Supersymmetry at a 28 TeV hadron collider: HELHC
Abstract: The discovery of the Higgs boson at GeV indicates that the scale of weak scale supersymmetry is higher than what was perceived in the preHiggs boson discovery era and lies in the several TeV region. This makes the discovery of supersymmetry more challenging and argues for hadron colliders beyond LHC at TeV. The Future Circular Collider (FCC) study at CERN is considering a 100 TeV collider to be installed in a 100 km tunnel in the Lake Geneva basin. Another 100 km collider being considered in China is the Super protonproton Collider (SppC). A third possibility recently proposed is the HighEnergy LHC (HELHC) which would use the existing CERN tunnel but achieve a centerofmass energy of 28 TeV by using FCC magnet technology at significantly higher luminosity than at the High Luminosity LHC (HLLHC). In this work we investigate the potential of HELHC for the discovery of supersymmetry. We study a class of supergravity unified models under the Higgs boson mass and the dark matter relic density constraints and compare the analysis with the potential reach of the HLLHC. A set of benchmarks are presented which are beyond the discovery potential of HLLHC but are discoverable at HELHC. For comparison, we study model points at HELHC which are also discoverable at HLLHC. For these model points, it is found that their discovery would require a HLLHC run between 58 years while the same parameter points can be discovered in a period of few weeks to yr at HELHC running at its optimal luminosity of cm s. The analysis indicates that the HELHC possibility should be seriously pursued as it would significantly increase the discovery reach for supersymmetry beyond that of HLLHC and decrease the run period for discovery.
1 Introduction
The discovery of the Higgs boson [1, 2, 3] mass at GeV [4, 5] has put stringent constraints on the scale of weak scale supersymmetry. Thus within supersymmetry and supergravity unified theories a Higgs boson mass of GeV requires a very significant loop correction which points to the scale of weak scale supersymmetry lying in the several TeV region [6, 7, 8, 9]. As a result, the observation of the Higgs boson mass at GeV makes the discovery of supersymmetry more difficult. This difficulty arises on two fronts. First, the large scale of weak scale supersymmetry implies that the average mass of the sparticles, specifically of sfermions, is significantly higher than what was thought in the preHiggs boson discovery era. This leads to a suppression in the production of sparticles at colliders. Second, in high scale unified models such as supergravity grand unified models (SUGRA) [10] (for a review see [11]) with Rparity conservation, the satisfaction of the relic density consistent with WMAP [12] and the PLANCK [13] experimental data requires coannihilation [14] which means that the next to lightest supersymmetric particle (NLSP) lies close to the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP). The close proximity of the NLSP to the LSP means that the decay of the NLSP to the LSP will result in light detectable final states, i.e., leptons and jets, making the detection of supersymmetry more difficult.
In view of the above, the nonobservation of supersymmetry thus far is not surprising. In fact, as argued recently, the case for supersymmetry is stronger after the Higgs boson discovery [15] and we discuss briefly the underlying reasons for the pursuit of supersymmetry. Thus one of the attractive features of supersymmetry is the resolution of the large hierarchy problem related to the quadratic divergence of the loop correction to the Higgs boson mass by quark loops and its cancellation by squark loops. This situation is very much reminiscent of the cancellation of the up quark contribution by the charm quark contribution in resolving the flavor changing neutral current problem which lead to the discovery of the charm quark. In that case a natural cancellation occurred up to one part in while for the Higgs boson case a natural cancellation occurs up to one part in in order to cancel the quadratic divergence in the Higgs boson mass square. Thus the cancellation for the Higgs boson case is even more compelling than for the flavor changing neutral current case. Aside from that, a heavy weak scale of supersymmetry resolves some problems specific to supersymmetry. Thus supersymmetry brings with it new CP violating phases which can generate very large EDMs for the quarks and the leptons which are in violation of experiment if the squark and slepton masses are in the sub TeV region. A solution to this problem requires fine tuning, or a cancellation mechanism [16, 17]. However, if the squark and slepton masses are large, one has a more natural suppression of the EDM consistent with experiment [18, 19].
Another potential problem for a low scale of weak scale supersymmetry concerns proton decay from baryon and lepton number violating dimension five operators. For a low scale of weak scale supersymmetry, a suppression of this again requires a fine tuning but for scale of weak scale supersymmetry lying in the several TeV region this suppression is more easily accomplished [20, 21]. We note in passing that the unification of gauge coupling constants is satisfied to a good degree of accuracy in models with scalar masses lying in the tens of TeV as for the case when the weak scale of supersymmetry lies in the sub TeV region [22].
The LHC has four phases which we may label as LHC1LHC4. The LHC1 phase at TeV lead to the discovery of the Higgs boson. We are currently in the LHC2 phase where TeV and it will continue till the end of 2018 and by that time the CMS and the ATLAS detectors are each expected to collect 150 fb of integrated luminosity. LHC will then shut down for two years in the period 20192020 for upgrade to LHC3 which will operate at 14 TeV in the period 20212023. In this period each of the detectors will collect additional 300 fb of data. LHC will then shut down for a major upgrade to high luminosity LHC (HLLHC or LHC4) for a two and a half years in the period 20232026 and will resume operations in late 2026 and run for an expected 10 year period till 2036. At the end of this period it is expected that each detector will collect additional data culminating in 3000 fb. Beyond LHC4, higher energy colliders have been discussed. These include a 100 TeV hadron collider at CERN and a 100 TeV protonproton collider in China each of which requires a circular ring of about 100 km [23, 24].
Recently, a 28 TeV collider at CERN has been discussed [25, 26, 27, 28, 29] as a third
possibility for a hadron collider beyond the LHC
which has the virtue that it could be
built using the existing ring at CERN
by installing 16 T
superconducting magnets using FCC technology
capable of enhancing the centerofmass energy of the collider to 28 TeV. Further, HELHC will operate at a luminosity of cms
and collect 1012 ab of data.
This set up necessarily means that a larger part of the parameter space of supersymmetric models beyond the reach of the 14 TeV collider will be probed.
Also, supersymmetric particles that could be discovered at the HLLHC may be discoverable at 28 TeV at a much lower integrated luminosity.
In this work we investigate supersymmetry signatures at LHC28 (or HELHC) and compare the integrated luminosity necessary for a 5 discovery of a set of supergravity benchmark points with what one would obtain at LHC14. The analysis is done under the constraints of the Higgs boson mass at 125 2 GeV and the relic density
constraint on neutralino dark matter of
. For a binolike LSP, satisfaction of the relic density constraint requires coannihilation. Specifically for the set of benchmarks considered, the chargino is the NLSP and one has chargino coannihilation in cases where the LSP is binolike. Here we use nonuniversal supergravity models with nonuniversalities in the gaugino (and Higgs) sector to investigate a range of neutralino, chargino and gluino masses that are discoverable at the HELHC.
