tables, for example by comparing the SPheno-plus-manual-insertion branching ratios with an independent decay code or with the analytic partial widths on representative grid points, and verify the total-width normalization after insertion.
  2. [Section 2 and Section 3.3] The scan is confined to the ATLAS benchmark slice M2 = 3 TeV, tan(beta) = 1.5, sfermions decoupled at 5 TeV, heavy Higgs states decoupled at 2 TeV, |M1| ~ |mu|, and m_gravitino ~ 1 eV. This is a model point inherited from the experimental simplified setup, not the full GGM parameter space, and the phrase "realistic GGM scenario" overstates the coverage of the scan. The competition between gravitino and cascade decays of chi_20, chi_30, and chi_1+ depends on the wino and higgsino admixtures set by M2, mu, and tan(beta); a sensitivity scan over at least M2 and tan(beta), even on a coarse grid, is needed to establish that the displaced exclusion boundaries in Fig. 13 are not artifacts of this benchmark slice. If the authors prefer to present only the ATLAS benchmark, the title and conclusions should be scoped accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3.1] The sentence "the overall lower limit of 2.2 TeV only holds for M_chi10 < 1500 (1300) GeV and M_chi10 < 150 GeV for the positive (negative) mu scenario" is internally confusing; the summary in Section 4 states instead that the limit holds only below 1500 GeV for positive mu and below 1300 GeV for negative mu. Please clarify the intended statement.
  2. [Figs. 7-12] The validation comparison with ATLAS is presented for only a handful of grid points, with the ATLAS values in brackets; a table listing all validation points and the relative differences in acceptance x efficiency would make the validation quantitative and reproducible.
  3. [Section 2.1] The statements that mu > 0 gives equal gamma and Z branching fractions while mu < 0 gives equal gamma and h branching fractions are not derived; a short expression for the relevant neutralino-mixing combinations would help readers reproduce the phase diagram in Fig. 2.
  4. [Section 3.3] No modified SLHA decay tables, spectrum files, or analysis scripts are released. For a recast paper of this type, providing at least representative SLHA files with the modified decay tables would greatly facilitate independent verification of the central step.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the recast is a Monte Carlo model reinterpretation with no fitted parameters and with the new gravitino widths taken from standard external formulas.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that ATLAS's simplified-GGM mono-photon limits on the (m_gluino, m_chi10) plane are weakened when gravitino decays of non-NLSP SUSY states are included—is not circular. No model parameter is fitted to the ATLAS data to produce the shifted exclusion boundary. The gravitino partial widths are implemented from the standard external formulas of Ref. [37] (Eqs. 2.4–2.6), and the cascade decay widths come from SPheno; both are fixed inputs to the recast. The validation in Section 3.3 compares acceptance times efficiency with ATLAS only in the simplified scenario where non-NLSP gravitino decays are switched off, so the added decay channels that drive the right-panel suppression are not independently validated. That is a legitimate limitation on the accuracy of the quantitative shift, but it is not circularity: the interpretation does not presuppose the conclusion, and no equation or parameter choice reduces the prediction to the input by construction. The benchmark choices (M2 = 3 TeV, tan beta = 1.5, |M1| ~ |mu|, decoupled sfermions) are taken from the ATLAS analysis rather than tuned to produce the weakened limits. No load-bearing self-citation was found; the cited decay formulas and the GGM framework are external. Honest non-finding is therefore appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles or forces are introduced. The gravitino, neutralinos, charginos, and gluino are standard MSSM/GGM states. The model parameters are taken from the ATLAS benchmark rather than fitted to the paper's own result. The decay-width formulas and the spectrum generator are external inputs from the literature. The central claim therefore rests on the domain assumptions listed above, especially the correctness of the manually added gravitino decay widths.

