High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · arXiv:hep-ph/0503175 v2 · submitted 17 Mar 2005 · 13 references
Gluino decays with heavier scalar superpartners
The paper says
“We compute gluino decay widths in supersymmetric theories with arbitrary flavor and CP violation angles.”
more of the abstract
Our emphasis is on theories with scalar superpartner masses heavier than the gluino such that tree-level two-body decays are not allowed, which is relevant, for example, in split supersymmetry. We compute gluino decay branching fractions in several specific examples and show that it is plausible that the only accessible signal of supersymmetry at the LHC could be four top quarks plus missing energy. We show another example where the only accessible signal for supersymmetry is two gluon jets plus missing energy.
from the abstract
Pith says
Machine review · deepseek-v4.1-flash · 13 Nov 2026 · what was read was not recorded · not checked by a person
Reviewed in 2026 with later literature in view.
It can be wrong. Challenge this review or reply to it.
Holds up. The general decay formulae are the real contribution and they hold up; the two benchmark signals are honest illustrations that lean on chosen spectra more than the abstract suggests. This line is wrong
2 major objections · 6 minor
How often objections from reviews like this one are right: not yet measured
Not checked: figures, code, what the 13 references say.
The paper says, at Sec. 3.1 and Fig. 8 (left panel)
The review did not quote this passage.
Pith says: Objection 1 of 2 · major
The benchmark behind the two-gluon-jet claim of abstract:s3 sits at the edge of the regime the authors themselves flag as unreliable. In Sec. 3.1 they state that the large logarithm from C0 in Eq. 2.3 can break perturbation theory and that a proper treatment requires matching to an effective theory, and they assert that m0 < 10^8 GeV is safe; that estimate is stated but not shown.
more of objection 1
The left panel of Fig. 8 uses m0 = 100 TeV with a stop as light as a few times 10 TeV, so log(M_sq²/m_t²) is of order 10, and the fixed-order (1 − log)² scaling of Eq. 3.15 could differ from the resummed result by an O(1) factor. Reference [13] (Gambino, Giudice and Slavich) is precisely the effective-theory resummation of this class of decays, and the acknowledgments say the authors collaborated with those authors in comparing results, but no comparison appears anywhere in the paper. The concrete test is to overlay the [13] resummed branching for g̃ → g χ⁰₁ on the left panel of Fig. 8, or at minimum to quote the size of the correction at m0 = 100 TeV. Without that, the near-100% branching that carries abstract:s3 is not established at the point in parameter space where it is claimed.
The paper says, at Sec. 3.2, Eqs. 3.16–3.17, and Fig. 8
The review did not quote this passage.
Pith says: Objection 2 of 2 · major
Both headline claims rest entirely on how far the stop is driven below the common scalar mass, and the manuscript states that hierarchy inconsistently. The text of Sec. 3.2 says the 100% g χ⁰₁ branching occurs 'when the top squark mass is about a factor of 5 or more below the general scalar masses', but the horizontal axis of Fig. …
more of objection 2
… 8 is labelled m_t̃/(2 m0) and the plateau is reached near 0.2, which corresponds to m_t̃ ≈ 0.4 m0, a factor of 2.5; the caption in turn says 'm̃t/m0 < 0.2'. These three statements cannot all be right, and the difference matters because it determines how hierarchical the spectrum must be for the benchmark to survive. Since the reader is being asked to accept that four tops plus missing energy, or two gluon jets plus missing energy, could be the only accessible supersymmetry signal, the paper should fix the axis convention, state the required hierarchy unambiguously, and show how quickly each benchmark degrades as the stop is brought up toward m0. Relatedly, no production cross section or event-rate estimate is given for either benchmark, so 'accessible' is never quantified; at M_g = 1.5 TeV the gluino-pair rate at the LHC is modest and the four-top final state has substantial standard-model backgrounds that are not discussed. An order-of-magnitude rate estimate and a sentence on the dominant background would make the claim checkable rather than illustrative.
