Higgs and Z-boson Signatures of Supersymmetry

Konstantin T. Matchev (Fermilab); Phys. Dept.); Scott Thomas (Stanford U.

REVIEW

Higgs and Z-boson Signatures of Supersymmetry

Konstantin T. Matchev (Fermilab), Scott Thomas (Stanford U., Phys. Dept.)

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 26 Aug 1999 · 15 references

Pith's verdict: The physics and the search strategy are sound and were taken up experimentally, but the reach numbers lean on unpublished talks and a one-sentence background claim.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on November 13, 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 →

· 3 major objections · 5 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDhep-ph/9908482 (version 1)

Pith IDH3RMWZOM, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationKonstantin T. Matchev (Fermilab), Phys. Dept.), Scott Thomas (Stanford U.. "Higgs and Z-boson Signatures of Supersymmetry." arXiv:hep-ph/9908482 (1999). https://pith.science/paper/H3RMWZOM

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

Bottom line: the qualitative claim is right and it mattered. If the neutralino NLSP is Higgsino-like, the decays to Goldstino plus h, Z, or photon follow from standard Higgsino-gaugino mixing and phase space, and the resulting di-boson plus MET final states are exactly the ones conventional SUSY searches veto because they throw out Z-mass events. That observation is the paper's real contribution and it is correct. The reach numbers are the part I would not lean on without checking the backup, and the backup is largely not in the paper. What is genuinely new here, as opposed to the general NLSP-to-Goldstino framework credited to [3] and the branching-ratio machinery to [3,5], is the dedicated Higgsino treatment: the h/Z/gamma branching-ratio study, the identification of the Z-containing modes as discovery channels, and Fig. 3, which gives reach as a function of both Higgsino and Higgs mass. Fig. 3 is the most useful thing in the letter, because it lets an experimentalist read off whether their own Higgs mass and neutralino mass land in range. The soft spots are quantitative and the authors flag one themselves. Section 2 says the tan(beta) and sgn(mu) dependence of Fig. 1 'will be presented elsewhere' — that is an unpublished source carrying the relative weight of every channel in the paper. The gamma-bb and bbbb reaches (210/250 GeV and 240 GeV) are quoted from conference talks [4] and Fermilab FN-680 [12], also unpublished. And the gamma-Z background case rests on one sentence, 'Our Monte Carlo estimates indicate that this channel is practically background free,' with no cut flow, no background table, and no uncertainty on the 5, 1, and 4 fb thresholds. For a letter some of that is forgivable, but those thresholds are the numbers people will actually use. One correction to the reader's report: the self-citation to [4] is a verifiability gap, not circularity. Nothing here is defined in terms of its own answer. Credit where due — the authors are honest about what will not work, noting the Higgs decoupling limit and that leptonic hZ is swamped by ttbar. This deserves a serious referee, mainly to get the background study and the branching-ratio derivation into the record. I would cite it for the channel list and Fig. 3, not for the reach numbers.

Referee report

Significance

If the Higgsino-NLSP scenario is realized, the letter identifies genuinely new and falsifiable search channels and gives the experimental community concrete targets for Run II, including the observation that Z-tagged plus missing-energy events, normally discarded, are signal. The association of real Higgs bosons with supersymmetric production is a useful and testable idea, and the (mχ01, mh) contours of Fig. 3 make the Higgs-mass reach an explicit, checkable prediction rather than a qualitative hope. The physics input is standard and properly cited to the low-scale SUSY breaking literature [1–3,5], and the paper is appropriately candid about channels where Run II will not be sensitive (hZ with leptonic Z, ZZ with four leptons for the Fig. 2 parameters). The weaknesses are documentary rather than structural: the quantitative reach numbers are the part a reader cannot presently verify.