free parameters (4)
  • M2 (wino soft mass) = 3 TeV
    Set by hand following the ATLAS benchmark. Determines the chargino and heavier neutralino spectrum and affects the relative importance of cascade versus gravitino decays.
  • tan beta = 1.5
    Set by hand following the ATLAS benchmark. Affects neutralino mixing and the branching ratios into photon, Z, and Higgs final states.
  • Sfermion mass scale = 5 TeV
    Squarks and sleptons are decoupled at 5 TeV, chosen by hand. This suppresses three-body cascade decays through sfermion propagators and affects the gluino and neutralino decay widths.
  • Gravitino mass = 1 eV
    Assumed to ensure prompt decay of the NLSP neutralino. Enters the gravitino partial widths as m_G^2 in the denominator, so it directly controls the branching ratios that drive the central result.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption R-parity is conserved.
    Inherited from the ATLAS benchmark and used throughout Sections 2 and 3. Sparticles are pairwise produced and decay chains terminate at the LSP gravitino.
  • domain assumption The gravitino is the LSP with mass of order 1 eV.
    Standard for GMSB/GGM with low-scale SUSY breaking. Used in Section 2 to justify prompt NLSP decays and in the gravitino decay width formulas.
  • domain assumption The lightest neutralino is an equal admixture of bino and higgsino, with |M1| approximately |mu| much less than M2.
    Adopted from the ATLAS analysis and used to set the mu values along the 50% branching ratio lines in Figures 2 and 3.
  • domain assumption The analytical gravitino partial width formulas of Ref. [37], Eqs. (2.4)-(2.6), are correct and complete.
    These formulas are inserted into the SPheno decay tables and are the key new ingredient that produces the weakened limits.
  • domain assumption The MSSM spectrum from SARAH/SPheno with the chosen inputs accurately describes the cascade decay widths of gluinos, neutralinos, and charginos.
    The cascade widths compete with the added gravitino widths, and any error would change the branching ratios and the final exclusion contours.
  • domain assumption The fixed parameter slice (M2 = 3 TeV, tan beta = 1.5, decoupled sfermions, A-terms zero, heavy Higgs sector at 2 TeV) is representative of the relevant GGM parameter space.
    The paper draws conclusions about the ATLAS constraints from this slice. Other GGM realizations with different parameters could have different branching ratios.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revisiting the LHC Constraints on Gauge-Mediated Supersymmetry Breaking Scenarios." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WPG5WP3D

@misc{pith2026241109650,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revisiting the LHC Constraints on Gauge-Mediated Supersymmetry Breaking Scenarios},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WPG5WP3D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09650}
}
read the original abstract

Supersymmetry (SUSY) addresses several problems of the Standard Model, such as the naturalness problem and gauge coupling unification, and can provide cosmologically viable dark matter candidates. SUSY must be broken at high energy scales with mechanisms like gravity, anomaly, gauge mediation, etc. This paper revisits the Gauge Mediated SUSY Breaking (GMSB) scenarios in the context of data from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) experiment. The ATLAS mono-photon search at 139 inverse femtobarn integrated luminosity at the 13 TeV LHC, in the context of a simplified General Gauge Mediation (GGM) scenario (which is a phenomenological version of GMSB with an agnostic approach to the nature of the hidden sector), relies on assumptions that do not hold across the entire parameter space. We identify a few crucial assumptions regarding the decay widths of SUSY particles into final states with gravitinos that affect the LHC limits on the masses of the SUSY particles. Our study aims to reinterpret the ATLAS constraints on the gluino-NLSP mass plane, considering all possible decay modes of SUSY particles in a realistic GGM model.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Search for new phenomena in final states with photons, jets and missing transverse momentum in pp collisions at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 07 (2023) 021, [arXiv:2206.06012]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    M. A. Luty,2004 TASI lectures on supersymmetry breaking, inTheoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: Physics in D≧ 4, pp. 495–582, 9, 2005. hep-th/0509029

    arXiv 2004

  3. [3]

    Bilal,Introduction to supersymmetry, hep-th/0101055

    A. Bilal,Introduction to supersymmetry, hep-th/0101055

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    Weinberg,The quantum theory of fields

    S. Weinberg,The quantum theory of fields. Vol. 3: Supersymmetry. Cambridge University Press, 6, 2013

    2013

  5. [5]

    S. P. Martin,A Supersymmetry primer, Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys.18 (1998) 1–98, [hep-ph/9709356]

    arXiv 1998

  6. [6]

    Y. A. Golfand and E. P. Likhtman,Extension of the Algebra of Poincare Group Generators and Violation of p Invariance, JETP Lett. 13 (1971) 323–326. – 20 –

    1971

  7. [7]

    D. V. Volkov and V. P. Akulov,Is the Neutrino a Goldstone Particle?, Phys. Lett. B46 (1973) 109–110

    1973

  8. [8]

