Ergebnis für URL: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/SuperSymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2 #[1]Scholarpedia (en) [2]Scholarpedia Atom feed
Supersymmetry and the LHC Run 2
From Scholarpedia
Iacopo Vivarelli (2024), Scholarpedia, 19(3):56131.
[3]doi:10.4249/scholarpedia.56131 revision #201525 [[4]link to/cite this article]
Jump to: [5]navigation, [6]search
Post-publication activity
(BUTTON)
Curator: [7]Iacopo Vivarelli
Contributors:
[8]Valentina Dutta
[9]George Redlinger
[10]Mauro Donega
* [11]Prof. Iacopo Vivarelli, Universita' di Bologna , Bologna, Italy
Contents
* [12]1 What is supersymmetry, and why is it relevant?
* [13]2 Models of SUSY
* [14]3 Where and how we look for SUSY
* [15]4 Results of SUSY searches: an overview
* [16]5 Outlook
* [17]6 References
What is [18]supersymmetry, and why is it relevant?
The idea of exploiting potential symmetries of a physical system to impose
constraints on the system's [19]Lagrangian, and therefore on the equations of
motion, has been a very fertile one. It has been used successfully in virtually
all branches of physics, from classical mechanics to contemporary applications to
physical modelling in all disciplines. Modern particle physics is itself based on
the symmetry properties imposed by [20]special relativity and the principle of
[21]gauge invariance, which led to the formalisation of the electroweak theory
and, eventually, to the Standard Model of particle physics (SM - [22]This book
contains an excellent introduction to these topics).
Supersymmetry (SUSY) is an additional space-time symmetry of nature. In fact, it
is the only way to extend space-time symmetries to internal symmetries. If SUSY
is a good symmetry for a physical system, then the system is invariant for an
operator that transforms all bosons into fermions and vice versa, thus restoring
a symmetry between the matter and force fields of the SM. The Lagrangian of any
particle physics model can be made supersymmetry-invariant, by introducing an
appropriate number of bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom: to
supersymmetrise the Standard Model, one needs to introduce two scalar fields for
every fermion of spin 1/2. Two physical scalar particles (indicated with
$\tilde{f}_{\mathrm{1}}$ and \(\tilde{f}_{\mathrm{2}}\), in order of increasing
mass) correspond to the two spin degrees of freedom of $f$ (spin-up and
spin-down, or left- and right-chirality). In supersymmetric models, a single
Higgs doublet is not sufficient to give mass to the up-type and down-type
fermions without breaking SUSY, therefore at least a second Higgs doublet is
introduced, leading to the prediction of five Higgs boson states. The
supersymmetric partners of these Higgs boson states (the higgsinos,
$\tilde{\mathbf{H}}$) mix with the supersymmetric partners of the $B$ (the bino,
$\tilde{B}$) and $ \mathbf{W} $ (the wino triplet, $\tilde{\mathbf{W}}$) SM
fields to give eight electroweakino states, four neutralinos $\tilde{\chi}_1^0,
\dots, \tilde{\chi}_4^0$ and two pairs of charginos
$\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_2^{\pm}$.
In a model for which supersymmetry is an exact symmetry of nature, all quantum
numbers of the supersymmetric partners are the same as those of their standard
counterparts. This implies, in particular, that the gauge couplings of SM
particles and their supersymmetric partners are the same. This means also that
the masses of the supersymmetric particles should be equal to those of their
standard partners. This is clearly not the case (or we would have had a
supersymmetric electron, or selectron with a mass of 511 keV): supersymmetry must
be broken. There is no general guiding principle stating how supersymmetry is
broken. In the most general case, one needs to add to the Lagrangian all terms
allowed by the Poincarè group and gauge symmetry. Therefore, while the
supersymmetry-conserving part of the Lagrangian is completely determined by the
structure of the SM, the supersymmetry-violating part of the Lagrangian (the
so-called soft-SUSY-breaking terms) introduces a large number of new parameters
in the model: for example, mass terms for the scalar superpartners of the
fermions are not explicitly forbidden by the $\mathrm{SU(2)}\times U(1)$
symmetry; likewise, mixing terms between the scalars are in principle allowed.
The supersymmetrisation of the Standard Model leads to more than doubling its
particle content. The model that arises from minimal additions to the SM
Lagrangian to make it supersymmetric is known as the Minimal Supersymmetric
extension of the Standard Model, or MSSM. Of course, it is conceivable to first
extend the SM to include new phenomena, and then modify the Lagrangian to make it
supersymmetric, to obtain non-minimal SUSY extensions of the SM.
The arbitrariness introduced by the soft-SUSY-breaking terms, and the possibility
of non-minimal SUSY extensions of the SM lead to the potential definition of an
infinite number of supersymmetric models. The question is SUSY excluded? is
therefore technically ill-posed: SUSY is a broken symmetry of a physical system,
and, as such, cannot be excluded. Specific supersymmetric models, or even classes
of models defined by a certain theoretical paradigm, can certainly be excluded.
For a comprehensive theoretical/phenomenological review of the subject, the
interested reader should consult [23]Martin (1998). An extended review of the
relevant experimental results is available at [24]Adam (2022).
Models of SUSY
The longevity of SUSY as a means of extending the Standard Model (despite decades
of negative results of SUSY searches) relies on its appeal, both from a
theoretical and a phenomenological point of view. From a theoretical point, it
was realised early on that making SUSY a local symmetry would tame some of the
divergencies arising in previous attempts to include gravity in a quantum theory.