Major objections (3)

[Sections 3 and 4] The 3σ reach numbers, which are the paper's main quantitative output, are not accompanied by any background table, cut flow, or systematic uncertainty. Section 3 states only that 'Our Monte Carlo estimates indicate that this channel is practically background free,' and the corresponding threshold cross sections quoted later (5 fb for γbb in Run IIa, 1 fb for γbb and 4 fb for bbbb in Run IIb) are never derived. Since the reach in χ01 and Higgs mass scales directly with the assumed background, a short table giving, for each channel, the assumed background cross section after cuts, the cuts themselves, and the resulting 3σ threshold would make the central numbers checkable. If such a table cannot be provided within the letter format, the reach values should be explicitly labelled as indicative estimates rather than discovery reaches.
[Section 2, Fig. 1] The branching ratios of Fig. 1 determine the relative weight of every channel and therefore which channel is quoted as the discovery mode in Sections 3 and 4, yet their dependence on tan β and sgn(µ) is deferred: the text states that it 'will be presented elsewhere.' Because Fig. 2 is computed at the fixed ratio µ/M1 = −3/4, the reader cannot check how the quoted reaches move with the mixing angle, even though the paper itself notes that the ZZ reach changes substantially between µ/M1 = −3/4 and µ/M1 = 1/3. At minimum the coupling structure behind Fig. 1, or the explicit branching-ratio expressions in the Higgsino limit, should be given so that the figure can be reproduced.
[Section 1 and Sections 3–4] All reach estimates assume that the NLSP decay to the Goldstino is prompt on detector scales, so that the only invisible signature is missing energy, but the assumed scale of supersymmetry breaking √F (equivalently, the χ01 decay length) is never stated for the reach plots. Section 1 only notes that decays occur on laboratory length scales for √F below about 10³ TeV, and the displaced-vertex regime is mentioned only in the final paragraph. Since the reach numbers are sensitive to whether the decays are prompt, the value of √F or the decay length assumed in Figs. 2 and 3 should be stated explicitly, together with a remark on how the reach degrades as the decay length grows.

Minor objections (5)

[Section 3] 'Pedastool' appears twice (Sections 3 and 4) where 'pedestal' is meant; the same passage also contains 'dicovery' in Section 4. These may be typesetting artifacts, but they should be corrected in the version of record.
[Fig. 1 caption and Fig. 2] The Fig. 1 abscissa is tan⁻¹(µ/M1) while Fig. 2 is computed at µ/M1 = −3/4; please state the plotted angular range and the sign convention so that the two figures can be related without ambiguity.
[Figs. 1 and 2] Both figures fix mh = 105 GeV. Given that Fig. 3 varies the Higgs mass, a sentence justifying the adopted value relative to the then-current experimental bound, and noting how the h and Z branching ratios shift with mh, would help the reader connect the two sets of results.
[Section 2] The statement that the partons from cascade decays of the heavier Higgsino states are 'relatively soft and probably not particularly useful at the trigger level' is qualitative; since the total cross section of Fig. 2 includes χ02 and χ±1 production, a brief estimate of the typical cascade multiplicity and MET smearing would strengthen the case that the χ01-only analysis captures the signal.
[References] Reference [15] (U. Sarid and S. Thomas, SU-ITP-98-70) is cited without a journal or preprint identifier; please supply one, or mark it as in preparation.

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

The paper

The paper claims

If the lightest surviving superpartner is a Higgsino, pairs of them should decay into two bosons plus missing energy, giving the Tevatron a new supersymmetry search and a possible handle on the Higgs boson itself.

