Project Outline with Plots

Return to home page.

Generator level Plots
- Ditau mass for reference point
- Soft τ P_T slopes for different values of ΔM
- jττ mass for reference point
- jττ mass for chi1 mass = 90 GeV, other masses fixed
- jττ mass for 3 different chi1 masses
Ditau Mass
- OS & LS: reference point
- OS-LS: reference point
- OS & LS: neutralino 2 mass = 312.906, other masses fixed
- OS-LS: neutralino 2 mass = 312.906, other masses fixed
- ditau mass vs. chi1 mass
- ditau mass vs. chi2 mass
- ditau mass vs. ΔM
- ditau mass vs. gluino mass
Counting Method
- OS-LS Counts vs. chi1 mass
- OS-LS Counts vs. chi2 mass
- OS-LS Counts vs. ΔM
- OS-LS Counts vs. gluino mass
P_T slope of soft τ
- Slope vs. chi2 mass (with points and fit)
- Slope vs. chi2 mass (with central contour and error band)
- Slope vs. chi1 mass
- Slope vs. ΔM
- Slope vs. gluino mass
jττ Mass
- squark mass = 660 GeV
- squark mass = 840 GeV
- squark masses 660 & 840 superimposed
- jττ mass vs. chi1 mass
- jττ mass vs. chi2 mass
- jττ mass vs. ΔM
- jττ mass vs. gluino mass
- reference point Purity Plot
- OS-LS and 'True' mass superimposed for reference point
How well can we measure the masses, relic density, m₀, and m_1/2?
- ΔM vs. gluino mass using 2 observables (N_OS-LS and ditau mass)
- m₀ vs. m_1/2 using 2 observables
- ΔM vs. Ωh² using 2 observables
- ΔM vs. Ωh² using 2 observables (smaller axis range)
- gluino mass vs. Ωh² using 2 observables
- ΔM vs. gluino mass using 4 observables
- k₁ vs. k₂ using 4 observables
- ΔM vs. Ωh² using 4 observables
- gluino mass vs. Ωh² using 4 obsevables
- ΔM vs. gluino mass: 2 observables and 4 observables superimposed
- gluino mass vs. Ωh²: 2 observables and 4 observables superimposed