6 minor objections
The paper says, at Eq. 2.7
Pith says: minor objection 1 of 6
The coefficient of K⁴_ij contains the factor (s23 + s13 − m_qI − m_qJ), which is dimensionally inconsistent since s13 and s23 are squared masses while m_qI and m_qJ are masses. The chargino analogue in Eq. 2.11 has the dimensionally correct form (s23 + s13 − m_dI² − m_uJ²), so this appears to be a transcription error for m_qI² + m_qJ². It should be corrected, since the stated purpose of the paper is that readers will reuse these formulae.
The paper says, at Sec. 3 and Appendix
Pith says: minor objection 2 of 6
The abstract and introduction advertise arbitrary flavor angles and CP-violating phases as the novelty of the calculation, but every numerical example in Sec. 3 uses flavor-diagonal, CP-conserving inputs with the standard MSSM couplings of the appendix. A single example with a non-zero squark mixing angle or a non-trivial phase in the neutralino or chargino mixing matrix would demonstrate that the …
more of objection 2
… general machinery of Eqs. 2.2–2.12 actually delivers what the abstract promises, and would show the reader how large the resulting effects can be.
show 4 more
The paper says, at Eq. 2.2 and footnote 2
Pith says: minor objection 3 of 6
The overall normalization of the radiative width in Eq. 2.2 is difficult to read as printed, and the only statement that it has been validated is footnote 2. A short sentence in the text stating the normalization convention and summarizing the agreement with [6,7] would let a reader reproduce the number without reverse-engineering the prefactor.
The paper says, at Figs. 6–8, shaded band
Pith says: minor objection 4 of 6
The gray band in Figs. 6–8 is defined by 1 mm < cτ_g̃ < 10 m, which requires the total gluino width, but no total-width or lifetime expression is given anywhere in the paper. Please state how the band was computed, including which channels were summed.
The paper says, at Sec. 1
Pith says: minor objection 5 of 6
The statement that 'there has been no complete calculation of the gluino decay widths with arbitrary flavor angles and CP violating phases' should be qualified relative to Ref. [8], which the paper itself notes included sizable third-family squark mixing. The distinction between 'arbitrary' and 'third-family' is the real novelty claim and is worth stating precisely.
The paper says, at Sec. 3.1
Pith says: minor objection 6 of 6
There are several typographical errors: 'ouplings' in the sentence introducing the K'^a_ij after Eq. 2.12, 'supression' and 'enhacement' in the paragraph following Eq. 3.15, and 'analagous' in the same section.
What would settle it
Perform the EFT matching at m0 for the Fig. 8 left parameter point (M_g = 1 TeV, M1 = 0.8 TeV, mu = 1.2 TeV, M2 = 2 TeV, m0 = 100 TeV, tan beta = 2), run the effective q q gluino-higgsino coefficient down to M_g, and recompute the g+chi01 branching. If it remains near the quoted ~100%, the concern does not land; if it drops substantially, the two-gluon-jet headline weakens.
from the skeptic's reading
How the review went
4 readings by deepseek-v4.1-flash · 13 Nov 2026
- Reader holds up
- Skeptic partly agrees
- Editor wrote the verdict above
- Referee minor revision: 2 major objections, 6 minor
Not run on this paper: the simulated authors' defence.
Pith did not check this review's objections against the paper.