The reading

This letter asks what a hadron collider would see if the lightest ordinary superpartner is not a gaugino but a Higgsino, the fermion partner of the Higgs boson, in a world where supersymmetry is broken at a low scale so that the true lightest superpartner is the nearly massless Goldstino. Because the Goldstino carries away almost no mass, a Higgsino only modestly heavier than the Higgs or $Z$ has ample phase space to decay as $[email protected]@[email protected]@+h$, $Z$, or $[email protected]@[email protected]@+[email protected]$, and pair-produced Higgsinos then yield two bosons plus large missing energy. The authors argue that the resulting $hh$, $h[email protected]$, $hZ$, $Z[email protected]$, and $ZZ$ plus missing-energy final states are clean enough to search for at the Tevatron, and that the $Z$-containing ones are genuinely new territory because conventional supersymmetry searches discard events with reconstructed $Z$ bosons. The payoff would be twofold: a discovery mode for supersymmetry in roughly the 150 to 250 GeV range, and a route to a real Higgs signal in Run II that the standard $Wh$ and $Zh$ searches cannot reach because those are background limited.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the decay $[email protected]_1^0[email protected][email protected]+[email protected]$, where $[email protected]$ is the Goldstino, together with its $h$ and $Z$ siblings. Two things control it. First, the neutralino mixing angle $[email protected]^{-1}([email protected]/M_1)$, which dials the Higgsino versus gaugino content and therefore the relative weights of the $[email protected]$, $h$, and $Z$ modes; the paper shows this dependence for $[email protected]=3$ and $[email protected]=40$ and both signs of $[email protected]$. Second, the $[email protected]^4$ threshold suppression of the $h$ and $Z$ modes, which is what creates the intermediate mass window where $[email protected]h$ or $[email protected]Z$ dominate. The approximately degenerate Higgsino-like spectrum matters too: since $[email protected]_1^0$, $[email protected]_2^0$, and $[email protected]_1^[email protected]$ are split by only about 10 to 15 GeV in the 120 to 250 GeV range, all can be produced at comparable rates and cascade down to the lightest state, so the summed cross section is the relevant signal rate.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that a Higgsino-like lightest neutralino, decaying to the Goldstino of supersymmetry breaking, converts supersymmetry pair production into di-boson plus missing-energy events. The branching ratios $[email protected]([email protected]_1^0[email protected][email protected]+([email protected],h,Z))$ are fixed by the Higgsino/gaugino content of the neutralino and by phase space: the $h$ and $Z$ modes suffer a $[email protected]^4$ velocity suppression near threshold, so a Higgsino-like state not far above $m_h$ and $m_Z$ still decays mostly to a photon, while the $hh$, $ZZ$, or $hZ$ modes take over at larger mass. Between those limits lies a wide transition region where the mixed final states $[email protected]h$ and/or $[email protected]Z$ dominate and the photon is hard. Summing over the approximately degenerate Higgsino-like states $[email protected]_1^0$, $[email protected]_2^0$, $[email protected]_1^[email protected]$, the authors quote 3$[email protected]$ reach estimates at the Tevatron: about 155 GeV in $[email protected][email protected]^+[email protected]^-$ missing energy for Run IIa with 2 fb$^{-1}$ and 220 GeV for Run IIb with 30 fb$^{-1}$; about 210 (250) GeV in $[email protected]b[email protected]$ missing energy for the small-$[email protected]$ parameters of their Fig. 2(a); and about 240 GeV in $bbbb$ missing energy at Run IIb. They also translate these into a Higgs-mass reach, finding sensitivity to $m_h$ up to at least 120 GeV and just over 130 GeV in Run IIa via $[email protected]b[email protected]$, extending to just over 145 GeV in Run IIb.

Load-bearing premise

The reach numbers depend on the assertion that the backgrounds are under control, stated in Section 3 as 'Our Monte Carlo estimates indicate that this channel is practically background free' without tabulated rates, a cut flow, or an uncertainty on the quoted 3$[email protected]$ threshold cross sections of 5 fb, 1 fb, and 4 fb.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Supersymmetry searches should stop vetoing events with reconstructed $Z$ bosons, since in this scenario $Z[email protected]$ and $ZZ$ plus missing energy are among the largest signals.
The $[email protected]b[email protected]$ channel gives Run IIa a Higgs-mass reach of at least 120 GeV, in a regime where direct $Wh$ and $Zh$ production is expected to show nothing beyond existing limits.
If the Higgsino decay length is macroscopic, every one of these di-boson channels becomes essentially background free, and the search turns into a displaced-vertex analysis for $[email protected]^+[email protected]^-$, $jj$, or $bb$ pairs with large invariant mass.
A measured branching ratio pattern among $[email protected]$, $h$, and $Z$ would indirectly probe the extra couplings between the Higgs and supersymmetry-breaking sectors that gauge mediation requires to get acceptable electroweak symmetry breaking.
At the LHC, the four-lepton plus missing-energy mode from $ZZ$ would be the cleanest channel for this scenario.

