Physics at CMS
Status of CMS
and
US CMS
Dan Green
Fermilab
October 6, 2004
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
1
Outline
•
•
•
•
LHC Accelerator
CMS Detector
Trigger/DAQ - L1T, HLT
Higgs
• gg Fusion
• Associated Production, WW Fusion
• SUSY
• Exotica (Composites, Z’, Extra
Dimensions, …)
• HI Program
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
2
LHC Significance
Constituent CM Energy (GeV)
10
4
Accelerators
10
LHC
electron
hadron
3
Higgs boson
Tevatron
10
SppS
2
LEPII
SLC
TRISTAN
t quark
W, Z bosons
PEP
CESR
10
1
ISR
SPEAR
10
b quark
c quark
0
Prin-Stan
s quark
10
-1
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Starting Year
LHC will be the first big jump in C.M. energy and
luminosity in 20 years. Based on the last 40 years of
HEP, new phenomena are expected.
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
3
LHC Schedule
Blue is the planned schedule. Red is just in time. Issues of SC cable and
cold masses (vendors) are solved. Testing at CERN is now the CP for dipoles
– and cryoline installation. There is no reason to assume that the CERN
schedule will not be ~ met. Three shift operation -> sector test in Spring
2006. Collisions in April 2007. Physics run (10 fb -1) starting in late 2007 ?.
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
4
The CMS Detector
SUPERCONDUCTING
COIL
CALORIMETERS
ECAL
HCAL
IRON YOKE
TRACKER
Basic Choices:
Strong, large B field (4T)
All Si tracking (L)
Best possible ECAL dE/E
MUON
MUON BARREL
ENDCAPS
Robust Muon - yoke
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
5
Magnet Coil : ~ 2/3 done
 Expect the 5 modules at CERN by Nov., 2004
 Start cooling in March 2005
 Complete SX5 magnet test on Oct, 2005
 Lower CMS into UX5 – 1.5 yr before LHC
beam
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
6
Trial Test of Coil Insertion
Simulation of
coil radial extent
Assembly of CMS proceeding in the surface hall (SX5).
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
7
CMS Tracker – All Si
Pixel
Outer Barrel –TOB-
End cap –TEC-
Inner Barrel –TIB-
2,4 m
Inner Disks –TID-
210 m2 of silicon sensors
6,136 Thin detectors (1 sensor)
9,096 Thick detectors (2 sensors)
9,648,128 electronics channels
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
8
ECAL Test Beam Module
PbWO4 crystals. Fast and rad hard but light
output is low  APD. Electronics is IBM 0.25 um
which is radiation hard.
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
9
HCAL : HB and HE
Scintillator + brass. Use HPD and QIE.
Back-flange
18 Brackets
3 Layers of absorber
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
10
Endcap Muon Chambers
Endcap return yoke and CSC
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
11
Detector Performance/Status
• TTC vetted, 25 nsec test beam in 2003, ESR
passed, 0.25 m commonality, GOL standard.
• Pixels – occupancy ~0.0001, impact ~ 15 m,
R&D. production in 2005.
• SiTrkr – pre-production, dpT/pT~0.02 at 100
GeV. Full production in 2005.
• Calor – production, timing with laser, calib
with construction data. Testbeam  G4 data
set, cosmic muons. Minbias, Z -> ee, t -> Wb,
J-J and J -  in situ.
• Muons – production, slice tests, alignment,
trigger primitives on cosmic muons.
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
12
DAQ TDR: Level-1 Trigger
Information from
calorimeters
and muon
detectors
• Electron/photon
triggers
• Jet and missing
ET triggers
• Muon triggers
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
High efficiency for discovery level
Physics with ~ 30 kHz bandwidth (~
3x headroom)
13
Level-1 Trigger Table (1034)
Trigger
Threshold
(GeV or GeV/c)
Rate (kHz)
Cumulative
Rate (kHz)
Isolated e/
34
6.5
6.5
Di-e/
19
3.3
9.4
Isolated muon
20
6.2
15.6
5
1.7
17.3
101
5.3
22.6
67
3.6
25.0
250, 110, 95
3.0
26.7
113*70
4.5
30.4
Electron*jet
25*52
1.3
31.7
Muon*jet
15*40
0.8
32.5
1.0
33.5
Di-muon
Single tau-jet
Di-tau-jet
1-jet, 3-jet, 4-jet
Jet*ETmiss
Min-bias
TOTAL
33.5
L1 Trigger on leptons, jets, missing ET and calib/minbias
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
14
Minimum Bias Events
• Pileup must be
understood in dealing
with Physics.
• Isolation criteria are
applied and efficiency
must be understood.
• A fast calibration to
reduce the number of
calorimeter constants
• Use  symmetry of
deposited energy to
inter-calibrate
calorimeter towers
within rings of constant