The review in full
The review in brief, machine-written
Two things worth knowing up front: the general decay formulae are the actual deliverable, and the two headline signals are illustrations whose strength depends on hand-picked spectra more than the abstract lets on. Neither undercuts the paper, but they set how much weight the benchmarks can carry. Note also that the classifier record says no limitations were found; that's wrong. The authors do flag the EFT breakdown explicitly in Sec. 3.1, and credit to them for it. What's new and good: Eqs. 2.2-2.12 give gluino decay widths, radiative two-body and three-body to neutralino and chargino, written in terms of generic -ino-quark-squark couplings. You can drop in arbitrary flavor mixing, CP phases, or extra neutralinos without rederiving anything. That is a genuinely reusable tool, and they checked the radiative width against Haber-Wyler and Baer et al. in the no-mixing limit. The revised version also notes a comparison with Gambino-Giudice-Slavich. The observation that the radiative channel is log-enhanced only when the Higgsino is kinematically accessible, and that this log can beat the three-body rate at large m0, is correct and clearly explained. Soft spots, in order of how much they matter. The two-gluon-jet benchmark (Fig. 8 left, m0 = 100 TeV) sits where the log is large, order ten, and the authors themselves say the fixed-order calculation may not be adequate there and that proper EFT matching was not done. They cut off at m0 < 108 GeV, but that is an estimate, not a derivation. The qualitative point survives; the near-100% number is the part I would hold loosely. They flag this, so it is an acknowledged limitation rather than a hidden one. Eq. 2.7 has a dimensional slip: the K4 term carries m_qI m_qJ multiplying (s23+s13-m_qI-m_qJ), which should presumably be squared masses inside the parentheses. Typo-level, but in a formula paper that is the product, so it will trip reusers. The only-accessible-signal claims rest on the Eq. 3.14 hierarchy, stop at 0.4 m0 and so on. The authors call the choices judicious but not wanton, which is honest but does not quantify how narrow the window is. No code or tables shipped, so exact reproduction means reimplementing. Who it is for: people doing split SUSY, long-lived gluino searches, or exotic LHC final states. Not a general-interest paper. Recommendation: send it out. The formulae are the contribution and they hold up; the benchmarks are honest illustrations. Ask for the Eq. 2.7 typo to be fixed and for a sentence on how much the Fig. 8 numbers move under resummation.
The strongest objection
The paper's central deliverable is the general formulae (Eqs. 2.2-2.12) plus two benchmark signals. The formulae are checked against [6,7] and appear sound. The two-gluon-jet benchmark (abstract:s3, Fig. 8 left) requires the radiative g+chi01 channel to dominate. That channel is enhanced by log(M_squark^2/m_t^2) from the C0 function in Eq. 2.3, as the authors explain in Sec. 3.1. They acknowledge that this log can break perturbation theory and that a proper calculation requires EFT matching they did not perform. They cut off at m0 < 10^8 GeV, but that cutoff is asserted without derivation, and the Fig. 8 left benchmark uses m0 = 100 TeV with m_stop < 20 TeV, giving logs of order 5-10. At such logs the fixed-order (1 - log)^2 result in Eq. 3.15 may differ substantially from the resummed EFT result. If the resummed branching is not near 100%, the 'only accessible signal is two gluon jets' claim weakens. Separately, Eq. 2.7 contains a dimensionally inconsistent term (m_q instead of m_q^2) in the K4 interference coefficient, which would mislead anyone reusing the formula.
The reader's weakest_assumption correctly identifies the hand-chosen squark hierarchy as a fragility, and I agree that the 'only accessible signal' claims are hedged plausibility statements rather than predictions. My concern is a different but related one: the two-gluon-jet benchmark depends on the log-enhanced radiative channel, which is precisely the channel where the authors themselves say the fixed-order calculation may be unreliable. They acknowledge the issue and impose m0 < 10^8 GeV, but the cutoff is not derived, and the benchmark at m0 = 100 TeV sits at logs of order 5-10 where the resummation could matter. This does not overturn the paper's main contribution, which is the general formulae, and the authors frame the LHC outcomes as 'plausible' and 'could be.' The Eq. 2.7 typo is an erratum-level defect in the reusable tool, not a flaw in the physics conclusions. The reader's ACCEPT verdict is reasonable; the log-validity boundary is a caveat worth quantifying, not a reason to change the verdict. The concrete test would settle whether the benchmark is inside the safe regime or whether the two-gluon-jet claim needs to be softened.