Reading between the lines

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

The same logic applies to any light Higgsino-like chargino or second neutralino produced directly: their cascade decays add soft partons that the paper sets aside as trigger-useless, but a dedicated soft-object analysis might recover some of that rate.
Because the $h$ and $Z$ branching ratios are steep functions of the Higgsino mass near threshold, a modest improvement in mass resolution on the di-boson system would sharpen the discrimination between this scenario and ordinary gaugino-neutralino dark matter models.
If the Higgs is heavier than about 130 GeV, the $[email protected]b[email protected]$ Higgs reach quoted here evaporates, but the $ZZ$ and $Z[email protected]$ channels survive independently of $m_h$; the two classes of signature therefore separate the Higgs-mass question from the supersymmetry-discovery question.
The paper's background argument is stated rather than tabulated, so an independent cut-flow study of $[email protected]$ plus missing energy and of the $b$-tagged dijet channels would be the cheapest way to test whether the quoted 5 fb, 1 fb, and 4 fb threshold cross sections hold.

Original abstract

In supersymmetric theories of nature the Higgsino fermionic superpartner of the Higgs boson can arise as the lightest standard model superpartner depending on the couplings between the Higgs and supersymmetry breaking sectors. In this letter the production and decay of Higgsino pairs to the Goldstone fermion of supersymmetry breaking and the Higgs boson, h, or gauge bosons, Z or $\gamma$ are considered. Relatively clean di-boson final states, hh, $h \gamma$, hZ, $Z \gamma$, or ZZ, with a large amount of missing energy result. The latter channels provide novel discovery modes for supersymmetry at high energy colliders since events with Z bosons are generally rejected in supersymmetry searches. In addition, final states with real Higgs bosons can potentially provide efficient channels to discover and study a Higgs signal at the Fermilab Tevatron Run II.

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, 4,437 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.08 · states limitation 0.12 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.02 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.04 · compares with prior results 0.15 · mentions code or data availability 0.01.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

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

In supersymmetric theories of nature the Higgsino fermionic superpartner of the Higgs boson can arise as the lightest standard model superpartner depending on the couplings between the Higgs and supersymmetry breaking sectors. In this letter the production and decay of Higgsino pairs to the Goldstone fermion of supersymmetry breaking and the Higgs boson, h, or gauge bosons, Z or $\gamma$ are considered. Relatively clean di-boson final states, hh, $h \gamma$, hZ, $Z \gamma$, or ZZ, with a large amount of missing energy result. The latter channels provide novel discovery modes for supersymmetry at high energy colliders since events with Z bosons are generally rejected in supersymmetry searches. In addition, final states with real Higgs bosons can potentially provide efficient channels to discover and study a Higgs signal at the Fermilab Tevatron Run II.

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	In supersymmetric theories of nature the Higgsino fermionic superpartner of the Higgs boson can arise as the lightest standard model superpartner depending on the couplings between the Higgs and supersymmetry breaking sectors.	background 1.00	0.05	0.04	hedged possibility 0.78
s1	In this letter the production and decay of Higgsino pairs to the Goldstone fermion of supersymmetry breaking and the Higgs boson, h, or gauge bosons, Z or $\gamma$ are considered.	contribution 1.00	0.63	0.09	asserted 0.90
s2	Relatively clean di-boson final states, hh, $h \gamma$, hZ, $Z \gamma$, or ZZ, with a large amount of missing energy result.	result 0.98	0.51	0.24	asserted 0.99
s3	The latter channels provide novel discovery modes for supersymmetry at high energy colliders since events with Z bosons are generally rejected in supersymmetry searches.	interpretation 1.00	0.19	0.34	asserted 0.93
s4	In addition, final states with real Higgs bosons can potentially provide efficient channels to discover and study a Higgs signal at the Fermilab Tevatron Run II.	interpretation 0.90	0.19	0.14	hedged possibility 0.99

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.96 · evidence from argument 0.60.