CMS Note
2003-031
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
Barrel
15
DAQ TDR: DAQ
• Event size: 1MB from
~700 front-end
electronics modules
• Level-1 decision time:
~3s — ~1s actual
processing
(the rest in transmission
delays)
• DAQ designed to accept
Level-1 rate of 100kHz
• Modular DAQ: 8 x
12.5kHz units
• HLT designed to output
O(102)Hz – rejection of
1000
• DAQ factorizes by 8x
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
16
HLT Selection - 
-leptons
• Level-2:
calorimetric
reconstruction
and isolation
• Very narrow
jet
surrounded
by isolation
cone
• Level-3: tracker
isolation
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
17
HLT Electron Selection: Level-2
“Level-2” electron:
• Search for match to
Level-1 trigger
• Use 1-tower
margin around
4x4-tower trigger
region
• Bremsstrahlung
recovery “superclustering”
• Select highest ET
cluster
Brem recovery:
• Road along  in
narrow -window
around seed
• Collect all subclusters in road 
“super-cluster”
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
super-cluster
basic cluster
18
HLT Electron Selection: Level-2.5
Most e triggers are neutrals
 use pixel information
• Very fast, large
rejection with high
efficiency
• Before most
material before
most
bremsstrahlung,
and before most
conversions
• Number of
potential hits is
3, so demanding
 2 hits is quite
efficient
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
Full pixel system
Staged option
19
HLT and Physics Efficiency
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
20
HLT Performance — Efficiency
Channel
H(115 GeV)
H(160 GeV)WW* 2
H(150 GeV)ZZ4
A/H(200 GeV)2
Efficiency
(for fiducial objects)
77%
92%
98%
45%
SUSY (~0.5 TeV sparticles)
With RP-violation
W  en
~60%
~20%
67% (||<2.1, 60%)
Wn
69% (||<2.1, 50%)
t X
72%
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
21
Preparing for Physics
To do the Physics well, we must – by
2007:
• Commission – SX5, slice tests, trigger
primitives, portable DAQ, pulsers,
lasers, cosmics
• Calibrate – test beam, sources, lasers,
muons
• Align – muons, photogrammetry,
proximity sensors
• Deploy Core Software – data
challenges, calib samples (W, Z, JJ, J,
minbias)
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
22
SWC Challenges
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
23
Physics TDR goals
Physics TDR is a test of validity/readiness of CMS to extract initial
Physics
• Readiness of software, computing and people’s knowledge,
skills
• Next step is the Physics TDR so that
It is:
• an opportunity to write, debug, clean, re-write our software
• a test/chance to tune data-handling and distributed analysis
• re-evaluate our (detector/software) strengths and weaknesses
• the way to identify priorities at T0, plus general time-scales
• e.g. SUSY shows up quickly
• a way to learn the new system (start in late 2003, end in 2005)
• Necessary input to major computing procurements in 2006.
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
24
Higgs Production
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
25
Higgs Decay Modes
Goal is to measure mass, total width and several
partial widths to confront the SM incisively. At low
mass, several couplings are measurable. At higher
masses WW and ZZ dominate.
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
26
“Higgs” Quantum Numbers
•If the 2 photon mode is
observed then “H” is not a
vector (Yangs’ theorem).
•If the “H” is the SM Higgs
then the leptons are ~ collinear
in a WW decay.
•If the ZZ decay is seen then a
P = + state has decay planes
aligned  1  2 – P = - has planes
orthogonal 1 x 2
.
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
27
Associated Production - Htt
H is radiated in a tt final state. At low H mass the cross
section is sufficient to extract a clean signal in the
dominant H -> bb decay mode. In addition, a “control”
sample arises from the ttZ state with a leptonic Z decay
(same Feynman diagrams).
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
28
Htt Associated Production
Good b tagging is
clearly essential.
ttZ can be used to
measure the
background in bb
using leptonic Z
decays.
Most background
processes have
large scale
uncertainties.
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
29
H Production from W+W
Use the EW radiation of a W by a quark. The “effective
W approximation” analogous to the WW
approximation. Need good jet coverage to low PT and
small angles. Cross section depends only on the Higgs
coupling to W, Z.
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
30
qqH,H -> W+W* ->