The outline of the rest of the paper is as follows: In section 2 we discuss the SUGRA models and the benchmarks investigated in this work.
These benchmarks are listed in Table 2 and they satisfy all the desired constraints. In section 3 we discuss the prominent discovery
channels used to investigate the discovery of the benchmarks at and TeV. Here we first discuss the various codes used
in the analysis. It is found that the most prominent channels for discovery include single lepton, two lepton, and three lepton channels along with jets.
Details of these analyses are given in sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3.
Thus in section 3.1 an analysis of the benchmarks using a single lepton and jets in the final state is investigated; in section 3.2 an analysis using two leptons and
jets in the final states is discussed and in section 3.3, an analysis is given using 3 leptons and jets in the final state. An estimate of uncertainties is given in
section 4.
A discussion of dark matter direct detection for the benchmarks of Table 2 is given in section 5 while conclusions are given in section 6. The analysis of this work is illustrated by
several tables and figures which are called at appropriate points in the various sections.
2 SUGRA model benchmarks
In Table 2 we give a set of benchmark SUGRA models. These models are consistent with the constraints of radiative breaking of the electroweak symmetry (for review see [30]), the Higgs boson mass constraint and the relic density constraint. In high scale models the neutralino often turns out to be mostly a bino and thus its annihilation requires the presence of another sparticle in close proximity, i.e., coannihilation (for early work see [14]). Coannihilation arises in supergravity models in a variety of ways with universal as well as with nonuniversal boundary conditions at the grand unification scale, , taken to be GeV. The nonuniversalities include those in the gaugino sector [31, 32, 33], in the matter sector and in the Higgs sector [34]. These boundary conditions lead to a vast landscape of sparticle mass hierarchies [35]. Coannihilation necessarily leads to a partially compressed sparticle spectrum. [Compressed spectra have been investigated in a number of recent works see, e.g., [36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42]. For experimental searches for supersymmetry with compressed spectra see [43, 44, 45])]. For the models of Table 2 the NLSP is the light chargino whereby for points (g)(j) the LSP is binolike and satisfaction of the relic density constraint is realized by chargino coannihilation. To achieve chargino coannihilation we need to have nonuniversal supergravity models with nonuniversalities in the and the sectors. Thus the parameter space of the models is given by
(1) 
where is the universal scalar mass, is the universal trilinear scalar coupling at the grand unification scale, , where gives mass to the uptype quarks and gives mass to the downtype quarks and the leptons, and sgn is the sign of the Higgs mixing parameter
which enters in the superpotential in the form . In the analysis we consider values of the universal scalar mass which, although high, arise
quite naturally on the hyperbolic branch of radiative breaking of the electroweak symmetry. All of the parameter points given in Table 2 are not
currently probed at the LHC and are thus not ruled out by experiment [46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52]. Table 3 shows qualitatively two types of parameter points.
Thus model points (a)(f) have the neutralino and the chargino masses close to 1 TeV while the gluino is also relatively light. For model points
(g)(j) of Table 2,
we have neutralino and the chargino masses lying below 200 GeV while the gluino is much heavier. In each case the Higgs boson mass and the relic density constraints are satisfied and a compressed spectrum is obtained. For model points (a)(f) of Table 2
the compressed spectrum involves
while for models points (g)(j) of Table 2,
it involves (see Fig. 1).
In these models the sfermions are all heavy with the lightest sfermion mass lying in the several TeV range.
However, as argued previously, the TeV size scalars can be quite natural in SUGRA models since
the weak scale could be
large and natural on the hyperbolic branch
of radiative breaking of the electroweak symmetry in SUGRA models [53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59].
The analysis is performed at the current LHC energy of 14 TeV and at the proposed centerofmass energy of 28 TeV. For each of the model points defined by Eq. (1) at the GUT scale, the RGE’s are run down to the electroweak scale to obtain the entire SUSY sparticle spectrum. This is performed using SoftSUSY 4.1.0 [60, 61] which determines the Higgs boson mass at the twoloop level. The input parameters of the SUGRA model are given in Table 2 and the results obtained from SoftSUSY are shown in Table 3 consistent with the Higgs boson mass and the relic density constraints, with the latter calculated using micrOMEGAs 4.3.2 [62]. SUSY Les Houches Accord formatted data files are processed using PySLHA [63]. It is clear from Table 3 that the mass difference between the chargino and the LSP is small, i.e.,
and is essential to drive the relic density to within the observed limits in a parameter space where the LSP is binolike. This is observed for points (g)(j), while points (a)(f) have an LSP which is winolike and this explains the lower values of the relic density. There is a certain range of LSPchargino mass gap which can still keep the relic density in check. As mentioned before, the LSP, chargino, stop and gluino masses presented in this analysis are still not excluded by the current LHC analyses.
We analyze final states coming from the production and subsequent decay of a second neutralino in association with a chargino on one hand and a gluino pair on the other hand. The leading order (LO) production crosssections of and are presented in Table 4 for two LHC centerofmass energies: 14 and 28 TeV. A plot of the production crosssections of the ten benchmark points is presented in Fig. 2 where the left panel exhibits the gluino pair production crosssections and the right panel is for the second neutralinochargino production, both plotted against different centerofmass energies. The subsequent decay branching ratios of the gauginos are given in Table 5 which, along with the decay widths, are calculated by SDECAY and HDECAY operating within SUSYHIT [64].
3 Discovery channels for benchmarks
The SUSY signal involving the direct production of are simulated at LO using MADGRAPH 2.6.0 [65] with the NNPDF23LO PDF set. The obtained partonlevel sample is then passed to PYTHIA8 [66] for showering and hadronization. Because we are interested in soft final states, no hard jets were added at the generatorlevel and so no matching/merging scheme is involved here. The necessary soft jets are added at the showering level. To give a boost to the final state particles, the initial (ISR) and the final state radiation (FSR) are relied upon for this purpose. The simulation of the direct production of a gluino pair is also carried out by MADGRAPH with up to one extra parton at the generator level. A fiveflavor MLM matching is performed with the showerkt scheme using PYTHIA8 for showering and hadronization with the merging scale set at 120 GeV. Finally, ATLAS detector simulation and event reconstruction is performed by DELPHES 3.4.1 [67] where clustering into jets is done by FastJet [68] with a jet radius parameter 0.6 and using the anti algorithm [69].