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.** Branching ratios of the lightest neutralino Br(˜χ

**Figure 2.** The hhE/T di-boson final state gives rise to the signature bbbbE/T . The sizeable QCD and electroweak backgrounds to this final state can be significantly reduced by requiring at least 3 tagged b-jets with large invariant mass for two b-jet pairs [4], as verified by Monte Carlo simulation [13]. Remaining backgrounds include ZZj with each Z → bb, bbjj with one jet misidentified as a b-jet, and bbbbj with in each case the jet energy mismeasured to be below the minimum pedastool, and tt¯ production with t → W b and one hadronic decay W → jj with one jet misidentified as a b-jet, and…

**Figure 3.** Signal cross-section times branching ratio conto

Figures reproduced from arXiv:hep-ph/9908482 by the authors.

References

Works cited (15)

[3]

For a review of hadron collider signatures of low scale su persymmetry breaking see S. Di- mopoulos, S. Thomas, and J. D. Wells, hep-ph/9609434, Nucl. Phys. B 488 39 (1997)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997
[4]

K. Matchev, talk given at SUSY’98, July 11-17 1998, Oxfor d, England, http://hepnts1.rl.ac.uk/SUSY98; S. Thomas, talks presented at the SUSY/Higgs Run II workshop s, Batavia, IL, May 14-16 1998, September 3-4 1998

View on Pith 1998
[12]

J. Qian, hep-ph/9903548, FERMILAB-FN-680; Report of the Low-Scale Supersymmetry Breaking working group, conveners R. Culbertson, S. Martin , J. Qian, and S. Thomas, http://fnth37.fnal.gov/gm/gmrun2.html

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[1]

S. Dimopoulos, M. Dine, S. Raby, and S. Thomas, hep-ph/9601367, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76 3494 (1996)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996
[2]

S. Dimopoulos, M. Dine, S. Raby, S. Thomas, and J. Wells, hep-ph/9607450, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. A 52 38 (1997)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997
[5]

S. Ambrosanio, G. L. Kane, G. D. Kribs, S. P. Martin, and S. Mrenna, hep-ph/9605398, Phys. Rev. D 54 5396 (1996); J. Bagger, K. Matchev, D. Pierce and R.-J. Zhang, hep-ph/9609444, Phys. Rev. D 55 3188 (1997)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996
[6]

F. Abe et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 1941 (1995)

View on Pith 1995
[7]

B. Abbott et al. , hep-ex/9710031, Phys. Rev. D 57 R3817 (1998)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998
[8]

S. Abachi et al. , hep-ex/9702011, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 3640 (1997)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997
[9]

S. Abachi et al. , Phys. Rev. D56, 6742 (1997)

View on Pith 1997
[10]

G. Landsberg, private communication

View on Pith
[11]

B. Abbott et al. , hep-ex/9808010. Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 29 (1999). 10

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999
[13]

H. Baer, P. Mercadante, X. Tata, and Y. Wang, hep-ph/9903333, Phys. Rev. D 60 055001 (1999)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999
[14]

Report of the Higgs Working Group, conveners M. Carena, J. Conway, H. Haber, and J. Hobbs, http://fnth37.fnal.gov/higgs.html

View on Pith
[15]

U. Sarid and S. Thomas, SU-ITP-98-70. 11

View on Pith

Forward citations

Cited by 18 Pith papers

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

Searches for electroweak production of charginos, neutralinos, and sleptons decaying to leptons and W, Z, and Higgs bosons in pp collisions at 8 TeV
hep-ex 2014-05 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

No significant excess appears in CMS 8 TeV data for electroweak SUSY production, and 95% CL limits exclude charginos and neutralinos up to 720 GeV and sleptons up to 260 GeV in the simplified models considered.
Searching for $t \to c h$ with Multi-Leptons
hep-ph 2012-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Using 5 fb^-1 of 7 TeV CMS multi-lepton data, the authors bound the flavor-changing top decay t to c h at Br < 2.7% for a 125 GeV Higgs boson.
Long-Lived Neutralino NLSPs
hep-ph 2010-06 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Displaced Z bosons from long-lived neutralino decays give a clean, reconstructible LHC signal, with reach spanning lifetimes from 0.1 mm to 100 m and mass and lifetime measurable to roughly 10 percent.
Discovering the Higgs Boson in New Physics Events using Jet Substructure
hep-ph 2009-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Applying boosted-Higgs jet substructure to supersymmetric event samples yields a resolvable light-Higgs peak in the b-bbar mass distribution, with simulated significance of about 9 and 5 at 10 inverse femtobarns for t...
(Extra)Ordinary Gauge Mediation
hep-ph 2007-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Adding arbitrary R-symmetric messenger mass terms to ordinary gauge mediation yields a three-way classification of models whose soft masses are set by an effective messenger number that can differ between doublets and...