n 

n
SM H leads to ~ collinear
and low mass lepton pairs.
qqH is most useful for H
masses > 140 GeV.
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
31
Higgs Summary in CMS
For 10 fb-1, or 1
year at 1/10 of
design luminosity
almost all the
allowed range for
a SM Higgs is
covered.
CMS must be
ready to quickly
and incisively
analyze the early
LHC data.
qqW, WW*, ZZ*
are the discovery
modes at low
mass.
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
32
Higgs Self Coupling
Baur, Plehn, Rainwater
HH  W+ W- W+ W-   njj njj
Find the Higgs? If the H mass is known, then the
SM H potential is completely known  HH
prediction. If H is found, measure self-couplings,
but ultimately SLHC is needed. The plan is for
10x increase in luminosity ~ 2013.
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
33
WW Fusion into ZZ
No Higgs? Look at VV scattering.
Process depends only on VVV,
VVVV couplings. Not viable at
Tevatron. In SM cross section -> a
constant, angular distribution is F/B
peaked, and WLWL flux dominates.
If no H then possibly large
enhancement due to TT scattering.
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
34
W+W -> Z + Z Angular Distribution
If there is a SM H
then the distribution
is very F/B peaked.
If not, then the cross
section may have a
dramatic (~ 80 x)
increase and the
angular distribution
may become
isotropic – e.g. pure
quartic. Need SLHC
to push to ZZ
masses > 1 TeV.
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
35
SUSY ?
Why SUSY?
•GUT Mass scale,
unification
•Improved Weinberg angle
prediction
•p decay rate
•Neutrino mass (seesaw)
•Mass hierarchy –
Planck/EW
•String connections
MMSM has ~ SM light h and ~
mass degenerate H,A. LSP is
neutralino. Squarks and gluinos are
heavy.
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
36
WMAP and Other Constraints
LEP2
g-2
WMAP
LSP is
neutral
b  s 
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
37
SUSY Cross Sections at LHC
Squarks and gluinos are most copious (strong
production). Cascade decay to LSP (  0 )  study
1
jets and missing energy. E.g. 600 GeV squark.
Dramatic event signatures and large cross section
mean we will discover SUSY quickly, if it exists.
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
38
SUSY – Mass “Reach”
WMAP
1 year at 1/10
design
luminosity.
SUSY
discovery
would
happen
quickly.
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
39
SUSY – Mass Scale
4
M eff  PT (n )   PT ( jets)
1
Effective mass
“tracks”
squark/gluino
mass well
1 year at l/10th
design
luminosity
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
Will immediately
start to measure
the fundamental
SUSY
parameters.
With 4 jets +
missing energy
the SUSY mass
scale can be
established to 20
%.
40
Sparticle Cascades
Use SUSY cascades to the
stable LSP to sort out the
new spectroscopy.
Decay chain used is :

 1o 
20 




Then
And
b  20  b
g b b
Final state is
bb
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004



 10
41
Sparticle Masses
An example of the kind of analysis done, from 1 year
at 1/10th design luminosity.
2-body decay: edge in Mll
10 fb-1
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
42
Full CMS Exposure –
Reconstruction of Heavy States
 20  10 

Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004


b  2o  b
g b b
43
h Decays to b pairs
SUSY Higgs must be light, < 130 GeV
Signature: B-jets + lepton + ETmiss
 Requires b-tagging + jet counting + full
calorimeter coverage for ETmiss
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
44
A to  +  to Leptons
Fast
simulations of
b and tau tags.
Tau decays to
leptons.
Background
from Z, tt, Wtb
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
45
A,H to  +  to Hadrons
Even in the minimal
model, there is a large
parameter space. This
study uses hadronic tau
decays. A and H are nearly
mass degenerate.
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
46
H+-> t + b
Charged Higgs decay into quarks. Top decays
to W+b with W decay to leptons supplying the
trigger. H couples preferentially to high mass t
quark.
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
47
Heavy SUSY Higgs - 10 fb-1
A/H
tan b=30, mA=130 GeV
A/H
tan b=40, mA=200 GeV
Some parts of the
parameter space are
not covered using
dilepton decays of H,A.
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
48
Composites - Jets
No Higgs? No SUSY? Weak interactions will become strong.
2-jet events: expect excess of high-ET centrally produced jets if
quarks are composites (a la Rutherford).
ˆ
is the jet-jet C.M.
scattering angle.
If contact interactions
excess at low , S
wave scattering . Reach
of CMS is ~ 20 TeV. Can
Push up with SLHC.
  (1  cos ˆ) /(1  cos ˆ)
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
49
Early Physics Reach – q*
If the calorimetry is understood,
resonances up to a few TeV in mass are
accessible early in the LHC run. (R.
Harris) SLHC gives ~ 20% increase in
mass reach.
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
50
Composites - DY
Search for
lepton
composites in
D-Y production
of dilepton
pairs. At masses
above the Z
there is no
known resonant
state. Reach is ~
20 TeV. Early
reach is ~ 5 TeV
for 10 fb-1.
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
51
Extra Dimensions
Number (D) of space-time dimensions  form
of force observed
• E+M: F~1/r2 because D=3+1
• For “flatlanders” confined to live in D=2+1 dimensions,
E+M is perceived to be a F~1/r force
Inspired by “string theory” which naturally incorporates SUSY and
which requires extra dimensions to be self consistent. The extra
dimensions required by strings may be at the Plank scale or at the
TeV scale, In the latter case there is no hierarchy problem.
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
52
TeV Scale Extra Dimension
Black hole
production

Democratic
Hawking
evaporation
 copious
Higgs
production.
Study with
full CMS
simulation.
KK excitations of the , Z in D-Y
LHC at 600 fb-1 has a reach to
6 TeV. SLHC would push out
30% further.
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
53
Black Hole Production at CMS
If the extra dimensions are ~
TeV scale, then black holes
should be produced at the
LHC. Black holes decay
immediately ( ~ 10-26 s)
by Hawking radiation
(democratic evaporation) :
large multiplicity, small
missing E, jets/leptons ~ 5.
A black hole event with MBH ~ 8
TeV
Spectacular signature !
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
54
Heavy Ion Physics in CMS
Study properties of hot nuclear matter, plasma
of quarks and gluons
• Use high pT jets and quarkonia as probes of the medium
• Jet quenching, a new QCD process
• Production and survival of quarkonia: J/ ,
• Study as a function of nuclear geometry
Compare to p+p: minimum bias physics at the
start of LHC
q
q
q
q
p+p
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
Ion+Ion
55
HI Measurements in CMS
Excellent detector for high pT probes:
• High rates and large cross sections
• quarkonia (J/ ,) and heavy quarks (bb)
• high pT jets, including detailed studies of jet fragmentation
• high energy photons, Z0
• Correlations
• jet-
• jet-Z0
• multijets
Global event characterization
• Energy flow in wide rapidity range
• Charged particle multiplicity
• Centrality
CMS can use highest luminosities available at LHC both in A+A and
p+A modes
• DAQ and Trigger uniquely suited to dual-mode experimentation
-
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
56
Jet Quenching at RHIC
STAR
CMS
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
57
Summary and Conclusions
• CMS is designed for discovery
• Trigger strategy is sound (e.g. no L2)
• Higgs is ~ assured of discovery if it
exists.
• SUSY is ~ assured if it exists as a
solution of the Hierarchy Problem.
• Discoveries will come early because
energy matters. CMS must be ready on
day one. Next step is the Physics TDR.
• With the SLHC the program at CMS will
span decades.
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
58
CMS Tracking - Crossing
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
59
ECAL – PbWO Crystals
Fully active
detector –
transverse size
~ Xo
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
61
CMS ECAL Calibration
1. Lab measurements of all modules;
light yield, APD gain etc.  4.5 %
2. Testbeam precalibration transported
to CMS (for 25% of detector)  2.0 %
• Distributed within detector, as
“standard candle”
APDs
20
3. Min-bias phi symmetry  2 %
• Fast calibration to reduce
number of calibration constants
4. Z  e+e-  0.5 % (design value)
• Needs tracking in Si-tracker
• Within ~2 months
Total ~85,000 channels
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
5. Laser monitoring system over time
to monitor crystal transparency
62
HCAL 2002 Test Beam
beam
beam
100 GeV electron