For the 14 TeV backgrounds, we use the ones generated by the SNOWMASS group [70]. As for the 28 TeV samples, they are simulated at LO using MADGRAPH 2.6.0 with the NNPDF30LO PDF set [71]. The crosssection is then multiplied by the appropriate Kfactor so that it is close to its
nexttoleading order (NLO) value. The resulting hard process is then passed on to PYTHIA8 for showering and hadronization. To avoid double counting of jets, a fiveflavor MLM matching is performed on the samples and the ATLAS detector simulation and event reconstruction is carried out by DELPHES 3.4.1. The SM backgrounds are classified as dominant and subdominant, where the subdominant backgrounds were given a Kfactor of 1.
A large set of search analyses were performed on the generated events for each benchmark point. The analyses used ROOT 6.08.06 [72] to implement the constraints of the
search region for the signal regions involving leptons, jets and missing transverse energy in the final state.
3.1 The single lepton channel
The analysis of signatures with leptons has the advantage of being clean, i.e. contamination from QCD multijets is negligible. However, the downside of it is that the branching ratios for lepton signatures are relatively small. The first channel we consider involves a single prompt light lepton in the final state, along with at least two jets and missing transverse energy. The standard model backgrounds pertaining to this final state include + jets, , diboson, + jets and . For both production processes, the single lepton comes mainly from the decay of a chargino. However, for the pair production (benchmark points (g)(j)) of Table 2, the final states are soft due to the small mass gap between the LSP and the chargino while for the gluino pair production case (benchmark points (a)(f)) of Table 2, the electroweak gauginos are heavy ( TeV) and hence we expect harder final states. For this reason, each signal region has two sets of selection criteria, one which targets soft final states (arising from a compressed spectrum) and given the suffix “comp” and another targeting harder final states (arising from production) and given the suffix “”. Note that the terms “electroweakino production” and “ production” are often used interchangeably in the text and thus refer to the same process. A preselection cut on the missing transverse energy, GeV, is applied to both signal and background samples. Isolated leptons and jets are required to have GeV. The kinematic variables used for this signal region are:

The lepton transverse mass
(2) which is used to reduce and backgrounds, where the boson decays leptonically, due to the fact that has a kinematical endpoint at the boson mass. In terms of jets, we could also define , the minimum of the transverse masses for the first two leading jets, which has the same effect on the above mentioned backgrounds.

The ratio defined as
(3) Unlike the background, the signal tends to have a value of closer to one because of the missing energy arising from the LSPs in the final state. This ratio turns out to be a powerful variable in discriminating signal from background.

is defined as the scalar sum of all the jets’ transverse momenta in an event.

The effective mass, , is given by
(4) Both and tend to have values higher than the background especially in processes involving gluino pair production.

The variable is effective in eliminating possible multijet background events.

The FoxWolfram moments are given by [73]
(5) where is the separation angle between the two jets, is the total jet visible energy in an event and are the Legendre polynomials. In particular, we use the normalized second FoxWolfram moment defined as . This event shape observable is mostly effective for hard jets which is why it is only applied to the second set targeting gluino pair production.
The selection criteria for this SR using the above kinematic variables are listed in Table 6. Each SR has three subsets labeled as SRA, SRB and SRC which correspond to a variation of the ratio . Observables and cuts that do not apply to a particular SR are left blank in the table. By comparing, for instance, cuts on and , one can see that those observables have smaller values for the SR comp which looks for soft final states, in comparison with  where much larger values are considered due to harder final states. The selection criteria is applied to the signal samples and to the 14 TeV and 28 TeV standard model backgrounds. The surviving events are used to determine the integrated luminosity for a discovery. The results obtained for 14 TeV and 28 TeV are shown in Table 9 for all benchmark points of Table 2. One can see that for LHC14 most of the points cannot be discovered even with the HLLHC as the required integrated luminosity exceeds 3000. Only points (a) and (g) are discoverable but require integrated luminosity greater than 1500.
As for LHC28, it is clear that all points can be discovered using the one lepton channel with an integrated luminosity as low as 32 (in SRC for point (a)) which, given that such a machine may collect data at a rate of /year, may be attained within the first few weeks of operation.
For the gluino pair production case, the largest is for point (a) followed by point (e), but those two points perform very differently with point (e) requiring much more integrated luminosity for discovery than the other points (except (f)). The reason is that for point (e), the chargino is almost degenerate with the LSP and hence the produced leptons are extremely soft and will not be reconstructed. In this case the single lepton is coming from the semileptonic decay of a top quark originating from the decay of a gluino (see Table 5) and this has a small branching ratio. In figures 35, we exhibit the distributions in different kinematic variables for points (b), (e) and (f) at 1500 of integrated luminosity. The distributions show that even after applying the cuts, the signal is still buried under the 14 TeV backgrounds, while an excess is observed in all variables for the 28 TeV case. This is reflected in the calculated integrated luminosities of Table 9.
Given that the obtained integrated luminosities for the 14 TeV case were larger than 3000 for most of the points, one must ask if optimizing the cuts for only the 14 TeV will improve the results. One could actually see that by looking at Fig. 6 which exhibits the distributions in and for benchmark point (g). Unlike the other points in Figs. 35 where the signal is under the background, one can see that in Fig. 6 an excess is observed over the SM background. Those distributions have been plotted after all cuts, except and , were applied. For the purpose of optimizing the cuts, we consider the SR comp which applies to the points (g)(j) of the pair production. Instead of varying the cuts on , we fix it to and vary the cuts on instead, which now become [200,450] for SRA, [250,450] for SRB and [250,420] for SRC. The results obtained are tabulated in Table 1.
for discovery at 14 TeV  
SR + jets  SR Opt + jets  
Model  SRA  SRB  SRC  SRA  SRB  SRC 
(g)  3573  3463  2311  1477  1730  1938 
(h)  4972  4884  4133  2572  2872  3212 
(i)  5232  5210  4790  3131  3666  4131 
(j)  6160  6089  6039  3484  3934  4385 
It is clear that there is a noticeable improvement in the integrated luminosities whereby points (g) and (h) are now discoverable at the HLLHC. However, the integrated luminosities for those points at 28 TeV are still smaller. We note that no significant improvement is seen when trying to optimize the cuts for the 14 TeV case for the gluino production, i.e. points (a)(f).
3.2 The Two lepton channel
The second signal region (SR) consists of two same flavor opposite sign (SFOS) leptons which originate from the decay of the second neutralino through an offshell boson (except for point (f) where the boson is produced onshell). The chargino will decay into jets through a boson (mostly offshell) and an LSP (see Table 5). Hence this signal region under consideration here (named SFOS) consists of two SFOS light leptons, at least two jets and missing transverse energy. The leptonic decay of the second neutralino has a small branching ratio making this SR challenging and thus we do not expect it to perform as well as the single lepton channel. Further, the topology of this SUSY decay is very similar to standard model processes, i.e., the signal has the same shape as the SM background for some key kinematic variables which we discuss later.