Show 13 more citing papers

Search for electroweak production of charginos and neutralinos in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV
hep-ex 2021-06 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

No excess of multilepton events beyond standard model predictions is observed, and chargino masses up to 1450 GeV are excluded in slepton-mediated supersymmetry scenarios.
Search for pair production of higgsinos in final states with at least three $b$-tagged jets in $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV $pp$ collisions using the ATLAS detector
hep-ex 2018-06 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

No excess over Standard Model backgrounds is observed in four-b-jet plus missing-momentum events, excluding higgsinos of mass 130-230 GeV and 290-880 GeV at 95% confidence in gauge-mediated simplified models.
Singlet-Doublet Dark Matter Freeze-in: LHC displaced signatures versus cosmology
hep-ph 2018-05 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Recasting an ATLAS displaced-vertex plus missing-energy search constrains freeze-in Singlet-Doublet dark matter to masses below roughly 500 keV and mediator masses below roughly 1.2 TeV, complementing a Lyman-alpha lo...
Combined search for electroweak production of charginos and neutralinos in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV
hep-ex 2018-01 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Combining six CMS searches excludes charginos up to about 650 GeV and GMSB higgsinos up to 650-750 GeV at 95% confidence, and a new three-lepton search closes the WZ-mass-gap region.
Search for electroweak production of charginos and neutralinos in multilepton final states in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV
hep-ex 2017-09 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

No significant deviation from standard-model expectations in multilepton final states; chargino and neutralino masses are excluded at 95% CL up to 1150 GeV depending on the simplified-model scenario.
Searches for electroweak neutralino and chargino production in channels with Higgs, Z, and W bosons in pp collisions at 8 TeV
hep-ex 2014-09 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

No evidence for electroweak higgsino or chargino-neutralino pair production in 8 TeV CMS data; 95% CL limits exclude higgsinos below 380 GeV in the ZZ topology and chargino-neutralino masses up to 210 GeV for a light LSP.
The Status of GMSB After 1/fb at the LHC
hep-ph 2011-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Reinterpreting 1/fb of LHC data in General Gauge Mediation, the authors map exclusion limits across all NLSP scenarios and identify where current searches are weakest.
General Neutralino NLSPs at the Early LHC
hep-ph 2011-03 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

For gauge-mediated supersymmetry with a promptly decaying neutralino, gluino pair production at 7 TeV should already be visible in 2010 LHC data across bino, wino, and higgsino cases, with electroweak production reach...
Prompt Decays of General Neutralino NLSPs at the Tevatron
hep-ph 2009-11 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

For gauge mediation with a general neutralino NLSP, the Tevatron's best channels are diphoton plus missing energy, lepton-photon plus missing energy, and Z plus missing energy, with projected reach to roughly 150-170 ...
Possible Effects of a Hidden Valley on Supersymmetric Phenomenology
hep-ph 2006-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

If the LSP sits in a confining hidden valley sector, every SUSY event yields two decays into soft, poorly isolated v-hadrons, weakening missing-energy searches at the Tevatron and LHC and motivating displaced-vertex a...
Search for supersymmetry using Higgs boson to diphoton decays at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV
hep-ex 2019-08 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

No supersymmetry signal was found in Higgs-to-diphoton events, and new 95% CL limits exclude sbottom masses below 530 GeV and chargino-neutralino masses below 235-290 GeV in simplified SUSY models.
Search for physics beyond the standard model in events with two leptons, jets, and missing transverse momentum in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV
hep-ex 2015-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

In 19.4 inverse femtobarns of 8 TeV CMS data, the opposite-sign dilepton plus jets and missing-momentum spectrum shows no significant excess, and bottom-squark and gluino masses are excluded up to roughly 350 to 600 G...
Search for anomalous production of events with three or more leptons in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 8 TeV
hep-ex 2014-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

No excess over standard-model expectations appears in 19.5 inverse femtobarns of multilepton LHC data, yielding a 95% confidence upper limit of 1.3% on the flavor-changing top decay t to cH.