A lot of the early theoretical development of SUSY happened thanks to the
exploration of these supergravity theories.
If you ask the average high-energy physicist, they will mention three arguments
to support the need of supersymmetric extensions to the Standard Model:
1. SUSY can solve the hierarchy problem. Fermionic loops induce quantum
corrections to the mass of scalars that grow with the square of the energy
scale involved. If the SM is extended to include a higher energy scale
(possibly the GUT or Planck scale), this applies to the Higgs boson, whose
natural mass becomes of the order of the higher energy scale, rather than the
electroweak scale. SUSY cancels these quadratically growing fermionic
corrections with equivalent corrections (opposite in sign) from the
corresponding superpartners.
2. SUSY may introduce new neutral stable particles. If they interact only weakly
with ordinary matter, they may be a suitable candidate for explaining the
cold dark matter relic density.
3. In the MSSM, the evolution of the gauge couplings is such that their values
unify at a scale not far from the Planck mass.
Figure 1: Direct pair-production cross sections (values agreed upon by the LHC
SUSY Cross Section Working Group [25][1]
Most of the experimental effort before the LHC focused on models that could
address all of the points above, starting from specific mechanisms to break SUSY.
Models that belong to this family are the constrained MSSM (cMSSM, or mSUGRA),
the Anomaly Mediated SUSY Breaking (AMSB), the Gauge Mediated Supersymmetry
Breaking (GMSB). A more modern approach to SUSY searches has been developed by
the community, with the advent of simplified models. A simplified model is one
where only a few supersymmetric particles are assumed to be relevant to the
experimental phenomenology through their production and decay. The estimate of
the production cross sections is performed under the assumption that any
supersymmetric particle other than those considered in the model contributes in a
negligible way. Figure [26]1 shows the state-of-the-art cross sections for the
pair production of different SUSY particles under these assumptions.
The striking benefit of the simplified model approach is that one can design and
optimise searches that target specific topologies and kinematical domains. For
example, a possible simplified model for direct stau pair-production may assume
that the only relevant particles are the supersymmetric partner of the
left-handed chiral component of the tau lepton, and a neutralino LSP (see Figure
[27]2(f)). The only decay process will then be $\tilde{\tau}_1\rightarrow \tau
\tilde{\chi}_1^0$, and the topology of the final state will contain two $\tau$
and invisible particles, yielding a clear experimental target.
The list of simplified models that is considered by the LHC collaborations is
quite extensive and complete. Many of them are inspired by one or more of the
arguments 1.-3. above.
* In the MSSM, the mass of the SM-like Higgs boson is determined at tree level
by the same mass parameter that determines the mass of the higgsinos. The
size of the one-loop corrections is largely determined by the mass and mixing
parameters of the partners of the top quark (the stops). SUSY models that
solve the hierarchy problem tend to have higgsinos with masses of maximum a
few hundred GeV, and stops with masses of maximum 1-2 TeV.
* Models featuring a good potential dark matter candidate require the
conservation of a multiplicative quantum number called R-parity. SM particles
have R-parity of 1, while SUSY particles have R-parity of $-1$. R-parity
conservation implies that SUSY particles always appear in even numbers at a
production or decay vertex. In a R-parity conserving model, SUSY particles
are produced in pairs. Likewise, there is always an odd number of SUSY
particles in a decay of a SUSY particle: as a consequence, the lightest
supersymmetric particle (LSP) is stable. If it is electrically neutral and
interacts only via the weak interactions, it is a potential dark matter
candidate.
* Gauge coupling unification can be obtained even in models that solve the
hierarchy problem requiring a significant level of fine tuning between the
model parameters. In split SUSY models, for example, the supersymmetric
partners of the fermions typically have very high mass. This implies that the
only particles which are energetically accessible at the LHC may be the
charginos, neutralinos and gluinos, rather than the squarks and sleptons.
When interpreting results, simplified models have been used to determine
exclusions on sparticle masses assuming the corresponding simplified model cross
section, together with limits on the cross sections for specific sparticle
masses. More extensive parameter scans have also been performed by the LHC
collaborations: in this case, after simplifying the MSSM parameter space with
well-justified assumptions (leading to the phenomenological MSSM, or pMSSM), the
combined sensitivity of the searches designed on simplified models is assessed.
These scans were produced by the collaborations in Run 1 and again using the
results of Run 2.
Where and how we look for SUSY
If SUSY is a (broken) symmetry of nature, then it could manifest itself in
different ways. The plethora of new particles introduced by SUSY would imply many
new Feynman diagrams to be taken into account when deriving the theoretical
prediction for a given experimental test. This would have three main effects at
the LHC experiments:
* SUSY particle contributions to known processes would modify the SM
predictions, leading to deviations from the SM-only hypothesis in precision
measurements, like production and decay rates, angular distributions, etc. A
famous and compelling example (at the time of writing) is the prediction for
the gyromagnetic factor of the muon: the existence of relatively a low mass
$\tilde{\mu}$ could modify the SM prediction and accomodate the discrepancy
between the measured and observed value [28]Chackraborti (2006). The SUSY
explanation for the muon $g-2$ anomaly is historically one of those explored
with great detail, although other explanations (including that of a
systematic effect in the SM theoretical prediction not fully accounted for)
exist. The vast phenomenology of even the simplest SUSY extension to the SM
yields a large number of precision observables potentially sensitive to SUSY:
such a list includes many flavour, precision electroweak, top-quark and Higgs
boson physics observables.