The referee's report
The deliverable is a reusable calculational tool: Eqs. 2.2–2.12 are compact, written in terms of general couplings, and reduce to the MSSM case by inserting the appendix expressions. The authors state in footnote 2 that Eq. 2.3 has been checked against Haber–Wyler [7] and against Baer et al. [6] in the no-mixing limit, which is the right kind of validation for a formula paper. The observation in Sec. 3.1 that the radiative channel is log-enhanced only when the Higgsino is kinematically open, and that this can make a loop-induced two-body decay beat tree-level three-body decays, is a genuinely useful piece of phenomenology that changes how one should think about gluino searches in split-like spectra. The two benchmark final states are falsifiable and identify channels that standard jets-plus-missing-energy analyses would not target.
Pith's reading of the paper (a machine's summary, not the authors')
In supersymmetric models where the scalar partners of the quarks are much heavier than the gluino, the gluino cannot decay at tree level into two bodies, so it must go through three-body decays into a neutralino or chargino plus quarks, or through a one-loop radiative decay into a gluon plus a neutralino. The authors write down the full decay widths for all these channels while keeping the squark-quark-ino couplings completely general, so that arbitrary squark flavor mixing, arbitrary CP-violating phases, and even extra neutralinos or charginos can be inserted without redoing the calculation. They then evaluate branching fractions in mSUGRA-like and AMSB-like gaugino orderings as the common scalar mass is raised from the TeV scale toward $10^8$ GeV. The point is that a heavy-scalar supersymmetry need not look like the usual jets-plus-missing-energy signal at the LHC: with plausible mass hierarchies the gluino can decay almost entirely into $tbar t$ plus a neutralino, giving four top quarks and missing energy, or almost entirely into a gluon plus a neutralino, giving two gluon jets and missing energy.
What carries the argument. The machinery is a set of general three-body decay widths written as integrals over the Dalitz variables $s_{13}$ and $s_{23}$, with the spin-averaged squared amplitude decomposed into $A_{ij}$, $B_{ij}$, and interference $C_{ij}$ pieces and packaged into eight effective coupling traces $K^{ij}_a$ in Dirac space. Because the couplings $G^{qI}_i$, $X^{qI}_i$, and $Y^{qI}_i$ are left symbolic, the same formulae cover arbitrary squark mixing angles, CP phases, and extended neutralino or chargino sectors. The radiative two-body width is expressed through a combination of three-point loop functions $C_0$, $C_{12}$, $C_{23}$ and their primed versions, which is where the large logarithm of the squark mass originates.
Core claim. The paper's central claim is that gluino decay phenomenology in the heavy-squark regime is far richer, and far more parameter-dependent, than the standard three-body picture suggests, and that it can be computed completely. The authors present general formulae for $gti g chi^0_n$, $gti q_I bar q_J chi^0_n$, and $gti d_I bar u_J chi^+_m$, expressed through the generic couplings of the ino-quark-squark vertices and Passarino-Veltman loop functions, so that flavor mixing and CP phases enter only through those couplings. They identify the mechanism that makes the radiative two-body decay competitive: when the neutralino has a Higgsino component, the loop amplitude contains a logarithm of the squark mass that grows with the scalar scale and can overcome the loop suppression, scaling roughly as $R_{2/3} propto m_t^2 (1 - log(M_{tilde t}^2/m_t^2))^2 / M_{tilde g}^2$. Scanning over scalar masses, they show the two-body branching fraction rising into the tens of percent at PeV-scale scalars, and they exhibit two parameter points where one channel takes essentially everything: $gti g chi^0_1$ at nearly 100% when the stop is light but top quarks are kinematically forbidden, and $gti t bar t chi^0_1$ at nearly 100% when top quarks are allowed and the stop is lighter than the other squarks.
The premise it rests on. The claim that a single channel can be the only accessible supersymmetry signal depends on a hand-chosen squark mass hierarchy in which the stop is driven a factor of a few below the other squarks; if the real spectrum is less hierarchical, the three-body decays spread over many channels and neither the four-top nor the two-gluon-jet signal dominates.
If the paper is right (Pith's inferences, not the authors')
A supersymmetric spectrum with squarks a few orders of magnitude above the gluino can produce a gluino that decays dominantly to $t bar t$ plus a neutralino, so the first LHC signal could be four top quarks plus missing energy rather than the usual multi-jet plus missing-energy signature.