    Wess and B

    J. Wess and B. Zumino,Supergauge Transformations in Four-Dimensions, Nucl. Phys. B70 (1974) 39–50

    1974

Show all 99 references
  1. [9]

    Dimopoulos and H

    S. Dimopoulos and H. Georgi,SUPERSYMMETRIC GUTS., in2nd Workshop on Grand Unification, pp. 285–296, 1981

    1981

  2. [10]

    Dimopoulos and H

    S. Dimopoulos and H. Georgi,Softly Broken Supersymmetry and SU(5), Nucl. Phys. B193 (1981) 150–162

    1981

  3. [11]

    Dimopoulos, S

    S. Dimopoulos, S. Raby, and F. Wilczek,Supersymmetry and the Scale of Unification, Phys. Rev. D 24 (1981) 1681–1683

    1981

  4. [12]

    Sakai,Naturalness in Supersymmetric Guts, Z

    N. Sakai,Naturalness in Supersymmetric Guts, Z. Phys. C11 (1981) 153

    1981

  5. [13]

    L. E. Ibanez and G. G. Ross,Low-Energy Predictions in Supersymmetric Grand Unified Theories, Phys. Lett. B105 (1981) 439–442

    1981

  6. [14]

    M. B. Einhorn and D. R. T. Jones,The Weak Mixing Angle and Unification Mass in Supersymmetric SU(5), Nucl. Phys. B196 (1982) 475–488

    1982

  7. [15]

    J. R. Ellis, J. S. Hagelin, D. V. Nanopoulos, K. A. Olive, and M. Srednicki,Supersymmetric Relics from the Big Bang, Nucl. Phys. B238 (1984) 453–476

    1984

  8. [16]

    Goldberg,Constraint on the Photino Mass from Cosmology, Phys

    H. Goldberg,Constraint on the Photino Mass from Cosmology, Phys. Rev. Lett.50 (1983)

    1983

  9. [17]

    Mizuta and M

    S. Mizuta and M. Yamaguchi,Coannihilation effects and relic abundance of Higgsino dominant LSP(s), Phys. Lett. B298 (1993) 120–126, [hep-ph/9208251]

    1993 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Cirelli, A

    M. Cirelli, A. Strumia, and M. Tamburini,Cosmology and Astrophysics of Minimal Dark Matter, Nucl. Phys. B787 (2007) 152–175, [arXiv:0706.4071]

    2007 arXiv

  11. [19]

    J. L. Feng, K. T. Matchev, and F. Wilczek,Neutralino dark matter in focus point supersymmetry, Phys. Lett. B482 (2000) 388–399, [hep-ph/0004043]

    2000 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Hisano, S

    J. Hisano, S. Matsumoto, M. Nagai, O. Saito, and M. Senami,Non-perturbative effect on thermal relic abundance of dark matter, Phys. Lett. B646 (2007) 34–38, [hep-ph/0610249]

    2007 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Girardello and M

    L. Girardello and M. T. Grisaru,Soft Breaking of Supersymmetry, Nucl. Phys. B194 (1982) 65

    1982

  14. [22]

    H. P. Nilles,Dynamically Broken Supergravity and the Hierarchy Problem, Phys. Lett. B115 (1982) 193

    1982

  15. [23]

    A. H. Chamseddine, R. L. Arnowitt, and P. Nath,Locally Supersymmetric Grand Unification, Phys. Rev. Lett.49 (1982) 970

    1982

  16. [24]

    P. Nath, R. L. Arnowitt, and A. H. Chamseddine,Gauge Hierarchy in Supergravity Guts, Nucl. Phys. B227 (1983) 121–133

    1983

  17. [25]

    Barbieri, S

    R. Barbieri, S. Ferrara, and C. A. Savoy,Gauge Models with Spontaneously Broken Local Supersymmetry, Phys. Lett. B119 (1982) 343

    1982

  18. [26]

    Cremmer, P

    E. Cremmer, P. Fayet, and L. Girardello,Gravity Induced Supersymmetry Breaking and Low-Energy Mass Spectrum, Phys. Lett. B122 (1983) 41

    1983

  19. [27]

    L. E. Ibanez,Locally Supersymmetric SU(5) Grand Unification, Phys. Lett. B118 (1982) 73–78. – 21 –

    1982

  20. [28]