* The more complex Higgs sector provides a much richer Higgs-related
phenomenology. The MSSM predicts the existence of five Higgs boson states,
that can be directly produced, or interfere with other production processes.
* The supersymmetric partners can be directly produced (typically in pairs) in
particle collisions. They would decay to stable SM particles and, in case of
R-parity conserving models, to the LSP. Generally speaking, SUSY particle
production would lead to new experimental signatures, not necessarily common
in the SM.
Although the impact of precision measurements and Higgs-boson-related searches on
the SUSY landscape is remarkable, this paper focuses on the third category above:
the direct production of supersymmetric particles.
Generally speaking, there are three categories of SUSY analyses, depending on the
assumptions on the structure of the SUSY model considered.
* R-parity conserving SUSY: if R-parity is conserved, then the LSP needs to be
electrically neutral and insensitive to the strong force (to justify the fact
that such a stable particle has not been detected so far). The experimental
consequence is that the LSP will escape the LHC detectors without interacting
with them. In general, SUSY particle production events will therefore have an
imbalance of momentum in the plane transverse to the beam. Such missing
transverse momentum ($E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$) is a key signature of
R-parity conserving (RPC) SUSY production. The vast majority of RPC SUSY
analyses heavily exploit the presence of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ as
a mean of triggering and characterising the signal while effectively
rejecting the background coming from SM particle production. It is certainly
conceivable to have a RPC model realised in nature, and producing only
limited amounts of missing transverse momentum: examples are the so-called
compressed models, where the large-mass pair-produced particle is almost
degenerate in mass with the LSP, which is therefore produced with limited
momentum. Other examples come from the class of models known as stealth SUSY.
These models are typically targeted with dedicated search strategies: for
example, compressed models can be effectively target considering topologies
where the pair-produced particle system recoils against one or more jets.
* R-parity violating models: if R-parity is not conserved, SUSY particles can
decay into only SM particles. R-parity violating (RPV) couplings in the
Lagrangian are typically assumed to be small, to preserve consistency with
existing constraints from lepton and baryon number conservation. This means
that the RPV couplings become phenomenologically relevant only in the absence
of competing RPC decays. The most important phenomenological consequence of
the introduction of the RPV couplings is that the LSP is not stable anymore.
The key RPC signature of missing transverse momentum does not apply to events
of RPV SUSY models. Instead, typical analyses focus on identifying
[29]resonant signals from SUSY particle decays, or non-resonant excesses for
multi-particle production. There is often a significant level of overlap
between RPV SUSY signatures and other models of new phenomena. For example:
if the supersymmetric partner of the top quark (the stop) can decay RPV into
a $b$-quark and a $\tau$-lepton, the final state topology (two $b$-$\tau$
resonances of identical mass) would be identical to that of, e.g., a
third-generation scalar leptoquark.
* Models with long-lived SUSY particles: in certain regions of the parameter
space, SUSY particles can become long-lived (for example, gluinos in split
SUSY may become long-lived if the mass of the squarks they decay into is very
high). Depending on which SUSY particles are long-lived, their lifetime and
the decay products, these signatures give rise to a number of compelling
experimental challenges for the LHC experiments, designed with signatures
from promptly decaying particles in mind.
Results of SUSY searches: an overview
Looking at the values of the cross sections displayed in , one can immediately
gather a feeling for how the search for SUSY has evolved with increasing
integrated luminosity at the LHC. The LHC general purpose experiments (ATLAS and
CMS) have first gained sensitivity to particles produced via the strong
interactions (gluinos and squarks): they have been the main target of the LHC Run
1 (at a centre of mass energy of $\sqrt{s} = 8\ \mathrm{TeV}$), and, in general,
the limits on their masses set with the Run 2 data (at $\sqrt{s} = 13 \
\mathrm{TeV}$) range from about $1-1.5\ \mathrm{TeV}$ (for a single generation of
squarks) to about $2-2.5\ \mathrm{TeV}$ (for gluinos). On the other hand, while
ATLAS and CMS managed to achieve some sensitivity to winos, selectrons and smuons
already using the Run 1 data, they managed to comprehensively target the
sparticles produced via the [30]electroweak interactions (winos, binos, higgsinos
and sleptons) only using Run 2 data: for staus and higgsinos, the first limits
have appeared during Run 2, and they are expected to evolve quickly with Run 3
and high luminosity upgrades of the LHC.
Strong production: Gluinos and squarks are pair-produced via diagrams which are
equivalent to SM QCD diagrams. The relevance of the different Feynman diagrams
(and also the level of interference between different diagrams) is completely
determined by the squark and gluino masses. On the other hand, (and, again,
equivalently to the SM) the decay of squarks and gluinos depends not only on the
mass hierarchy of the strong sector, but also on the masses and parameters of the
electroweak sector. If RPC is assumed, eventually all decay chains will have to
end with the production of an LSP.
Figure 2: Examples diagrams of SUSY particle production in proton-proton
collisions.
To avoid making the discussion too abstract and obscure, let's consider a
specific example. Let's assume a RPC SUSY model is realised in nature. The masses
of the relevant particles are: gluino mass $m_{\tilde{g}} = 2$ TeV, eight-fold
degenerate (the four first- and second-generation squarks, with two states
corresponding to the SM quark chirality states) squark mass $m_{\tilde{q}} = 1.5$
TeV, a single bino-like stable neutralino LSP $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0} = 100$ GeV.