225 GeV muon


beam
300 GeV pion

Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004

63
HO in 2002 Test Beam
Measurement of
HO muon signal
for RPC trigger
(Goal: use the HO
as part of muon
trigger)
beam
HO


HO Signal
Pedestal Subtracted
Pedestal Distribution
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
64
Check Monte Carlo – G4
Resolution
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
Linearity
65
Muon System – 4 Stations
HO
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
66
Muon Performance - Bs
 = 46 MeV
Lvl-1 
HLT 
Global 
Events/ 10fb-1
Trigger Rate
15.2%
33.5%
5.1%
47
<1.7Hz
Offline analysis results (hep-ph/9907256), using SM BR=3.5x10-9
(Lvl-1 trigger in ||<2.4 instead of ||< 2.1)
10 fb-1 => 7 signal events with <1 background
5  observation with 30 fb-1
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
67
Level-1 Trigger Table (2x1033)
Trigger
Isolated e/
Di-e/
Isolated muon
Di-muon
Single tau-jet
Di-tau-jet
1-jet, 3-jet, 4-jet
Jet*ETmiss
Electron*jet
Min-bias
TOTAL
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
Threshold
(GeV)
29
17
14
3
86
59
177, 86, 70
88*46
21*45
Rate (kHz)
3.3
1.3
2.7
0.9
2.2
1.0
3.0
2.3
0.8
0.9
Cumulative
Rate (kHz)
3.3
4.3
7.0
7.9
10.1
10.9
12.5
14.3
15.1
16.0
16.0
68
HLT Summary: 2x1033 cm-2s-1
Trigger
Threshold
(GeV or GeV/c)
Rate (Hz)
Cuml. rate
(Hz)
Inclusive electron
29
33
33
Di-electron
17
1
34
Inclusive photon
80
4
38
40, 25
5
43
19
25
68
7
4
72
Inclusive tau-jet
86
3
75
Di-tau-jet
59
1
76
180 * 123
5
81
657, 247, 113
9
89
19 * 45
2
90
237
5
95
10
105
Di-photon
Inclusive muon
Di-muon
1-jet * ETmiss
1-jet OR 3-jet OR 4jet
Electron * jet
Inclusive b-jet
Calibration etc
TOTAL
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
105
69
B Tagging Efficiency
The actual light quark rejection and b quark
acceptance as a function of ET will only be
known when the actual environment and
performance of the tracker is known.
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
70
Standard Model Physics
An example: standard model physics using muons, CMS
Yields
Cross
section(nb)
Acceptance
(1  in
<2.1)
Eff. after HLT
with 
isolation
Yield
for 10
fb-1
W  n
19.6
50 %
69 %
7 × 107
Z
1.84
71 %
92 %
tt  WbWb
 n+X
0.126
86 %
72 %
1.1 ×
107
7.8 ×
105
• rare top decays
• precision measurements of top couplings and
properties
• EW boson triple gauge couplings
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
71
Muon Trigger Efficiencies
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
72
Higgs Mass – Low?
10
10
H(GeV)
10
10
10
10
10
Higgs W idth
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
10
2
10
3
MH(GeV)
Current EW data indicates a low mass H.
SUSY requires a low mass H. The mass
width is then likely to be small <
experimental resolution  ECAL
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
73
Low Mass Higgs
H: decay is rare (B~10-3)
• But with good resolution, one
gets a mass peak
• Motivation for PbWO4
calorimeter
• CMS: at 100 GeV,   1GeV
• S/B  1:20
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
74
Intermediate Mass Higgs
HZZ+– +– ( =e,)
• Very clean
• Resolution: better than 1
GeV (around 100 GeV
mass)
• Valid for the mass range
130<MH<600 GeV/c2
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
75
H -> Z + Z* -> 4
V. Bartsch et al., Karlsruhe
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
76
H -> Z + Z -> 4 
Expected invariant mass distribution for L = 20 fb-1,
after selection. M. Sani et al., Firenze