    H. P. Nilles, M. Srednicki, and D. Wyler,Weak Interaction Breakdown Induced by Supergravity, Phys. Lett. B120 (1983) 346

    1983

  21. [29]

    Randall and R

    L. Randall and R. Sundrum,Out of this world supersymmetry breaking, Nucl. Phys. B557 (1999) 79–118, [hep-th/9810155]

    1999 arXiv

  22. [30]

    G. F. Giudice, M. A. Luty, H. Murayama, and R. Rattazzi,Gaugino mass without singlets, JHEP 12 (1998) 027, [hep-ph/9810442]

    1998 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Dine and A

    M. Dine and A. E. Nelson,Dynamical supersymmetry breaking at low-energies, Phys. Rev. D 48 (1993) 1277–1287, [hep-ph/9303230]

    1993 arXiv

  24. [32]

    M. Dine, A. E. Nelson, and Y. Shirman,Low-energy dynamical supersymmetry breaking simplified, Phys. Rev. D51 (1995) 1362–1370, [hep-ph/9408384]

    1995 arXiv

  25. [33]

    M. Dine, A. E. Nelson, Y. Nir, and Y. Shirman,New tools for low-energy dynamical supersymmetry breaking, Phys. Rev. D53 (1996) 2658–2669, [hep-ph/9507378]

    1996 arXiv

  26. [34]

    G. F. Giudice and R. Rattazzi,Theories with gauge mediated supersymmetry breaking, Phys. Rept. 322 (1999) 419–499, [hep-ph/9801271]

    1999 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Meade, N

    P. Meade, N. Seiberg, and D. Shih,General Gauge Mediation, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.177 (2009) 143–158, [arXiv:0801.3278]

    2009 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Buican, P

    M. Buican, P. Meade, N. Seiberg, and D. Shih,Exploring General Gauge Mediation, JHEP 03 (2009) 016, [arXiv:0812.3668]

    2009 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Ambrosanio, G

    S. Ambrosanio, G. L. Kane, G. D. Kribs, S. P. Martin, and S. Mrenna,Search for supersymmetry with a light gravitino at the Fermilab Tevatron and CERN LEP colliders, Phys. Rev. D54 (1996) 5395–5411, [hep-ph/9605398]

    1996 arXiv

  30. [38]

    J. L. Feng and T. Moroi,Tevatron signatures of longlived charged sleptons in gauge mediated supersymmetry breaking models, Phys. Rev. D58 (1998) 035001, [hep-ph/9712499]

    1998 arXiv

  31. [39]

    D. R. Stump, M. Wiest, and C. P. Yuan,Detecting a light gravitino at linear collider to probe the SUSY breaking scale, Phys. Rev. D54 (1996) 1936–1943, [hep-ph/9601362]

    1996 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Dimopoulos, S

    S. Dimopoulos, S. D. Thomas, and J. D. Wells,Implications of low-energy supersymmetry breaking at the Tevatron, Phys. Rev. D54 (1996) 3283–3288, [hep-ph/9604452]

    1996 arXiv

  33. [41]

    H. Baer, P. G. Mercadante, X. Tata, and Y.-l. Wang,The Reach of the CERN large hadron collider for gauge mediated supersymmetry breaking models, Phys. Rev. D62 (2000) 095007, [hep-ph/0004001]

    2000 arXiv

  34. [42]

    J. S. Kim and H. Sedello,Probing Minimal Flavor Violation with Long-Lived Stops and Light Gravitinos at Hadron Colliders, arXiv:1112.5324

    arXiv

  35. [43]

    Hiller, J

    G. Hiller, J. S. Kim, and H. Sedello,Collider Signatures of Minimal Flavor Mixing from Stop Decay Length Measurements, Phys. Rev. D80 (2009) 115016, [arXiv:0910.2124]

    2009 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Knapen, D

    S. Knapen, D. Redigolo, and D. Shih,General Gauge Mediation at the Weak Scale, JHEP 03 (2016) 046, [arXiv:1507.04364]

    2016 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Knapen and D

    S. Knapen and D. Redigolo,Gauge mediation at the LHC: status and prospects, JHEP 01 (2017) 135, [arXiv:1606.07501]

    2017 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Aad et al.,Search for photonic signatures of gauge-mediated supersymmetry in 8 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector, Phys