Alternatively, if top quarks are kinematically inaccessible and the stop loop is still light enough to enhance the radiative channel, the gluino can decay dominantly to a gluon plus a neutralino, leaving two gluon jets plus missing energy as the only visible supersymmetry signal.
The radiative two-body branching fraction grows with the scalar mass whenever a Higgsino component is present in the neutralino, so the relative weight of two-body and three-body decays is a direct probe of the Higgsino mass.
Because the general couplings are left symbolic, the same widths can be reused for models with extra neutralinos and charginos, such as those arising from an additional $U(1)$ gauge factor.
The two headline signals are not generic predictions but endpoints of a scan: they require the stop to sit well below the other squarks, which renormalization-group flow from a common scalar mass does tend to produce, so the interesting question is how wide the window is before three-body decays spread across many channels.
If the gluino is long-lived enough that its decay vertex is displaced, the same branching-fraction plots double as a map of where displaced-vertex searches would be sensitive, since the authors shade the region where $1$ mm $< ctau < 10$ m.
The large logarithm signals that the fixed-order calculation is being pushed to the edge of its validity, so a natural follow-on is to match onto an effective theory below the scalar mass and run the operators down to the gluino scale, which would sharpen the two-body versus three-body competition at the highest scalar masses.
Check this review
Pith stored no record of this review's passes and took no fingerprint of it. Reviews made by code from 13 Nov 2026 on carry both.
How often reviews like this one are right
Reviews like this one: written by deepseek-v4.1-flash, where what was read was not recorded.
How often objections from reviews like this one are right: not yet measured
Reviews by people
This review was written by a machine. No person has reviewed this paper on Pith yet. A scientist listed on Pith can review it for a fee, and their review is published here whatever it concludes.
The paper
Abstract
We compute gluino decay widths in supersymmetric theories with arbitrary flavor and CP violation angles. Our emphasis is on theories with scalar superpartner masses heavier than the gluino such that tree-level two-body decays are not allowed, which is relevant, for example, in split supersymmetry. We compute gluino decay branching fractions in several specific examples and show that it is plausible that the only accessible signal of supersymmetry at the LHC could be four top quarks plus missing energy. We show another example where the only accessible signal for supersymmetry is two gluon jets plus missing energy.
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. No sentence in this record was written by a model.
abstract compiled · 2026-09-23
The authors' main claim, as the classifier picked it out 1.00
“We compute gluino decay branching fractions in several specific examples and show that it is plausible that the only accessible signal of supersymmetry at the LHC could be four top quarks plus missing energy.”
How the main claim is stated: hedged possibility 0.88
What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.31 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.02 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.09 · compares with prior results 0.06 · mentions code or data availability 0.02
The abstract, sentence by sentence
This table labels the abstract only (arXiv listing abstract v2). The number is the probability the classifier gave the label.
| Sentence | Role | The authors' own work | States the main conclusion | Strength |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| We compute gluino decay widths in supersymmetric theories with arbitrary flavor and CP violation angles. | contribution 0.97 | 0.96 | 0.05 | asserted 0.98 |
| Our emphasis is on theories with scalar superpartner masses heavier than the gluino such that tree-level two-body decays are not allowed, which is relevant, for example, in split supersymmetry. | contribution 0.47 | 0.26 | 0.07 | asserted 0.92 |
| We compute gluino decay branching fractions in several specific examples and show that it is plausible that the only accessible signal of supersymmetry at the LHC could be four top quarks plus missing energy. | result 0.85 | 0.94 | 0.44 | hedged possibility 0.88 |
| We show another example where the only accessible signal for supersymmetry is two gluon jets plus missing energy. | result 0.98 | 0.92 | 0.12 | asserted 1.00 |
What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.91 · evidence from simulation or computation 0.93
What was examined, and what was not
Sources read
- arXiv listing abstract v2
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
How the labels were made
Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 3,621 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.
Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. This record as JSON
Figures (8)
Figures are the authors', reproduced from the paper.