In this model, production of $\tilde{g}\tilde{g}$, $\tilde{g}\tilde{q}$ and
$\tilde{q}\tilde{q}$ will take place at the LHC energies. Because of the strong
coupling and the availability of a lighter squark state, the gluino will decay
via $\tilde{g}\rightarrow q \tilde{q}$ (see diagram a) in Figure [31]2). The
squarks, in turn, cannot decay via strong interactions (no lighter states
available for the transition), therefore they will eventually decay via an
electroweak interaction to the bino state with $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q
\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The final state will always contain two $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$,
yielding abundant $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ (given the mass gap with the
squarks, the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ will have a large momentum). Depending on the
production process, the final state will contain four (for $\tilde{g}\tilde{g}$),
three (for $\tilde{g}\tilde{q}$) or two (for $\tilde{q}\tilde{q}$) high
transverse momentum $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets.
It becomes clear already from this discussion that strong production is the realm
of final states containing $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ and different jet
multiplicities. Leptons can be present if more intermediate electroweak states
exist with masses smaller than those of the pair produced particles.
Figure 3: Gluino pair-production summary plot of mass exclusion limits in the
gluino-neutralino plane in ATLAS [32][2]. Each curve refers to a different decay
mode of the gluino according to the legend.
Figure [33]3 shows a summary of the limits extracted by the ATLAS collaboration
in simplified models of gluino production. In these simplified models, it is
assumed that the only accessible SUSY particles are the gluinos themselves, and
one or more electroweak states. Therefore, the only production process taking
place through the strong interactions is $\tilde{g}\tilde{g}$. Different curves
refer to either different assumptions on the gluino decay chain, or different
analysis results. The first message of the plot is the mass scale of the
exclusion of gluinos: focusing on a neutralino mass of $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0} =
0$, exclusions range from $m_{\tilde{g}} > 2$ TeV to $m_{\tilde{g}} > 2.4$ TeV.
It is also instructive to look more in detail at some of the models used for this
plot. A zero-lepton analysis (in red in the plot), comparing the yields for
selections at different jet multiplicities, large
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$, and large $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ (defined as the
scalar sum of $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ and the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of all
jets), provides the best sensitivity for a simplified model of gluino
pair-production followed by the decay $\tilde{g}\rightarrow q\tilde{q}^*
\rightarrow qq\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ ($\tilde{q}^*$ indicates a squark with mass much
larger than that of the gluino).
Equivalent models are considered (in pink and purple), where the $\tilde{q}$ is
not the superpartner of a first- or second-generation squark, but rather of a
third-generation one, implicitly assuming that the third-generation squarks have
significantly smaller masses than those of the first and second generation. This
is an expected consequence of argument i) mentioned above: the stop mass is a key
parameter in assessing the level of fine tuning between the bare Higgs boson mass
and its quantum corrections, and a small fine tuning requires a stop mass within
a few TeV. In these models, the SM quarks produced in the decay of the gluinos
are tops and bottoms, leading to the characterising signature of jets, $b$-jets,
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ and possibly leptons.
Models involving $W$ and $Z$ bosons in the decay of the gluino stem from
scenarios where more intermediate electroweak states are available: they imply
longer gluino decay chains, leading to higher final state object multiplicities
with, on average, lower $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ ((b)).
Most lines show a weaker limit close to the line where $m_{\tilde{g}} =
m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$. In this compressed regime, the neutralinos (and, in
general, all final state objects) are produced with low momentum, leading
typically to a lower signal acceptance of the kinematic selection. The yellow
line behaves very differently from the others. It refers to a model where the
neutralino is not stable, but it can rather decay to a low-mass invisible stable
gravitino $\tilde{G}$ and a photon. The $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ is
proportional to the mass gap between the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ and the $\tilde{G}$,
and it is therefore maximum if $m_{\tilde{g}} = m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$.
Many of the experimental approaches to gluino searches typically work for squark
searches as well: similar final states (although with lower jet multiplicities)
are often produced under similar assumptions. What drives the difference in
sensitivity between gluino and squark pair-production is mainly the different
production cross sections, which, in the case of the squarks, depend on the
assumed multiplicity of squark flavours. Typical exclusion limits for a
$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ LSP with $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0} = 0$ range between about
$m_{\tilde{q}} > 1$ TeV and $m_{\tilde{q}} > 1.8$ TeV (depending on the mass
hierarchy and electroweak sector) if an eight-fold mass degeneracy is assumed,
but they can be as low as a few hundred GeV if the production of a single squark
is assumed.
The case of third-generation squark pair-production deserves to be singled out,
both because of its connection with the hierarchy problem and naturalness. The
keyword for third-generation squark searches is $b$-jets: unless flavour
violation is assumed, $b$-quarks will be produced as part of the decay chain,
giving a very clear experimental handle to these searches.