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Search for photonic signatures of gauge-mediated supersymmetry in 8 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D92 (2015), no. 7 072001, [arXiv:1507.05493]. – 22 –

    2015 arXiv

  39. [47]

    A TLASCollaboration, A re-interpretation of√s = 8 TeV ATLAS results on electroweak supersymmetry production to explore general gauge mediated models,

  40. [48]

    J. S. Kim, M. E. Krauss, and V. Martin-Lozano,Probing the Electroweakino Sector of General Gauge Mediation at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B783 (2018) 150–157, [arXiv:1705.06497]

    2018 arXiv

  41. [49]

    L. J. Hall, D. Pinner, and J. T. Ruderman,A Natural SUSY Higgs Near 126 GeV, JHEP 04 (2012) 131, [arXiv:1112.2703]

    2012 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Heinemeyer, O

    S. Heinemeyer, O. Stal, and G. Weiglein,Interpreting the LHC Higgs Search Results in the MSSM, Phys. Lett. B710 (2012) 201–206, [arXiv:1112.3026]

    2012 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Arbey, M

    A. Arbey, M. Battaglia, A. Djouadi, F. Mahmoudi, and J. Quevillon,Implications of a 125 GeV Higgs for supersymmetric models, Phys. Lett. B708 (2012) 162–169, [arXiv:1112.3028]

    2012 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Arbey, M

    A. Arbey, M. Battaglia, and F. Mahmoudi,Constraints on the MSSM from the Higgs Sector: A pMSSM Study of Higgs Searches,B0 s − > µ+µ− and Dark Matter Direct Detection, Eur. Phys. J. C72 (2012) 1906, [arXiv:1112.3032]

    2012 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Draper, P

    P. Draper, P. Meade, M. Reece, and D. Shih,Implications of a 125 GeV Higgs for the MSSM and Low-Scale SUSY Breaking, Phys. Rev. D85 (2012) 095007, [arXiv:1112.3068]

    2012 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Carena, S

    M. Carena, S. Gori, N. R. Shah, and C. E. M. Wagner,A 125 GeV SM-like Higgs in the MSSM and theγγ rate, JHEP 03 (2012) 014, [arXiv:1112.3336]

    2012 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Cao, Z.-X

    J.-J. Cao, Z.-X. Heng, J. M. Yang, Y.-M. Zhang, and J.-Y. Zhu,A SM-like Higgs near 125 GeV in low energy SUSY: a comparative study for MSSM and NMSSM, JHEP 03 (2012) 086, [arXiv:1202.5821]

    2012 arXiv

  48. [56]

    N. D. Christensen, T. Han, and S. Su,MSSM Higgs Bosons at The LHC, Phys. Rev. D85 (2012) 115018, [arXiv:1203.3207]

    2012 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Brummer, S

    F. Brummer, S. Kraml, and S. Kulkarni,Anatomy of maximal stop mixing in the MSSM, JHEP 08 (2012) 089, [arXiv:1204.5977]

    2012 arXiv

  50. [58]

    J. L. Evans, M. Ibe, and T. T. Yanagida,Relatively Heavy Higgs Boson in More Generic Gauge Mediation, Phys. Lett. B705 (2011) 342–348, [arXiv:1107.3006]

    2011 arXiv

  51. [59]

    J. L. Evans, M. Ibe, S. Shirai, and T. T. Yanagida,A 125GeV Higgs Boson and Muon g-2 in More Generic Gauge Mediation, Phys. Rev. D85 (2012) 095004, [arXiv:1201.2611]

    2012 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Z. Kang, T. Li, T. Liu, C. Tong, and J. M. Yang,A Heavy SM-like Higgs and a Light Stop from Yukawa-Deflected Gauge Mediation, Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 095020, [arXiv:1203.2336]

    2012 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Craig, S

    N. Craig, S. Knapen, D. Shih, and Y. Zhao,A Complete Model of Low-Scale Gauge Mediation, JHEP 03 (2013) 154, [arXiv:1206.4086]

    2013 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Abdullah, I

    M. Abdullah, I. Galon, Y. Shadmi, and Y. Shirman,Flavored Gauge Mediation, A Heavy Higgs, and Supersymmetric Alignment, JHEP 06 (2013) 057, [arXiv:1209.4904]

    2013 arXiv

  55. [63]