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
77
High Mass Higgs
HZZ +– jet jet
• Need higher
Branching fraction
(also nn for the
highest masses ~ 800
GeV/c2)
• At the limit of
statistics
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
78
No Higgs? VV Scattering?
If no Higgs look at VV
scattering? Individual
diagrams diverge with C.M.
energy. Total set of 3 EW
diagrams approaches a
constant. The ~ isotropic
distribution of each diagram
becomes a F/B peak in the
sum of the 3 EW diagrams.
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
79
SUSY and Grand Unification
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
80
Minimal SUSY
2 vev (ratio tanb sign ) 2 masses (at GUT scale), soft SUSY
breaking. Leads to 5 Higgs, sleptons, gauginos (LSP) and squarks
and gluinos (higher mass0
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
81
SUSY Mass Reach
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
82
Supersymmetry
5 contours
Impact of the SLHC
Extending the discovery region
by roughly 0.5 TeV i.e. from
~2.5 TeV  3 TeV
CMS
This extension involved high
ET jets/leptons and missing ET
 Not compromised by increased
pile-up at SLHC
tanb=10
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
83
SUSY - Disovery
backgrounds
SUSY
600 GeV
squark
4
M eff  PT (n )   PT ( jets)
1
Dramatic event signatures and large cross
section mean we will discover SUSY quickly,
if it exists.
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
84
Sparticle Mass Measurements
Proposed Post-LEP Benchmarks for Supersymmetry (hep-ph/0106204)
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
85
A, H to  + 
A and H are ~ mass degenerate. B tag useful for
backgrounds.
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
86
H+ -> + + n
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
87
Sparticle Reconstruction
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
88
Sparticle Reconstruction
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
89
SUSY Higgs
Mass of h = mass of Z.
With top loops the h
mass is increased.
However, mass of h is
< 130 GeV. Thus,
SUSY predicts a light
“Higgs” ~ the SM
Higgs.
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
90
Timing of Physics TDR
Physics TDR: start in 2003, end in 2005
Time scale determined by:
• Desire to submit as late as possible
• To cover all software; to supplement it with
real-life examples of prime physics analyses
(training ground/ test of analysis chain).
• In 2006 we start procurements of major parts
of the computing resources of the experiment
• And it’s the last point in time to make any
major changes to the software infrastructure
• “T01.5”: near-optimal time to have this “test
of Physics readiness”
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
91
CPT Organization
CPT Institution
Board
CCS PM
D. Stickland
Technical
Coordinator
Resource
Manager
L. Taylor
I. Willers
Regional
Centers
Arch,
Frmwrks &
Toolkits
L. Bauerdick
V. Innocente
TRIDAS
(Onl. Farm) PM
S. Cittolin
PRS PM
P. Sphicas
Higgs
ECAL/e/
S. Nikitenko
C. Seez
SUSY &
Beyond SM
TRACKER/b-
L. Pape
Production &
data mgmt
Librarian
Services
Standard
Model
T. Wildish
S. Ashby
J. Mnich
Computing
infrastructure
GRID
Integration
Heavy Ions
N. Sinanis
C. Grandi
B. Wyslouch
M.Mannelli,
L.Silvestris
Online Farm
Online Filter
Software
HCAL/JetMET
J.Rohlf,
C.Tully
Muons
D. Acosta,
U.Gasparini
Reconstruction project S. Wynhoff
Simulation project A. DeRoeck
Cornell Seminar, Oct. 4, 2004
92