Figure 4: Stop limits for two- and three-body stop decay ([34][3])
Figure 5: Stop limits for the four-body decay ([35][4])
Even in its simplest possible decay mode in models with a neutralino LSP,
$\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ ((c)), the strategy for stop
pair-production search is relatively complex: because of the large top-quark
mass, and depending on the mass splitting between the $\tilde{t}_1$ and the
$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$, on-shell top quarks may or may not be present in the final
state. Figure [36]4(a) summarises the results from the CMS collaboration,
assuming that the branching ratio of $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}
\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ is 100\%. Different regions are clearly visible for $\Delta
m\left(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0\right) > m_{\mathrm{top}}$ (often referred to
as two-body stop decay), $m_{W} + m_{b} < \Delta
m\left(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0\right) < m_{\mathrm{top}}$ (three-body stop
decay). Figure [37]5(b) summarises the results of a search for stop production in
the compressed region $\Delta m\left(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0\right) < m_{W}
+ m_{b}$ (four-body stop decay) in a single lepton final state.
Electroweak production: Charginos, neutralinos and sleptons can be produced in
proton--proton collisions via the electroweak interactions. Because of this,
their production cross section is significantly lower than that for gluinos and
squarks. Charginos and neutralinos are the mass eigenstates that arise from the
mixing of the eigenstates of the electroweak interactions (the bino, the three
winos and the four higgsinos states). An additional complication in the design of
suitable simplified models of chargino and neutralino production (in the
following referred to as electroweakinos) is the fact that the strength of the
interaction with the SM fermions and corresponding superpartners depends on the
composition of the mass eigenstates in terms of the interaction eigenstates. This
affects both the production cross section and the decay branching fractions of
the electroweakinos. For example, a pure wino will interact with only the left
handed chirality component of the SM fermions and superpartners. On top of that,
because of the structure of the electroweakino mixing matrix, precise relations
between the electroweakino masses exist depending on the values of the bino,
wino, higgsino masses (indicated as $M_1$, $M_2$ and $\mu$ respectively) and
other parameters of the electroweak sector (for example, the angle between the
two Higgs field complex doublets in the MSSM). A few benchmark paradigms have
been therefore assumed as a guideline to design the search analyses and to
extract the electroweakino mass limits. A well-known benchmark is a RPC one where
it is assumed that the LSP is a bino-like $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$, and the only other
SUSY state within reach is a wino-like state, yielding a pair of charginos
$\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}$ and a $\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ nearly degenerate in mass. The
interesting production channels are therefore $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$
and $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^0$. The wino states will then transition
to the LSP via $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm} \rightarrow W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ and
$\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ or $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \rightarrow
h\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ ($h$ representing a SM like Higgs boson). The final state is
then characterised by the presence of two gauge or Higgs bosons and the
$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$s ((d) and (e)). Such final states have been historically
targeted by analyses looking for multiple leptons from the decay of the vector
bosons and $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$. The LHC Run 2 has seen the first
(very successful) attempt to target these final states using final states with no
leptons, using techniques of collecting the boson decay products in large-radius
jets and then exploiting the jet mass and substructure to tag them as $W/Z/h$
jets.
The ATLAS collaboration summary for this benchmark scenario is shown in Figure
[38]6. The limits shown address separately the production of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{+}
\tilde{\chi}_1^{-}$ (in green) and that of
$\tilde{\chi}_2^0\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}$. The analysis determining the sensitivity
at high common $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm} - \tilde{\chi}_2^0$ mass is a zero lepton
analysis, while multilepton analyses dominate the sensitivity in compressed
regions and for difficult regions of the parameters where the gap in mass between
the pair-produced particles and the LSP is similar to one of the bosons emitted
in the decay.
Figure 6: Summary of the ATLAS Collaboration exclusions limits on the
electroweakino masses [39][5] in a model where a pair of mass-degenerate winos is
produced and decays to a bino-like LSP via the emission of a gauge or Higgs
boson.
A second crucial benchmark considered is that of pair-production of higgsino-like
states. If SUSY needs to provide a solution to the hierarchy problem, then the
higgsino mass parameter cannot be too far from the electroweak scale, imposing a
higgsino mass of the order of a few hundred GeV at most. It is conceivable to
consider a model where the higgsino mass parameter is significantly smaller than
the wino and bino mass. In such a model, four higgsino states would exist (two
charginos and two neutralinos) with masses similar to each other. The exact mass
separation depends mainly on the value of $M_1$ and $M_2$: it is below a GeV for
$\mu \ll M_1, M_2$ and tens of GeV for differences between $\mu$ and $M_1, M_2$
of the order of few hundred GeV. Because of the small mass gap between them,
particles emitted in the transition between the higgsino states typically have
low $p_{\mathrm{T}}$: analyses targeting these scenarios focused on single-, di-
and tri-lepton states, typically requiring that the higgsino pair system recoils
against one or more jets. The summary of the results from the CMS collaboration
is shown in Figure [40]7. Because of the small cross sections and of the
challenging final states, exclusion limits are significantly weaker than those
shown in Figure [41]6: it is only with the Run 2 data that the LHC experiments
have started to have sensitivity to this type of scenarios.
Figure 7: Summary of the CMS Collaboration exclusions limits on the
electroweakino masses [42][6] in a model where a pair of higgsino states is
produced and decays to a higgsino-like LSP. The mass limit is given as a function
of the $\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ (on the $x$-axis) and of its mass separation with the
$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ LSP.
In the extreme case, for very large values of $M_1$ and $M_2$, the higgsino mass
separation becomes so small that the higgsino states may actually become
long-lived. This scenario is phenomenologically similar to that where $M_2 \ll
\mu, M_1$ (the wino-like LSP case): in this case, three nearly-degenerate states
($\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ and a pair of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}$) exist, and the chargino
can be long-lived because of the small mass separation with the
$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The long-lived higgsino and wino cases have both been
targeted with dedicated disappearing track analyses, where short-tracks are
required to be identified using a few silicon layers, that have no extensions in
the rest of the inner detector ([43]CMS and [44]ATLAS disappearing track).