The dominant standard model backgrounds for the SFOS final state consists of , + jets, diboson and dilepton production from offshell vector bosons. Subdominant backgrounds consists of Higgs production via gluon fusion ( H) and vector boson fusion (VBF). The selection criteria for this SR are presented in Table 7 where, again, two classes are considered: SFOScomp targeting soft final states from the pair production (points (g)(j)) and SFOS which is more suited for heavier electroweakinos resulting from the gluino decay (points (a)(f)). Some of the discriminating variables used here overlap with the ones in the single lepton channel. The distinct ones include:

The ratio describes the asymmetry between the two leading jets and is given by
(6) This quantity is most effective when the mass gap between the NLSP and the LSP is small and thus will be used in this SR SFOScomp.

The definition of the effective mass, , for this SR region is modified to become
(7) 
The ratio for this SR becomes
(10)
In Table 7 each
of the two signal regions is divided into three subregions, SRA, SRB and SRC which correspond to variations in the separation between the SFOS leptons, , for SFOScomp and the lepton transverse mass, , for SFOS. Again, one can see in Table 7 that
harder cuts are applied to the SFOS signal region. The cut on the dilepton invariant mass, is kept low for SFOScomp which removes backgrounds coming from the decay of a boson. A similar cut is applied to the SR SFOS, named veto, such that any dilepton mass within 10 GeV of the boson pole mass is rejected. An additional veto on btagged and tagged jets is applied to the SR 2SFOScomp. After applying the cuts of Table 7, the integrated luminosities required for a discovery are calculated and displayed in Table 10. As expected, this SR does not perform as well as the single lepton channel did where much lower integrated luminosities are observed.
Since the integrated luminosity scales like , then doubling the centerofmass energy means that the target integrated luminosity for the HELHC is around four times that of the HLLHC. Hence, we expect that a total of up to 10 or 12 of data to be collected at the HELHC. In Table 10, we can see that points (g)(j) can be discovered with an integrated luminosity of 267 for point (g) and for point (h). The rest of the points belonging to the gluino pair production case do not perform as well as in the single lepton channel. Points (e) and (f) are eliminated as they require more than 12 for discovery in this particular SR.
In order to showcase the distribution of the signal versus the background for this SR, we display in Fig. 7 scatter plots for some key kinematic variables. In the top left panel, a scatter plot in the  plane is shown for point (d) at TeV. One can see, as expected, that the signal (colored in orange) is clustered close to while the background is spread away which explains why a cut on close to 1 is needed to extract the signal. The top right panel shows a scatter plot in the  plane for the same points after applying all the cuts except for the cuts on and . The vertical and horizontal lines (with the arrows) show the position of the cuts on those variables. As a result, almost all of the signal points are maintained (in orange) and background (in red) is eliminated which has the largest remaining contribution after the cuts.
3.3 The three lepton channel
The final signal region to be considered is that of the three lepton channel. We require that two of the three selected leptons form a SFOS pair and no restrictions on the flavor and charge of the third lepton. For the SUSY signal, the SFOS pair comes from the decay of the second neutralino and the third lepton from the chargino decay. This channel also has a branching ratio smaller than the single lepton case. In cases where multiple SFOS pairs are present in an event, the transverse mass, is calculated for the unpaired lepton for each SFOS pairing and the minimum of the transverse masses, , is chosen and assigned to the boson mass. This variable and others used in this SR are listed in Table 8. The variable is the transverse momentum of the threelepton system, is as defined by Eq. (8) and the ratio becomes
(11) 
and
(12) 
As before, a preselection cut, GeV, is applied. The three variations, SRA, SRB and SRC, correspond to different values of the ratio . The dominant backgrounds for this channel are SM diboson processes. Other contributing processes include trivector, (), + jets, , , dilepton production from offshell vector bosons and Higgs production processes. After applying the cuts, the resulting integrated luminosities required for a discovery are calculated and shown in Table 11. The parameter points in Table 11 are discoverable with luminosities ranging from for point (d) to for point (i) at 28 TeV while none of these points would be visible at 14 TeV. The other points are removed from the table since they require a minimum integrated luminosity of more than 3000 for 14 TeV and 12 for 28 TeV. Despite having a higher production crosssection for a gluino pair, point (c) has a lower effective crosssection into the threelepton final state, i.e. which explains why the integrated luminosity for point (d) is lower. Similar to the two lepton channel, we show a scatter plot of point (d) in the  plane for this SR. This is displayed in the bottom panel of Fig. 7 and again shows the signal clustered near .
4 Estimate of uncertainties
In this section we give a rough estimate of the uncertainties associated with crosssection calculations which need to be propagated into the evaluated integrated luminosities. Theoretical systematic uncertainties arise from the renormalization and factorization scale variation, emission scale variation (for MLM merging), central scheme variation and parton distribution functions (PDF). For the gluino production crosssections and the standard model backgrounds, we estimate and for the neutralinochargino case systematics. MonteCarlo simulation adds an uncertainty of for signal and for background. Experimental uncertainties are numerous but the largest contributions usually come from jet energy scale (JES) and jet energy resolution (JER), along with diboson production. Those uncertainties affect each SR differently. Based on [47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52], for SR, experimental uncertainties can amount to , for SRSFOS and SR . The combined theoretical and experimental systematics for the signal and background are summarized in Table 12. The range of values given for the signal systematics correspond to the neutralinochargino production (lower bound) and gluino pair production (upper bound). The propagated uncertainties in the integrated luminosities are displayed in Table 13 for the leading and subleading SRs of the benchmark points of Table 2.
The analysis of this section shows that the dominant discovery channel for the class of models of Table 2 is most often the channel with a single lepton plus jets. This is exhibited in Table 13 where the discovery channel for all the parameter points is the single lepton plus jets channel, with the exception of point (g) where the discovery channel is the two lepton plus jets channel, SR2 SFOSA. From Tables 1, 9, 10 and 11 only the parameter points (a), (g), (h) and (i) are discoverable at HLLHC while all the parameter points (a)(j) are discoverable at HELHC. For those points which are discoverable both at HLLHC and HELHC, i.e., the points (a), (g), (h) and (i), the time scale for discovery at HELHC will be much shorter. Thus the discovery of points (a), (g), (h) and (i) would require a run of HLLHC for yr for (a) and (g), and yr for (h) and (i). The run period for discovery of these at HELHC will be weeks for (a), months for (g), yr for (h) and yr for (i) using the projection that HELHC will collect 820 fb of data per year [27].