    H. D. Kim, D. Y. Mo, and M.-S. Seo,Neutrino Assisted Gauge Mediation, Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013), no. 6 2449, [arXiv:1211.6479]

    2013 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Byakti and T

    P. Byakti and T. S. Ray,Burgeoning the Higgs mass to 125 GeV through messenger-matter interactions in GMSB models, JHEP 05 (2013) 055, [arXiv:1301.7605]. – 23 –

    2013 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Craig, S

    N. Craig, S. Knapen, and D. Shih,General Messenger Higgs Mediation, JHEP 08 (2013) 118, [arXiv:1302.2642]

    2013 arXiv

  58. [66]

    J. A. Evans and D. Shih,Surveying Extended GMSB Models withmh=125 GeV, JHEP 08 (2013) 093, [arXiv:1303.0228]

    2013 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Calibbi, P

    L. Calibbi, P. Paradisi, and R. Ziegler,Gauge Mediation beyond Minimal Flavor Violation, JHEP 06 (2013) 052, [arXiv:1304.1453]

    2013 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Jeliński,On messengers couplings in extended GMSB models, JHEP 09 (2013) 107, [arXiv:1305.6277]

    T. Jeliński,On messengers couplings in extended GMSB models, JHEP 09 (2013) 107, [arXiv:1305.6277]

    2013 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Galon, G

    I. Galon, G. Perez, and Y. Shadmi,Non-Degenerate Squarks from Flavored Gauge Mediation, JHEP 09 (2013) 117, [arXiv:1306.6631]

    2013 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Fischler and W

    W. Fischler and W. Tangarife,Vector-like Fields, Messenger Mixing and the Higgs mass in Gauge Mediation, JHEP 05 (2014) 151, [arXiv:1310.6369]

    2014 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Knapen and D

    S. Knapen and D. Shih,Higgs Mediation with Strong Hidden Sector Dynamics, JHEP 08 (2014) 136, [arXiv:1311.7107]

    2014 arXiv

  64. [72]

    R. Ding, T. Li, F. Staub, and B. Zhu,Focus Point Supersymmetry in Extended Gauge Mediation, JHEP 03 (2014) 130, [arXiv:1312.5407]

    2014 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Calibbi, P

    L. Calibbi, P. Paradisi, and R. Ziegler,Lepton Flavor Violation in Flavored Gauge Mediation, Eur. Phys. J. C74 (2014), no. 12 3211, [arXiv:1408.0754]

    2014 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Basirnia, D

    A. Basirnia, D. Egana-Ugrinovic, S. Knapen, and D. Shih,125 GeV Higgs from Tree-Level A-terms, JHEP 06 (2015) 144, [arXiv:1501.00997]

    2015 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Jeliński, SO(10) inspired extended GMSB models, PoS CORFU2014 (2015) 089, [arXiv:1505.06722]

    T. Jeliński, SO(10) inspired extended GMSB models, PoS CORFU2014 (2015) 089, [arXiv:1505.06722]

    2015 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Jelinski and J

    T. Jelinski and J. Gluza,Analytical two-loop soft mass terms of sfermions in Extended GMSB models, Phys. Lett. B751 (2015) 541–547, [arXiv:1505.07443]

    2015 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Komargodski and N

    Z. Komargodski and N. Seiberg,mu and General Gauge Mediation, JHEP 03 (2009) 072, [arXiv:0812.3900]

    2009 arXiv

  70. [78]

    S. Abel, M. J. Dolan, J. Jaeckel, and V. V. Khoze,Phenomenology of Pure General Gauge Mediation, JHEP 12 (2009) 001, [arXiv:0910.2674]

    2009 arXiv

  71. [79]

    S. Abel, M. J. Dolan, J. Jaeckel, and V. V. Khoze,Pure General Gauge Mediation for Early LHC Searches, JHEP 12 (2010) 049, [arXiv:1009.1164]

    2010 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Rajaraman, Y

    A. Rajaraman, Y. Shirman, J. Smidt, and F. Yu,Parameter Space of General Gauge Mediation, Phys. Lett. B678 (2009) 367–372, [arXiv:0903.0668]

    2009 arXiv

  73. [81]

    L. M. Carpenter,Surveying the Phenomenology of General Gauge Mediation, arXiv:0812.2051

    arXiv

  74. [82]