Slepton pair-production has been a target of the LHC analyses already in Run 1:
if the pair-produced sleptons are selectrons or smuons, and focusing on
simplified models where the only relevant SUSY particles are the sleptons
themselves and a $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ LSP, the final state following
$\tilde{\ell}_1 \rightarrow \ell \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ will contain two non-resonant
opposite-sign electrons or muons, and $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ from the
LSP, giving rise to a reasonably distinctive and experimentally straightforward
signature. However, if the pair-produced slepton is a stau, the most challenging
identification of the $\tau$-lepton makes the analysis more difficult: this is
primarily the reason why we had to wait until Run 2 to have the first constraints
on the existence of $\tilde{\tau}_1$. $\tilde{\tau}_1$ pair-production is a
process of particular interest from the cosmological point of view [45]Ellis
(1998): $\tilde{\tau}_1$ co-annihilation is a process where the existence of
$\tilde{\tau}_1$ of mass similar to that of a bino-like $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$
enhances the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ self-annihilation cross section, therefore giving
a mechanism of regulation of the dark matter relic density. The LHC sensitivity
is obtained by analyses identifying two hadronically decaying $\tau$-leptons plus
significant missing transverse momentum. Figure [46]8 shows the sensitivity
obtained by the CMS collaboration. Degenerate $\tilde{\tau}$ corresponding to the
two $\tau$-lepton degrees of freedom are excluded up to 400 GeV for a massless
LSP. The limits are significantly weaker if only $\tilde{\tau}_{L}$ are
considered, and there is hardly any sensitivity to the case where only the
$\tilde{\tau}_{R}$ is produced. Favourable regions of the parameter space for the
$\tilde{\tau}_1$ co-annihilation are not yet excluded.
Figure 8: Summary of the CMS Collaboration exclusions limits on direct
$\tilde{\tau}_1$ production [47][7] in a model where a pair of $\tilde{\tau}_1$
is produced and decays to a $\tau$-lepton and a bino-like LSP.
Less conventional scenarios: while the discussion so far focused mostly on
R-parity conserving, prompt decays of pair-produced particles, in general the
limits obtained for other models are as compelling. Figure [48]9 shows a summary
of the ATLAS decays to gluino pair-production in RPV SUSY models. Depending which
specific RPV coupling is allowed in the model, different analyses are employed.
All these analyses are characterised by limited or no
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ in the final state. Many of them exploit the
very large multiplicity of objects in the final state. For example,
$\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ followed by the RPV decay of the
neutralino can lead to up to 18 final state objects (jets, leptons, etc.). The
limits obtained on the gluino mass are certainly not weaker than the RPC ones.
Other RPV analyses rely on the search of resonance states, or on the presence of
flavour/charge configurations strongly suppressed in the Standard Model.
Scenarios featuring long-lived particles are ubiquitous in SUSY models. SUSY
particles become long-lived whenever their decay width into other particles is
suppressed. The three main reasons for this to happen are, as usual, small
coupling for the decay (because of, e.g., RPV), small [49]phase space available
for the decay (as in, e.g., highly compressed scenarios, like for example
higgsino-like LSP with $\mu \ll M_1,M_2$, or wino-like LSP with $M_2 \ll \mu,
M_1$), decay happening via mediators with very large mass (as in, e.g., split
SUSY, where the gluino decay is mediated by a very high-mass squark). The
signatures and corresponding experimental techniques for the reconstruction and
identification of long-lived particles are subject of an extremely active area of
research at the LHC. They will not be discussed further in this paper, but the
interested reader should refer to the [50]excellent paper from M. H. Genest, in
this same series. Compelling limits already exist for many scenarios (like, for
example, those featuring long-lived gluinos and squarks), and many more will come
from future runs of the LHC, where detector upgrades are planned that will ease
the reconstruction and analysis of these non-conventional final states.
Figure 9: Summary of the ATLAS Collaboration exclusions limits on gluino
pair-production in models where the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ LSP decays via different
$R$-parity violating modes [51][8].
Outlook
There is hardly another area of searches for phenomena beyond those predicted by
the SM where the impact of the LHC has been so dramatic. Before the beginning of
the LHC data taking, SUSY was seen as a single answer to many unresolved open
questions of the Standard Model. The LHC experiment research programme has first
quickly excluded most of the simplest SUSY configurations, then moved to a
detailed work targeting many signatures, not necessarily favoured by a
theoretical prejudice. The lack of an identified SUSY signal so far is certainly
a disappointing and possibly somewhat surprising outcome to many scientists.
The pre-LHC SUSY landscape was dominated by a relatively low number of frameworks
arising from specific top-down approaches to the way SUSY was broken. These
models became quickly disfavoured as the mass of the Higgs boson was unveiled
(requiring heavy stops) and the limits on the strongly produced particles started
to challenge those models' predictions. This happened largely already at the end
of Run 1. The Run 2 research programme has been more agnostic. The classical
paradigm of SUSY as a solution to the hierarchy problem requires higgsinos with
masses of maximum few hundred GeV, stops at the TeV scale, and gluinos not too
far above that. The current limits well into the few-TeV region for gluinos and
TeV for stops exceed the expectations for classical naturalness definitions. For
the first time, collider experiments started to extend the LEP limits on
Higgsinos. Scenarios including viable dark matter candidates have been severely
constrained by the LHC results. Analyses of the relevant parameter space
([52]ATLAS pMSSM (2024)) show that a dark matter component that is predominantly
a bino LSP is largely excluded, while a mixed higgsino-bino is still largely
allowed, even with electroweakinos of just a few hundred GeV.