5 Dark matter
We examine the detectability of the benchmark points of Table 2 through direct detection of the neutralino which with Rparity is the dark matter candidate in SUGRA models over most of the parameter space of models [77]. The gauginohiggsino content of the LSP determines the extent of detectability by virtue of the spinindependent (SI) and spindependent (SD) protonneutralino crosssection. The neutralino is a mixture of a bino, wino and higgsinos, thus , where represents the bino content, the wino and and the higgsino content. For points (a)(f) the LSP is winolike with , , and , which explains the small dark matter relic density (see Table 3), while for points (g)(j) the LSP is binolike, with , and and are negligible. It must be noted that point (i) is obtained in a nonuniversal Higgs scenario and thus has a higher higgsino content such that . This has a significant effect on the SI and SD crosssections which are displayed in Table 14 for all the benchmark points. The analysis shows that the SI cross sections lie below the current limits of XENON IT and LUXZEPLIN [78, 79] and often close to or even below the neutrino floor [80] which is the threshold for detectability. However, some of the parameter space may be accessible to LUXZEPLIN in the future.
6 Conclusions
The discovery of the Higgs boson mass at GeV indicates the scale of weak scale supersymmetry lying in the several TeV region.
A scale of this size is needed to generate a large loop correction that can boost the tree level mass of the Higgs boson which in supersymmetry
lies below the boson mass to its experimentally observed value. The high scale of weak scale supersymmetry makes the observation of
supersymmetry at colliders more difficult pointing to the need for colliders with energies even higher than the current LHC energy.
Presently we are in the LHC2 phase
with TeV centerofmass energy. This phase is expected to last till the end of the year 2018 and it is projected that the CMS and ATLAS
detectors will each have an integrated luminosity of 150 by then. Thus at the end of 2018, LHC will shut down for an upgrade to LHC3
which will have a centerofmass energy of 14 TeV, and will have its run in the period 20212023. In this period it is expected to collect 300 of
data. The final upgrade LHC4 is a high luminosity upgrade also referred to as HLLHC, which will occur over the period 20232026
and thereafter it will make a run over a ten year period and each detector is expected to collect up to 3000 of data.
A number of possibilities for the next collider after the LHC are under discussion. For supersymmetry, a protonproton collider is the most relevant machine and here
possibilities include a 100 TeV machine. At CERN a 100 TeV hadron collider will requires a 100 km circumference ring compared to the current
26.7 km circumference of the LHC collider. A second possible 100 km collider called Super protonproton Collider (SppC) is being considered in China.
Recently a new proposal, HELHC, which would be a 28 TeV LHC has been
discussed [25, 26, 27, 28, 29].
The main advantage
of this possibility is that this 28 TeV machine does not require a new tunnel and the upgrade in energy can be realized by use of more powerful
16 T magnets using FCC technology compared to the 8.3 T magnets currently used by the LHC.
In this work we have examined the potential for the discovery of supersymmetry within a class of high scale models at 28 TeV. In the analysis we also make a comparison of the discovery potential at HELHC with that of HLLHC. The set of benchmarks we consider are based on wellmotivated SUGRA models with radiative breaking of the electroweak symmetry. The models have scalar masses in the several TeV region and gaugino masses which are much lighter consistent with the Higgs boson mass constraint and the constraint of relic density for the lightest neutralino. All the benchmarks considered lie in regions which are not excluded by the current LHC data. The satisfaction of the relic density constraint requires chargino coannihilation which implies that the mass gap between the NLSP and the LSP is much smaller than the LSP mass which makes the detection of supersymmetry challenging which is typically the case for models with compressed spectra. In the analysis we utilized several signature channels which include single lepton, two lepton, and three lepton channels accompanied with jets. Two sets of model points were analyzed, those which are beyond the reach of HLLHC and, for comparison, also parameter points which are discoverable at HLLHC. For model points which are also discoverable at HLLHC, it is found that their discovery at HELHC would take a much shorter time reducing the run period of 58 yr at HLLHC to a run period of few weeks to yr at HELHC. Thus HELHC is a powerful tool for the discovery of supersymmetry and deserves serious consideration.
Acknowledgments: We thank Darien Wood for discussions related to HELHC and Baris Altunkaynak for discussions regarding some technical aspects of the analysis. The analysis presented here was done using the resources of the highperformance Cluster353 at the Advanced Scientific Computing Initiative (ASCI) and the Discovery Cluster at Northeastern University. This research was supported in part by the NSF Grant PHY1620575.
7 Tables
Model  

(a)  13998  30376  2155  1249  556  28 
(b)  9528  22200  2281  1231  573  34 
(c)  9288  20898  2471  1411  620  40 
(d)  28175  62830  2634  1541  751  41 
(e)  20335  44737  2459  1133  550  24 
(f)  22648  50505  2700  1585  675  15 
(g)  16520  37224  385  274  1685  16 
(h)  48647  106537  537  432  2583  26 
(i)  14266  28965  371  224  2984  20 
(j)  41106  108520  687  599  7454  42 
Model  

(a)  123.7  8022  973  1056  4730  1363  0.039 
(b)  125.4  6287  1023  1033  2080  1404  0.035 
(c)  123.4  5588  1110  1187  2883  1510  0.048 
(d)  123.5  15488  1188  1272  10032  1745  0.048 
(e)  123.9  11725  948  948  6775  1329  0.020 
(f)  124.4  13674  1236  1348  6976  1620  0.112 
(g)  124.2  10400  134.2  150.6  5271  3927  0.121 
(h)  123.7  26052  154.3  175.7  18591  5880  0.105 
(i)  124.1  1146  165.2  188.9  4171  6705  0.114 
(j)  125.3  29685  162.4  187.3  10405  15575  0.105 
