Magnifying the ATLAS Stealth Stop Splinter: Impact of Spin Correlations and Finite Widths

TL;DR

This paper reinterprets ATLAS stop searches in the challenging stealth region near the top quark mass, highlighting the importance of spin correlations and finite width effects in accurately constraining supersymmetric models.

Contribution

It provides a detailed recasting of ATLAS stop searches considering spin correlations and finite width effects, extending the exclusion limits in the stop-neutralino parameter space.

Findings

Excluded parameter space with neutralino mass less than 55 GeV near the top mass

Finite width and spin correlation effects significantly impact production rate estimates

Recasting reveals that current searches do not fully exclude the stealth stop splinter

Abstract

In this paper, we recast a "stealth stop" search in the notoriously difficult region of the stop-neutralino Simplified Model parameter space for which $m(\tilde{t}) - m(\tilde{\chi}) \simeq m_t$. The properties of the final state are nearly identical for tops and stops, while the rate for stop pair production is $\mathcal{O}(10\%)$ of that for $t\bar{t}$. Stop searches away from this stealth region have left behind a "splinter" of open parameter space when $m(\tilde{t}) \simeq m_t$. Removing this splinter requires surgical precision: the ATLAS constraint on stop pair production reinterpreted here treats the signal as a contaminant to the measurement of the top pair production cross section using data from $\sqrt{s} = 7 \text{ TeV}$ and $8 \text{ TeV}$ in a correlated way to control for some systematic errors. ATLAS fixed $m(\tilde{t}) \simeq m_t$ and $m(\tilde{\chi})= 1 \text{ GeV}$, implying that a careful recasting of these results into the full $m(\tilde{t}) - m(\tilde{\chi})$ plane is warranted. We find that the parameter space with $m(\tilde{\chi})\lesssim 55 \text{ GeV}$ is excluded for $m(\tilde{t}) \simeq m_t$ --- although this search does cover new parameter space, it is unable to fully pull the splinter. Along the way, we review a variety of interesting physical issues in detail: (i) when the two-body width is a good approximation; (ii) what the impact on the total rate from taking the narrow width is a good approximation; (iii) how the production rate is affected when the wrong widths are used; (iv) what role the spin correlations play in the limits. In addition, we provide a guide to using MadGraph for implementing the full production including finite width and spin correlation effects, and we survey a variety of pitfalls one might encounter.