References (13)
- [7] H. E. Haber, D. Wyler, Nucl. Phys. B323, 267 (1989) on Pith
- [6] H. E. Haber, G. L. Kane Nucl. Phys. B232, 333 (1984); E. Ma, G-G. Wong, Mod. Phys. Lett. A3,1561 (1988); R. Barbieri, G. Gamberini, G. F. Giudice, G. Ridolfi, Nucl. Phys. B301, 15 (1988); H. Baer, X. Tata, J. Woodside, Phys. Rev. D 42,1568 (1990) on Pith
- [13] P. Gambino, G. F. Giudice and P. Slavich, [hep-ph/0506214]. 17 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
- [1] For example, this is true within the AMSB approach: L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Nucl. Phys. B 557, 79 (1999) [hep-th/9810155]; G. F. Giudice, M. A. Luty, H. Muraya ma and R. Rattazzi, JHEP 9812, 027 (1998) [hep-ph/9810442]. 16 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
- [2] N. Arkani-Hamed and S. Dimopoulos, hep-th/0405159; G. F. Giud ice and A. Romanino, Nucl. Phys. B 699, 65 (2004) [hep-ph/0406088]; N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, G. F. Giudice and A. Romanino, Nucl. Phys. B 709, 3 (2005) [hep-ph/0409232] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
- [3] A. Arvanitaki, C. Davis, P. W. Graham and J. G. Wacker, Phys. Re v. D 70, 117703 (2004) [hep-ph/0406034]; K. S. Babu, T. Enkhbat and B. M ukhopadhyaya, hep-ph/0501079; N. Haba and N. Okada, hep-ph/0502213; I. An toniadis and S. Di- mopoulos, hep-th/0411032; S. P. Martin, K. To... on PithPith's reviewarXiv
- [4] J. D. Wells, hep-ph/0306127; Phys. Rev. D 71, 015013 (2005) [hep-ph/0411041] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
- [5] R. M. Barnett, J. F. Gunion, H. E. Haber, Phys. Rev. D 37, 1892 (1988); H. Baer, V. D. Barger, D. Karatas, X. Tata, Phys. Rev. D 36, 96 (1987); A. Bartl, W. Majerotto, B. Mosslacher, N. Oshimo, S. Stippel, Phys. Rev. D 43, 2214 (1991) on Pith
- [8] A. Bartl, W. Majerotto, W. Porod, Z. Phys. C68, 518 (1995) on Pith
- [9] H. Baer, K. m. Cheung and J. F. Gunion, Phys. Rev. D 59, 075002 (1999) [hep-ph/9806361]; S. Raby and K. Tobe, Nucl. Phys. B 539, 3 (1999) [hep-ph/9807281]; A. Mafi and S. Raby, Phys. Rev. D 62, 035003 (2000) [hep-ph/9912436]; J. L. Hewett, B. Lillie, M. Masip and T. G. Rizzo, J... on PithPith's reviewarXiv
- [10] G. Passarino, M.J.G. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. B160, 151 (1979) on Pith
- [11] H. E. Logan. Ph.D. Thesis (1999), hep-ph/9906332 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
- [12] H. E. Haber, J. F. Gunion, Nucl. Phys. B272, 1 (1986) on Pith
Cited by 20 Pith papers
Reviewed papers on Pith that cite this one. OpenAlex reports about 48 citations worldwide. The full citation record
- Constraining BSM Physics at the LHC: Four top final states with NLO accuracy in perturbative QCD hep-ph · Jun 2012
- NNLL resummation for the production of four top quarks hep-ph · Sep 2026
- Invariant-mass threshold resummation for the production of four top quarks at the LHC hep-ph · May 2025
- Observation of four top quark production in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV hep-ex · May 2023
- Cosmological Abundance of Colored Relics hep-ph · Nov 2018
- Probing Bino-Gluino Coannihilation at the LHC hep-ph · Apr 2015
- Gluino Coannihilation Revisited hep-ph · Mar 2015
- Flavour models with Dirac and fake gluinos hep-ph · Dec 2013
- The MSSM with heavy scalars hep-ph · May 2007
- The Well-Tempered Neutralino hep-ph · Jan 2006
- Gluino Decays in Split Supersymmetry hep-ph · Jun 2005
- Spread Supersymmetry with Wino LSP: Gluino and Dark Matter Signals hep-ph · Oct 2012
- Strong moduli stabilization and phenomenology hep-ph · Sep 2012
- Pure Gravity Mediation with m_{3/2} = 10-100TeV hep-ph · Feb 2012
- Where the Sidewalk Ends: Jets and Missing Energy Search Strategies for the 7 TeV LHC hep-ph · Feb 2011