TeV  TeV  
Model  
(a)  0.029  0.67 
(b)  0.023  0.55 
(c)  0.012  0.34 
(d)  0.004  0.14 
(e)  0.036  0.79 
(f)  0.007  0.23 
(g)  4.11  10.34 
(h)  2.25  5.86 
(i)  1.65  4.38 
(j)  1.78  4.71 
Model  ^{3}^{3}3For Br(, the boson is produced onshell  

(a)  0.66  0.29  0.05  1.0 
(b)  0.33  0.53  0.13  0.32 
(c)  0.63  0.33  0.04  0.33 
(d)  0.48  0.40  0.12  1.0 
(e)  0.36  0.63  0.01  0.25 
(f)  0.73  0.20  0.07  1.0 
(g)  0.88  0.12  0.67  0.33 
(h)  0.84  0.16  0.67  0.33 
(i)  0.68  0.32  0.67  0.33 
(j)  0.94  0.06  0.67  0.33 
SR 1comp  SR 1  
Requirement  SRA  SRB  SRC  SRA  SRB  SRC 
2  2  2  2  2  2  
150  150  150  
7  7  7  10  10  10  
0.6  0.7  0.85  0.7  0.8  0.85  
0.5  0.5  0.5  
110  110  110  
80  80  80  
50  50  50  
100  100  100  
200  200  200 
2SFOScomp  2SFOS  
Requirement  SRA  SRB  SRC  SRA  SRB  SRC 
2  2  2  2  2  2  
0.7  0.7  0.7  0.8  0.8  0.8  
0.4  0.4  0.4  
25  25  25  veto  
180  180  180  900  900  900  
400  400  400  
0.4  1.0  2.5  
700  700  700  
600  600  600 
SR 3comp  SR 3  
Requirement  SRA  SRB  SRC  SRA  SRB  SRC 
150  150  150  
100  100  100  
60  60  60  150  150  150  
0.45  0.5  0.55  0.55  0.6  0.65  
200  200  200 
for discovery in 1 + jets  
at 14 TeV  at 28 TeV  
Model  SRA  SRB  SRC  SRA  SRB  SRC 
(a)  2303  1837  1603  50  37  32 
(b)  3439  3264  3451  54  48  47 
(c)  9843  8323  7578  124  96  82 
(d)  16043  14174  13035  129  105  96 
(e)  8246  8640  9557  228  206  220 
(f)  43571  38015  40089  443  358  352 
(g)  3573  3463  2311  798  708  562 
(h)  4972  4884  4133  1081  983  996 
(i)  5232  5210  4790  1347  1220  1218 
(j)  6160  6089  6039  1402  1321  1520 
for discovery in 2 SFOS  
at 14 TeV  at 28 TeV  
Model  SRA  SRB  SRC  SRA  SRB  SRC 
(g)  4329  2867  5556  267  309  708 
(d)  247724  264867  263198  1144  1633  1816 
(a)  73784  71908  78635  1267  1883  2340 
(b)  64157  59748  80958  2265  2155  3390 
(c)  147802  164580  242630  2320  2560  2858 
(i)  4425  3102  2523  2687  2157  2321 
(h)  10594  5687  6043  6649  …  7837 
(j)  30292  37595  10207  3642  3000 
for discovery in 3 channel  
at 14 TeV  at 28 TeV  
Model  SRA  SRB  SRC  SRA  SRB  SRC 
(d)  …  …  …  1118  875  1081 
(c)  …  …  …  2265  1774  1610 
(g)  …  …  …  5942  5353  … 
(i)  …  …  …  6625  5968  5077 
Signal region  Signal systematics  Background systematics 

SR  11.415.8%  18.0% 
SRSFOS  13.917.7%  19.7% 
SR  17.520.6%  22.4% 
Model  Leading SR  (fb)  Subleading SR  (fb) 

(a)  SRC  SRB  
(b)  SRC  SRB  
(c)  SRC  SRB  
(d)  SRC  SRB  
(e)  SRB  SRC  
(g)  SR SFOSA  SR SFOSB  
(f)  SRC  SRB  
(h)  SRB  SRC  
(i)  SRC  SRB  
(j)  SRB  SRA 
Model  

(a)  6.99  0.187 
(b)  6.43  0.127 
(c)  1.96  0.043 
(d)  108.48  4.63 
(e)  40.21  1.55 
(f)  14.18  1.45 
(g)  201.94  8.14 
(h)  1472.54  91.66 
(i)  0.314  0.0003 
(j)  4284.49  143.35 
8 Figures
References
 [1] F. Englert and R. Brout, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 321 (1964). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.321
 [2] P. W. Higgs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 508 (1964). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.508
 [3] G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen and T. W. B. Kibble, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 585 (1964). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.585
 [4] S. Chatrchyan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 716, 30 (2012) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021 [arXiv:1207.7235 [hepex]].
 [5] G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 716, 1 (2012) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020 [arXiv:1207.7214 [hepex]].
 [6] S. Akula, B. Altunkaynak, D. Feldman, P. Nath and G. Peim, Phys. Rev. D 85, 075001 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.075001 [arXiv:1112.3645 [hepph]].
 [7] A. Arbey, M. Battaglia, A. Djouadi and F. Mahmoudi, JHEP 1209, 107 (2012) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2012)107 [arXiv:1207.1348 [hepph]].
 [8] H. Baer, V. Barger and A. Mustafayev, Phys. Rev. D 85, 075010 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.075010 [arXiv:1112.3017 [hepph]]; A. Arbey, M. Battaglia, A. Djouadi, F. Mahmoudi and J. Quevillon, Phys. Lett. B 708, 162 (2012) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.01.053 [arXiv:1112.3028 [hepph]]; P. Draper, P. Meade, M. Reece and D. Shih, Phys. Rev. D 85, 095007 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.095007 [arXiv:1112.3068 [hepph]]. M. Carena, S. Gori, N. R. Shah and C. E. M. Wagner, JHEP 1203, 014 (2012) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2012)014 [arXiv:1112.3336 [hepph]]; O. Buchmueller et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 2020 (2012) doi:10.1140/epjc/s1005201220203 [arXiv:1112.3564 [hepph]]; S. Akula, P. Nath and G. Peim, Phys. Lett. B 717, 188 (2012) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.09.007 [arXiv:1207.1839 [hepph]]; A. Fowlie, M. Kazana, K. Kowalska, S. Munir, L. Roszkowski, E. M. Sessolo, S. Trojanowski and Y. L. S. Tsai, Phys. Rev. D 86, 075010 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.075010 [arXiv:1206.0264 [hepph]]; C. Strege, G. Bertone, F. Feroz, M. Fornasa, R. Ruiz de Austri and R. Trotta, JCAP 1304, 013 (2013) doi:10.1088/14757516/2013/04/013 [arXiv:1212.2636 [hepph]].
 [9] H. Baer, V. Barger and M. Savoy, Phys. Scripta 90, 068003 (2015) doi:10.1088/00318949/90/6/068003 [arXiv:1502.04127 [hepph]].
 [10] A. H. Chamseddine, R. Arnowitt and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49 (1982) 970; P. Nath, R. L. Arnowitt and A. H. Chamseddine, Nucl. Phys. B 227, 121 (1983); L. J. Hall, J. D. Lykken and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 27, 2359 (1983). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.27.2359
 [11] P. Nath, “Supersymmetry, Supergravity, and Unification,” Cambridge University Press, 2016.
 [12] D. Larson et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. 192, 16 (2011) doi:10.1088/00670049/192/2/16 [arXiv:1001.4635 [astroph.CO]].
 [13] P. A. R. Ade et al. [Planck Collaboration], Astron. Astrophys. 594, A13 (2016) doi:10.1051/00046361/201525830 [arXiv:1502.01589 [astroph.CO]].