How the literature uses it

32 arXiv papers cite this in 51 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 · 32 sentences without a confident label

Compares with it 1 paper

The signature can mimic signatures previously studied in the GMSB context [ref] .

Mitigating Moduli Messes in Low-Scale SUSY Breaking · Discussion · 0.89

Cites it as background 13 papers

Such a spectrum has previously been studied in the context of MSSM [ref] and its extensions [ref] at LHC and Tevatron [ref] .

Boosted jet techniques for a supersymmetric scenario with gravitino LSP · Introduction · 0.85
The relevant final states were considered in [ref] , and here we will review them all.

Prompt Decays of General Neutralino NLSPs at the Tevatron · Overview of Tevatron Phenomenology · 0.83
(In defining GGM, we will not discuss the Higgs sector in detail, but simply assume that $μ$ and $tanβ$ can be set freely.) A number of papers have studied both the Tevatron bounds and LHC projections [ref] , elaborating on and greatly extending the scope of the pioneering Tevatron-era work on gauge mediated phenomenology [ref] .

The Status of GMSB After 1/fb at the LHC · Introduction · 0.80

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] [3]

For a review of hadron collider signatures of low scale su persymmetry breaking see S. Di- mopoulos, S. Thomas, and J. D. Wells, hep-ph/9609434, Nucl. Phys. B 488 39 (1997)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997

[2] [4]

K. Matchev, talk given at SUSY’98, July 11-17 1998, Oxfor d, England, http://hepnts1.rl.ac.uk/SUSY98; S. Thomas, talks presented at the SUSY/Higgs Run II workshop s, Batavia, IL, May 14-16 1998, September 3-4 1998

View on Pith 1998

[3] [12]

J. Qian, hep-ph/9903548, FERMILAB-FN-680; Report of the Low-Scale Supersymmetry Breaking working group, conveners R. Culbertson, S. Martin , J. Qian, and S. Thomas, http://fnth37.fnal.gov/gm/gmrun2.html

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[4] [1]

S. Dimopoulos, M. Dine, S. Raby, and S. Thomas, hep-ph/9601367, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76 3494 (1996)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996

[5] [2]

S. Dimopoulos, M. Dine, S. Raby, S. Thomas, and J. Wells, hep-ph/9607450, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. A 52 38 (1997)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997

[6] [5]

S. Ambrosanio, G. L. Kane, G. D. Kribs, S. P. Martin, and S. Mrenna, hep-ph/9605398, Phys. Rev. D 54 5396 (1996); J. Bagger, K. Matchev, D. Pierce and R.-J. Zhang, hep-ph/9609444, Phys. Rev. D 55 3188 (1997)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1996

[7] [6]

F. Abe et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 1941 (1995)

View on Pith 1995

[8] [7]

B. Abbott et al. , hep-ex/9710031, Phys. Rev. D 57 R3817 (1998)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1998

[9] [8]

S. Abachi et al. , hep-ex/9702011, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 3640 (1997)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1997

[10] [9]

S. Abachi et al. , Phys. Rev. D56, 6742 (1997)

View on Pith 1997

[11] [10]

G. Landsberg, private communication

View on Pith

[12] [11]

B. Abbott et al. , hep-ex/9808010. Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 29 (1999). 10

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999

[13] [13]

H. Baer, P. Mercadante, X. Tata, and Y. Wang, hep-ph/9903333, Phys. Rev. D 60 055001 (1999)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 1999

[14] [14]

Report of the Higgs Working Group, conveners M. Carena, J. Conway, H. Haber, and J. Hobbs, http://fnth37.fnal.gov/higgs.html

View on Pith

[15] [15]

U. Sarid and S. Thomas, SU-ITP-98-70. 11

View on Pith