    Grajek, A

    P. Grajek, A. Mariotti, and D. Redigolo,Phenomenology of General Gauge Mediation in light of a 125 GeV Higgs, JHEP 07 (2013) 109, [arXiv:1303.0870]

    2013 arXiv

  75. [83]

    M. A. Ajaib, I. Gogoladze, F. Nasir, and Q. Shafi,Revisiting mGMSB in Light of a 125 GeV Higgs, Phys. Lett. B713 (2012) 462–468, [arXiv:1204.2856]

    2012 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Djouadi, Y

    A. Djouadi, Y. Mambrini, and M. Muhlleitner,Chargino and neutralino decays revisited, Eur. Phys. J. C20 (2001) 563–584, [hep-ph/0104115]. – 24 –

    2001 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Barbieri, G

    R. Barbieri, G. Gamberini, G. F. Giudice, and G. Ridolfi,Constraining Supergravity Models From Gluino Production, Nucl. Phys. B301 (1988) 15–25

    1988

  78. [86]

    Aaboud et al.,Electron reconstruction and identification in the ATLAS experiment using the 2015 and 2016 LHC proton-proton collision data at√s = 13 TeV, Eur

    A TLASCollaboration, M. Aaboud et al.,Electron reconstruction and identification in the ATLAS experiment using the 2015 and 2016 LHC proton-proton collision data at√s = 13 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C79 (2019), no. 8 639, [arXiv:1902.04655]

    2019 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Aad et al.,Muon reconstruction and identification efficiency in ATLAS using the full Run 2pp collision data set at√s = 13 TeV, Eur

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Muon reconstruction and identification efficiency in ATLAS using the full Run 2pp collision data set at√s = 13 TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C81 (2021), no. 7 578, [arXiv:2012.00578]

    2021 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez,The anti-kt jet clustering algorithm, JHEP 04 (2008) 063, [arXiv:0802.1189]

    2008 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez,FastJet User Manual, Eur. Phys. J. C72 (2012) 1896, [arXiv:1111.6097]

    2012 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Aaboud et al.,Search for supersymmetry in a final state containing two photons and missing transverse momentum in√s = 13 TeVpp collisions at the LHC using the ATLAS detector, Eur

    A TLASCollaboration, M. Aaboud et al.,Search for supersymmetry in a final state containing two photons and missing transverse momentum in√s = 13 TeVpp collisions at the LHC using the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C76 (2016), no. 9 517, [arXiv:1606.09150]

    2016 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Aad et al.,Search for dark matter in association with an energetic photon inpp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 02 (2021) 226, [arXiv:2011.05259]

    A TLASCollaboration, G. Aad et al.,Search for dark matter in association with an energetic photon inpp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 02 (2021) 226, [arXiv:2011.05259]

    2021 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Staub,SARAH 4 : A tool for (not only SUSY) model builders, Comput

    F. Staub,SARAH 4 : A tool for (not only SUSY) model builders, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185 (2014) 1773–1790, [arXiv:1309.7223]

    2014 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Porod and F

    W. Porod and F. Staub,SPheno 3.1: Extensions including flavour, CP-phases and models beyond the MSSM, Comput. Phys. Commun.183 (2012) 2458–2469, [arXiv:1104.1573]

    2012 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro,The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations, JHEP 07 ...

    2014 arXiv

  87. [95]

    SUSYCrossSections

    CERN TWiki, “SUSYCrossSections.” https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCPhysics/SUSYCrossSections

  88. [96]

    Bierlich et al.,A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3, arXiv:2203.11601

    C. Bierlich et al.,A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3, arXiv:2203.11601

    arXiv

  89. [97]

    de Favereau, C

    DELPHES 3 Collaboration, J. de Favereau, C. Delaere, P. Demin, A. Giammanco, V. Lemaître, A. Mertens, and M. Selvaggi,DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment, JHEP 02 (2014) 057, [arXiv:1307.6346]

    2014 arXiv

  90. [98]

    M. Baak, G. J. Besjes, D. Côte, A. Koutsman, J. Lorenz, and D. Short,HistFitter software framework for statistical data analysis, Eur. Phys. J. C75 (2015) 153, [arXiv:1410.1280]. – 25 –

    2015 arXiv

  91. [1419]

    103, 099905 (2009)]

    [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 103, 099905 (2009)]

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.