 [14] K. Griest and D. Seckel, Phys. Rev. D 43, 3191 (1991). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.43.3191
 [15] P. Nath and R. M. Syed, Phys. Scripta 92, no. 12, 124005 (2017) doi:10.1088/14024896/aa9512 [arXiv:1709.09718 [hepph]].
 [16] T. Ibrahim and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D 57, 478 (1998), [hepph/9708456].
 [17] T. Ibrahim and P. Nath, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 577 (2008) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.80.577 [arXiv:0705.2008 [hepph]].
 [18] P. Nath, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 2565 (1991). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.66.2565
 [19] Y. Kizukuri and N. Oshimo, Phys. Rev. D 46, 3025 (1992). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.46.3025
 [20] M. Liu and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D 87, no. 9, 095012 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.87.095012 [arXiv:1303.7472 [hepph]].
 [21] P. Nath and P. Fileviez Perez, Phys. Rept. 441, 191 (2007) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2007.02.010 [hepph/0601023].
 [22] A. Aboubrahim and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D 96, no. 7, 075015 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.075015 [arXiv:1708.02830 [hepph]].
 [23] N. ArkaniHamed, T. Han, M. Mangano and L. T. Wang, “Physics opportunities of a 100 TeV protonÐproton collider,” Phys. Rept. 652, 1 (2016) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2016.07.004 [arXiv:1511.06495 [hepph]].
 [24] M. Mangano, “Physics at the FCChh, a 100 TeV pp collider,” CERN Yellow Report CERN 2017003M doi:10.23731/CYRM2017003 [arXiv:1710.06353 [hepph]].
 [25] M. Benedikt and F. Zimmermann, “Proton Colliders at the Energy Frontier,” Nucl. Instrum. Meth. (2018) doi:10.1016/j.nima.2018.03.021 [arXiv:1803.09723 [physics.accph]].
 [26] F. Zimmermann, “Future Colliders for Particle Physics  ”Big and Small”,” arXiv:1801.03170 [physics.accph].
 [27] M. Benedikt, F. Zimmermann for the FCC Collaboration, talk at the HLLHC/HELHC Physics Workshop CERN, 30 October 2017,
 [28] H. Abramowicz, talk at ECFA meeting, 2017.
 [29] E. Todesco and F. Zimmermann (Eds.), Proceedings, EuCARD AccNetEuroLumi Workshop: The HighEnergy Large Hadron Collider (HELHC10): Villa Bighi, Malta, Republic of Malta, October 1416, 2010, CERN Yellow Report CERN2011003 (2011). Also available as arXiv:1111.7188.
 [30] L. E. Ibanez and G. G. Ross, Comptes Rendus Physique 8, 1013 (2007) doi:10.1016/j.crhy.2007.02.004 [hepph/0702046 [HEPPH]].
 [31] J. R. Ellis, K. Enqvist, D. V. Nanopoulos and K. Tamvakis, Phys. Lett. 155B, 381 (1985). doi:10.1016/03702693(85)915916; M. Drees, Phys. Lett. B 158, 409 (1985); G. Anderson, C.H. Chen, J.F. Gunion, J.D. Lykken, T. Moroi and Y. Yamada, [hepph/9609457].
 [32] A. Corsetti and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D 64, 125010 (2001); U. Chattopadhyay and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D 65, 075009 (2002); A. BirkedalHansen and B. D. Nelson, Phys. Rev. D 67, 095006 (2003); U. Chattopadhyay and D. P. Roy, Phys. Rev. D 68, 033010 (2003); D. G. Cerdeno and C. Munoz, JHEP 0410, 015 (2004); G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, A. Cottrant, A. Pukhov and A. Semenov, Nucl. Phys. B 706, 411 (2005); H. Baer, A. Mustafayev, E. K. Park, S. Profumo and X. Tata, JHEP 0604, 041 (2006); K. Choi and H. P. Nilles JHEP 0704 (2007) 006; I. Gogoladze, R. Khalid, N. Okada and Q. Shafi, arXiv:0811.1187 [hepph]; I. Gogoladze, F. Nasir, Q. Shafi and C. S. Un, Phys. Rev. D 90, no. 3, 035008 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.035008 [arXiv:1403.2337 [hepph]]; S. Bhattacharya, A. Datta and B. Mukhopadhyaya, Phys. Rev. D 78, 115018 (2008); M. E. Gomez, S. Lola, P. Naranjo and J. RodriguezQuintero, arXiv:0901.4013 [hepph]; B. Altunkaynak, P. Grajek, M. Holmes, G. Kane and B. D. Nelson, arXiv:0901.1145 [hepph]; U. Chattopadhyay, D. Das and D. P. Roy, arXiv:0902.4568 [hepph]; S. Bhattacharya and J. Chakrabortty, arXiv:0903.4196 [hepph]; S. P. Martin, Phys. Rev. D 79, 095019 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.095019 [arXiv:0903.3568 [hepph]].
 [33] A. S. Belyaev, S. F. King and P. B. Schaefers, arXiv:1801.00514 [hepph].
 [34] D. Matalliotakis and H. P. Nilles, Nucl. Phys. B435, 115(1995); M. Olechowski and S. Pokorski, Phys. Lett. B344, 201(1995); N. Polonski and A. Pomerol, Phys. Rev.D51, 6532(1995); P. Nath and R. Arnowitt, Phys. Rev. D 56, 2820 (1997); E. Accomando, R. L. Arnowitt, B. Dutta and Y. Santoso, Nucl. Phys. B 585, 124 (2000) doi:10.1016/S05503213(00)003217 [hepph/0001019]; J. R. Ellis, K. A. Olive and Y. Santoso, Phys. Lett. B 539, 107 (2002) [arXiv:hepph/0204192]; H. Baer, A. Mustafayev, S. Profumo, A. Belyaev and X. Tata, JHEP 0507, 065 (2005) [arXiv:hepph/0504001]; U. Chattopadhyay and D. Das, Phys. Rev. D 79, 035007 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.035007 [arXiv:0809.4065 [hepph]].
 [35] D. Feldman, Z. Liu and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 251802 (2007) Erratum: [Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 069902 (2008)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.251802 [arXiv:0707.1873 [hepph]]; Phys. Lett. B 662, 190 (2008); JHEP 0804, 054 (2008); N. Chen, D. Feldman, Z. Liu, P. Nath and G. Peim, Phys. Rev. D 83, 035005 (2011) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.83.035005 [arXiv:1011.1246 [hepph]]; D. Francescone, S. Akula, B. Altunkaynak and P. Nath, JHEP 1501, 158 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2015)158 [arXiv:1410.4999 [hepph]].