- Nearly Degenerate Gauginos and Dark Matter at the LHC hep-ph · Apr 2010
- Identifying Multi-Top Events from Gluino Decay at the LHC hep-ph · Jan 2009
- Physics at a 100 TeV pp collider: beyond the Standard Model phenomena hep-ph · Jun 2016
- S-particles at their naturalness limits hep-ph · Jun 2009
- Search for physics beyond the standard model in four and three top quark production events using proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV hep-ex · Jun 2026
How the literature uses it
37 arXiv papers cite this in 48 sentences
Papers citing it · 36 sentences without a confident label
Builds on it 2 papers
-
We extend the discussions of Refs. [ref] , held in the context of universal gaugino masses, to the various scenarios with non-universal boundary conditions at $M_GUT$.
The MSSM with heavy scalars · The gluino lifetime · 1.00
-
The expression for the decay width of $g̃→S g$ can be extracted from [ref] with the appropriate changes.
Aspects of Z'-mediated Supersymmetry Breaking · Gluino · 0.81
Uses its method or tool 1 paper
-
The analytical formulae to calculate decay width for three-body tree-level gluino decay channel as given in [ref] is:- [equation] where the integrand is the square of the spin-averaged total amplitude and $i,j=1,2,..,6$ are the indices of the squarks mediating the decay.
(N)LSP Decays and Gravitino Dark Matter Relic Abundance in Big Divisor (nearly) SLagy D3/D7 mu-Split SUSY · Gluino Decays Revisited · 0.97
Uses its data or values 1 paper
-
In this section we analyze the constraints on the MSSM with heavy scalars, first from collider searches and high-precision data [ref] and then from cosmological data, in particular the relic density measurement of DM by the WMAP satellite [ref] and the gluino lifetime [ref] .
The MSSM with heavy scalars · Collider and Dark Matter constraints · 0.84
Compares with it 1 paper
-
In the split supersymmetry scenario considered in [ref] , the three body channel always dominates over the two body one within the same range of squark masses, while the situation could be very different in our scenario.
Aspects of Z'-mediated Supersymmetry Breaking · Gluino · 1.00
Cites it as support 1 paper
-
This can be justified by tuning the sfermion masses [ref] .
Mass Measurement of the Decaying Bino at the LHC · Model · 0.97
Cites it as background 5 papers
-
For earlier studies on gluino decay into third generation quarks, see Refs. [ref] .
Identifying Multi-Top Events from Gluino Decay at the LHC · Introduction · 0.95
-
Multi-lepton events specifically generated from semi-leptonic top decays have also been considered in ref.s [ref] [ref] [ref] [ref] , although not originating from the s-particle configuration considered here.] as from other Beyond-the-Standard-Model physics [ref] [ref] [ref] , have been extensively discussed in the literature.
S-particles at their naturalness limits · Same sign di-leptons and tri-leptons from top decays · 0.97
-
Phenomenology of the gluino LSP or meta-stable gluino has been investigated from various motivations [ref] , particularly in the context of split supersymmetry recently [ref] .
Sparticle masses in deflected mirage mediation · Gluino lightest supersymmetric particle in deflected mirage mediation · 0.95
Challenges and discussion
Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, or challenge this review formally: a challenge becomes a permanent entry in this paper's record, and its decision is published here.
Come back by email
A short list of the week's newly reviewed papers. Nothing is sent until you confirm from your inbox, and every email has a link that stops it. No account.
No comments yet.
Sign in to comment