There is still information that the LHC can give us. The sensitivity to some
production processes (most notably higgsino and stau pairs) has only started to
emerge with the Run 2: the experimental landscape will change quickly with
increasing luminosity during Run 3 and the LHC High-Luminosity (HL-LHC) phase.
Also, the experimental techniques are constantly perfected by the collaborations:
upgrades of the detectors and data acquisition system will allow a deeper
exploration of less conventional experimental signatures, for example the
long-lived ones.
And, of course, the questions connected with the hierarchy of energy scales, to
the nature of dark matter, to a higher degree of unification of the fundamental
interactions, are as compelling as ever: the push towards new theoretical
paradigms (with or without SUSY) and the development of new creative experimental
techniques is relentless. The community eagerly awaits the outcome of the future
experimental endeavours (looking with interest at potential future collider
efforts beyond the HL-LHC) to shed (at least some) light on these puzzles.
References
* Thomson, Mark (2013). Modern Particle Physics, Cambridge University Press,
New York. [53]ISBN 9781107034266.
* Martin, Stephen P (1998). A Supersymmetry Primer, Adv. Ser. Direct. High
Energy Phys. 18: 1-98. [54]arXiv:hep-ph/9709356
* Adam, Wolfgang (2022). Status of searches for electroweak-scale supersymmetry
after LHC Run 2, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 37: 2130022.
[55]doi:10.1142/S0217751X21300222.[56]arXiv:2111.10180
* Chakraborti, Manimala (2020). Improved $(g-2)_{\mu}$ Measurements and
Supersymmetry, Eur. Phys. J. C 80: 984.
[57]doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08504-8.[58]arXiv:2006.15157
* CMS Collaboration, (2020). Searches for physics beyond the standard model
with the MT2 variable..., Eur. Phys. J. C 80: 3.
[59]doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7493-x.[60]arXiv:1909.03460
* ATLAS Collaboration, (2022). Search for long-lived charginos..., Eur. Phys.
J. C 82: 606. [61]doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10489-5.[62]arXiv:2201.02472
* Ellis, John R (1998). Neutralino-Stau Coannihilation and the Cosmological
Upper Limit on the Mass of the Lightest Supersymmetric Particle, Phys. Lett.
B 444: 367. [63]doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(98)01392-6.[64]arXiv:hep-ph/9810360
* ATLAS Collaboration, (2024). ATLAS Run 2 searches for electroweak production
of supersymmetric particles interpreted within the pMSSM, CERN-EP-2024-021 :
. [65]arXiv:2402.01392
Sponsored by: [66]Dr. Mauro Donega, ETH, Zurich, Switzerland
[67]Reviewed by: [68]George Redlinger, Physics Department, Brookhaven National
Laboratory, Upton, New York, USA
[69]Reviewed by: [70]Dr. Valentina Dutta, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh,
USA
Accepted on: [71]2024-03-18 06:39:50 GMT
Retrieved from
"[72]http://www.scholarpedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_
2&oldid=201525"
[73]Categories:
* [74]Physics
* [75]Experimental high energy physics
* [76]Experimental collider physics
* [77]Supersymmetry
* [78]BSM searches
Personal tools
* [79]Log in
Namespaces
* [80]Page
* [81]Discussion
Variants
Views
* [82]Read
* [83]View source
* [84]View history
Actions
Search
____________________ (BUTTON) Search
Navigation
* [85]Main page
* [86]About
* [87]Propose a new article
* [88]Instructions for Authors
* [89]Random article
* [90]FAQs
* [91]Help
Focal areas
* [92]Astrophysics
* [93]Celestial mechanics
* [94]Computational neuroscience
* [95]Computational intelligence
* [96]Dynamical systems
* [97]Physics
* [98]Touch
* [99]More topics
Activity
* [100]Recently published articles
* [101]Recently sponsored articles
* [102]Recent changes
* [103]All articles
* [104]List all Curators
* [105]List all users
* [106]Scholarpedia Journal
Tools
* [107]What links here
* [108]Related changes
* [109]Special pages
* [110]Printable version
* [111]Permanent link
* [112][twitter.png?303]
* [113][gplus-16.png]
* [114][facebook.png?303]
* [115][linkedin.png?303]
* [116]Powered by MediaWiki [117]Powered by MathJax [118]Creative Commons
License
* This page was last modified on 18 March 2024, at 06:39.
* This page has been accessed 5,687 times.