 [36] B. Kaufman, P. Nath, B. D. Nelson and A. B. Spisak, Phys. Rev. D 92, 095021 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.095021 [arXiv:1509.02530 [hepph]].
 [37] P. Nath and A. B. Spisak, Phys. Rev. D 93, no. 9, 095023 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.095023 [arXiv:1603.04854 [hepph]].
 [38] A. Aboubrahim, P. Nath and A. B. Spisak, Phys. Rev. D 95, no. 11, 115030 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.115030 [arXiv:1704.04669 [hepph]].
 [39] J. Dutta, P. Konar, S. Mondal, B. Mukhopadhyaya and S. K. Rai, JHEP 1601, 051 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2016)051 [arXiv:1511.09284 [hepph]].
 [40] M. Berggren, A. Cakir, D. Krcker, J. List, I. A. MelzerPellmann, B. Safarzadeh Samani, C. Seitz and S. Wayand, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, no. 4, 183 (2016) doi:10.1140/epjc/s1005201639142 [arXiv:1508.04383 [hepph]].
 [41] M. Berggren, PoS ICHEP 2016, 154 (2016) [arXiv:1611.04450 [hepph]].
 [42] T. J. LeCompte and S. P. Martin, Phys. Rev. D 85, 035023 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.035023 [arXiv:1111.6897 [hepph]].
 [43] V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, no. 2, 021802 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.021802 [arXiv:1605.09305 [hepex]].
 [44] V. Khachatryan et al. [CMS Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 767, 403 (2017) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.02.007 [arXiv:1605.08993 [hepex]].
 [45] L. Morvaj [ATLAS Collaboration], PoS EPS HEP2013, 050 (2013).
 [46] G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], JHEP 1405, 071 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2014)071 [arXiv:1403.5294 [hepex]].
 [47] G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], JHEP 1510, 054 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2015)054 [arXiv:1507.05525 [hepex]].
 [48] G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Eur. Phys. J. C 75, no. 5, 208 (2015) doi:10.1140/epjc/s1005201534087 [arXiv:1501.07110 [hepex]].
 [49] M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 97, no. 5, 052010 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.052010 [arXiv:1712.08119 [hepex]].
 [50] M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], arXiv:1712.02332 [hepex].
 [51] M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 96, no. 11, 112010 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.112010 [arXiv:1708.08232 [hepex]].
 [52] M. Aaboud et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], arXiv:1803.02762 [hepex].
 [53] K. L. Chan, U. Chattopadhyay and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D 58, 096004 (1998) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.58.096004 [hepph/9710473].
 [54] J. L. Feng, K. T. Matchev and T. Moroi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2322 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.2322 [hepph/9908309].
 [55] U. Chattopadhyay, A. Corsetti and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. D 68, 035005 (2003) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.68.035005 [hepph/0303201].
 [56] H. Baer, C. Balazs, A. Belyaev, T. Krupovnickas and X. Tata, JHEP 0306, 054 (2003) doi:10.1088/11266708/2003/06/054 [hepph/0304303].
 [57] D. Feldman, G. Kane, E. Kuflik and R. Lu, Phys. Lett. B 704, 56 (2011) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2011.08.063 [arXiv:1105.3765 [hepph]].
 [58] S. Akula, M. Liu, P. Nath and G. Peim, Phys. Lett. B 709, 192 (2012) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.01.077 [arXiv:1111.4589 [hepph]].
 [59] G. G. Ross, K. SchmidtHoberg and F. Staub, JHEP 1703, 021 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2017)021 [arXiv:1701.03480 [hepph]].
 [60] B. C. Allanach, Comput. Phys. Commun. 143, 305 (2002) doi:10.1016/S00104655(01)00460X [hepph/0104145].
 [61] B. C. Allanach, S. P. Martin, D. G. Robertson and R. Ruiz de Austri, Comput. Phys. Commun. 219, 339 (2017) doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2017.05.006 [arXiv:1601.06657 [hepph]].
 [62] G. Blanger, F. Boudjema, A. Pukhov and A. Semenov, Comput. Phys. Commun. 192, 322 (2015) doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2015.03.003 [arXiv:1407.6129 [hepph]].
 [63] A. Buckley, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, no. 10, 467 (2015) doi:10.1140/epjc/s1005201536388 [arXiv:1305.4194 [hepph]].
 [64] A. Djouadi, M. M. Muhlleitner and M. Spira, Acta Phys. Polon. B 38, 635 (2007) [hepph/0609292].
 [65] J. Alwall et al., JHEP 1407, 079 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2014)079 [arXiv:1405.0301 [hepph]].
 [66] T. Sjstrand et al., Comput. Phys. Commun. 191, 159 (2015) doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024 [arXiv:1410.3012 [hepph]].
 [67] J. de Favereau et al. [DELPHES 3 Collaboration], JHEP 1402, 057 (2014) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2014)057 [arXiv:1307.6346 [hepex]].
 [68] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1896 (2012) doi:10.1140/epjc/s1005201218962 [arXiv:1111.6097 [hepph]].
 [69] M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam and G. Soyez, JHEP 0804, 063 (2008) doi:10.1088/11266708/2008/04/063 [arXiv:0802.1189 [hepph]].
 [70] A. Avetisyan et al., arXiv:1308.1636 [hepex].
 [71] A. Buckley, J. Ferrando, S. Lloyd, K. Nordström, B. Page, M. Rüfenacht, M. Schönherr and G. Watt, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 132 (2015) doi:10.1140/epjc/s1005201533188 [arXiv:1412.7420 [hepph]].
 [72] I. Antcheva et al., Comput. Phys. Commun. 182, 1384 (2011). doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2011.02.008
 [73] G. C. Fox and S. Wolfram, Phys. Rev. Lett. 41, 1581 (1978). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.41.1581
 [74] C. G. Lester and D. J. Summers, Phys. Lett. B 463, 99 (1999) doi:10.1016/S03702693(99)009454 [hepph/9906349].
 [75] A. Barr, C. Lester and P. Stephens, J. Phys. G 29, 2343 (2003) doi:10.1088/09543899/29/10/304 [hepph/0304226].
 [76] C. G. Lester and B. Nachman, JHEP 1503, 100 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2015)100 [arXiv:1411.4312 [hepph]].
 [77] R. L. Arnowitt and P. Nath, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 725 (1992). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.725
 [78] M. Schumann, EPJ Web Conf. 96, 01027 (2015) doi:10.1051/epjconf/20159601027 [arXiv:1501.01200 [astroph.CO]].
 [79] P. Cushman et al., arXiv:1310.8327 [hepex].
 [80] L. E. Strigari, New J. Phys. 11, 105011 (2009) doi:10.1088/13672630/11/10/105011 [arXiv:0903.3630 [astroph.CO]].