* "Supersymmetry and the LHC Run 2" by [119]Iacopo Vivarelli is licensed under
a [120]Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license are described in the
[121]Terms of Use
* [122]Privacy policy
* [123]About Scholarpedia
* [124]Disclaimers
References
Visible links:
1. http://www.scholarpedia.org/w/opensearch_desc.php
2. http://www.scholarpedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&feed=atom
3. http://dx.doi.org/10.4249/scholarpedia.56131
4. http://www.scholarpedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2&action=cite&rev=201525
5. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2#mw-head
6. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2#p-search
7. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/User:Iacopo_Vivarelli
8. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/User:Valentina_Dutta
9. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/User:George_Redlinger
10. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/User:Mauro_Donega
11. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/User:Iacopo_Vivarelli
12. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2#What_is_supersymmetry.2C_and_why_is_it_relevant.3F
13. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2#Models_of_SUSY
14. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2#Where_and_how_we_look_for_SUSY
15. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2#Results_of_SUSY_searches:_an_overview
16. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2#Outlook
17. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2#References
18. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Supersymmetry
19. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Lagrangian
20. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Special_relativity
21. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Gauge_invariance
22. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2#Thomson2013
23. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2#Martin1998
24. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2#Adam2022
25. https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCPhysics/SUSYCrossSections
26. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2#fig:Xsec_plot.png
27. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2#fig:FeynmanSUSY.jpeg
28. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2#Chakraborti2006
29. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Resonance
30. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Electroweak_interaction
31. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2#fig:FeynmanSUSY.jpeg
32. https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2023-025/
33. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2#fig:gluino_RPC.png
34. https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/CMSPublic/PhysicsResultsSUS
35. https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/CMSPublic/PhysicsResultsSUS
36. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2#fig:stop.png
37. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2#fig:stop_4body.png
38. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2#fig:EWikinos.png
39. https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2023-025/
40. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2#fig:higgsino.png
41. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2#fig:EWikinos.png
42. https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/CMSPublic/PhysicsResultsSUS
43. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2#CMS_disappearing
44. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2#ATLAS_disappearing
45. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2#Ellis1998
46. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2#fig:staus.png
47. https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/CMSPublic/PhysicsResultsSUS
48. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2#fig:gluino_RPV.png
49. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/State_space
50. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Searching_for_Long-Lived_BSM_Particles_at_the_LHC
51. https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2023-025/
52. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2#ATLASpMSSM
53. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Special:BookSources/9781107034266
54. https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9709356
55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X21300222
56. https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.10180
57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-08504-8
58. https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.15157
59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7493-x
60. https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.03460
61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10489-5
62. https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.02472
63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(98)01392-6
64. https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9810360
65. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.01392
66. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/User:Mauro_Donega
67. http://www.scholarpedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2&oldid=201379
68. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/User:George_Redlinger
69. http://www.scholarpedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2&oldid=201379
70. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/User:Valentina_Dutta
71. http://www.scholarpedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2&oldid=201525
72. http://www.scholarpedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2&oldid=201525
73. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Special:Categories
74. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Category:Physics
75. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Category:Experimental_high_energy_physics
76. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Category:Experimental_collider_physics
77. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Category:Supersymmetry
78. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Category:BSM_searches
79. http://www.scholarpedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=Supersymmetry+and+the+LHC+Run+2
80. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2
81. http://www.scholarpedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2&action=edit&redlink=1
82. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2
83. http://www.scholarpedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2&action=edit
84. http://www.scholarpedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2&action=history
85. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Main_Page
86. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Scholarpedia:About
87. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Special:ProposeArticle
88. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Scholarpedia:Instructions_for_Authors
89. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Special:Random
90. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Help:Frequently_Asked_Questions
91. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Scholarpedia:Help
92. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Encyclopedia:Astrophysics
93. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Encyclopedia:Celestial_Mechanics
94. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Encyclopedia:Computational_neuroscience
95. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Encyclopedia:Computational_intelligence
96. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Encyclopedia:Dynamical_systems
97. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Encyclopedia:Physics
98. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Encyclopedia:Touch
99. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Scholarpedia:Topics
100. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Special:RecentlyPublished
101. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Special:RecentlySponsored
102. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Special:RecentChanges
103. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Special:AllPages
104. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Special:ListCurators
105. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Special:ListUsers
106. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Special:Journal
107. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Special:WhatLinksHere/Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2
108. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Special:RecentChangesLinked/Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2
109. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Special:SpecialPages
110. http://www.scholarpedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2&printable=yes
111. http://www.scholarpedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2&oldid=201525
112. https://twitter.com/scholarpedia
113. https://plus.google.com/112873162496270574424
114. http://www.facebook.com/Scholarpedia
115. http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Scholarpedia-4647975/about
116. http://www.mediawiki.org/
117. http://www.mathjax.org/
118. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/deed.en_US
119. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2
120. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/deed.en_US
121. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Scholarpedia:Terms_of_use
122. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Scholarpedia:Privacy_policy
123. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Scholarpedia:About
124. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Scholarpedia:General_disclaimer
Hidden links:
126. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/File:Xsec_plot.png
127. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/File:Xsec_plot.png
128. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/File:FeynmanSUSY.jpeg
129. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/File:FeynmanSUSY.jpeg
130. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/File:Gluino_RPC.png
131. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/File:Gluino_RPC.png
132. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/File:Stop.png
133. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/File:Stop.png
134. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/File:Stop_4body.png
135. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/File:Stop_4body.png
136. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/File:EWikinos.png
137. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/File:EWikinos.png
138. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/File:Higgsino.png
139. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/File:Higgsino.png
140. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/File:Staus.png
141. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/File:Staus.png
142. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/File:Gluino_RPV.png
143. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/File:Gluino_RPV.png
144. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2
145. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Supersymmetry_and_the_LHC_Run_2
146. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Main_Page
Usage: http://www.kk-software.de/kklynxview/get/URL
e.g. http://www.kk-software.de/kklynxview/get/http://www.kk-software.de
Errormessages are in German, sorry ;-)