You are a helpful assistant generating synthetic data that captures *System 1* and *System 2* thinking, *creativity*, and *metacognitive reflection*. Follow these steps in sequence, using tags [sys1] and [end sys1] for *System 1* sections and [sys2] and [end sys2] for *System 2* sections.

1. *Identify System 1 and System 2 Thinking Requirements:*
   - Carefully read the text.
   - Identify parts of the text that require quick, straightforward responses (*System 1*). Mark these sections with [sys1] and [end sys1].
   - Identify parts that require in-depth, reflective thinking (*System 2*), marked with [sys2] and [end sys2].

2. *Apply Step-by-Step Problem Solving with Creativity and Metacognitive Reflection for System 2 Sections:*

   *2.1 Understand the Problem:*
   - Objective: Fully comprehend the issue, constraints, and relevant context.
   - Reflection: "What do I understand about this issue? What might I be overlooking?"
   - Creative Perspective: Seek hidden patterns or possibilities that could reveal deeper insights or innovative connections.

   *2.2 Analyze the Information:*
   - Objective: Break down the problem logically.
   - Reflection: "Am I considering all factors? Are there any assumptions that need challenging?"
   - Creative Perspective: Explore unique patterns or overlooked relationships in the data that could add depth to the analysis.

   *2.3 Generate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Propose at least 10 hypotheses, each with a Confidence Score (0.0 to 1.0) and Creative Score (0.0 to 1.0), reflecting originality, surprise, and utility.
   - Reflection: "Have I explored all possible explanations or approaches, both conventional and unconventional?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider novel angles that might provide unexpected insights.

   *2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:*
   - Objective: Make predictions, accounting for potential outcomes and obstacles.
   - Reflection: "What challenges might I face? Is my plan flexible for different scenarios?"
   - Creative Perspective: Visualize unforeseen outcomes and adapt plans to make use of them effectively.

   *2.5 Evaluate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Assess hypotheses based on feasibility, risk, and potential impact.
   - Evaluation: Refine Confidence and Creative Scores as needed.
   - Reflection: "Am I unbiased in my assessment? Which options fit best with the overall objectives?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify hidden opportunities or overlooked details in each hypothesis.

   *2.6 Select the Best Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Choose the most promising, strategic hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Why does this hypothesis stand out? How does it uniquely address the issue?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider any underutilized potential in the selected approach.

   *2.7 Implement the Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Outline actionable steps for testing the hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Is this plan practical? What resources or preparation are required?"
   - Creative Perspective: Refine steps to maximize effectiveness and yield unexpected benefits.

   *2.8 Monitor and Review Progress:*
   - Objective: Review progress, noting areas for improvement.
   - Reflection: "What’s working well? What could be improved?"
   - Creative Perspective: Look for emerging patterns that could refine future approaches.

   *2.9 Reflect and Capture Insights:*
   - Objective: Summarize lessons learned and insights gained for future reference.
   - Reflection: "What new understanding has emerged from this process?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify innovative insights or patterns that could be applied to similar challenges.

3. *Generate Text Output with Interleaved System 1 and System 2 Responses:*
   - Use the tags [sys1] and [sys2] throughout.
   - Aim for a lengthier, detailed response. Combine both direct, straightforward *System 1* insights and reflective, deeply analytical *System 2* segments to capture a blend of quick observations and thoughtful analysis.

---

### *Example Input Text:*

You are tasked with analyzing a sudden shift in customer preferences in a tech market. There has been a noticeable decline in demand for physical devices, with customers increasingly interested in digital-only options. The challenge is to understand this shift, generate hypotheses for why it might be occurring, and explore potential strategies for adapting to this new trend.

---

### *Processed Output with System 1 and System 2 Thinking:*

The tech market is experiencing a shift in customer demand, moving away from physical devices toward digital-only options.

[sys1]
Customer demand has shifted from physical devices to digital-only options.
We need to understand why this change is happening and find strategies to address it.
Key factors may include cost, convenience, and technological trends.
[end sys1]

[sys2]
**2.1 Understand the Problem:**
The goal is to understand the underlying reasons for the shift in demand from physical devices to digital-only options, then develop a strategy to adapt.

*Reflection:* 
"I understand that preferences are changing, but what might be driving this? Is it primarily cost, or are there other factors such as convenience or sustainability?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could there be a larger trend in digital minimalism or a preference for eco-friendly solutions that we’re missing? What unseen motivations might explain this shift?"

**2.2 Analyze the Information:**
There are multiple possible factors driving this shift, from economic influences to cultural shifts. It’s essential to isolate each factor and understand its impact.

*Reflection:* 
"Am I fully considering the various economic and social influences? Could there be a technological factor, like better internet speeds, that makes digital-only products more accessible?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Are there patterns or trends in other markets that could shed light on this shift? Could this be part of a larger trend toward virtual experiences?"

**2.3 Generate Hypotheses:**
1. Customers prefer digital options due to lower costs. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.4)
2. There’s a growing trend toward minimalism and reduced physical clutter. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.7)
3. Digital products offer greater flexibility and ease of use. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
4. Environmental concerns are pushing consumers away from physical goods. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.8)
5. Advances in tech make digital-only options more functional. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.5)
6. Pandemic-era remote work increased demand for digital solutions. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.6)
7. Media coverage of the environmental impact of physical devices affects preferences. (Confidence: 0.5, Creative: 0.7)
8. There’s an increase in global digital literacy, expanding market access. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
9. Customers view digital as more convenient and scalable for future needs. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.5)
10. Younger consumers prefer the aesthetics and convenience of digital products. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)

*Reflection:* 
"Have I considered all possible influences? Are there any surprising factors that could explain this shift?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could specific social trends, like the rise of influencer culture or digital-first lifestyles, be influencing customer choices?"

**2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:**
*Objective:* Anticipate possible challenges, such as resistance from segments still preferring physical products.

*Reflection:* 
"What market obstacles might we face if we shift our focus to digital-only? Are there sub-segments that still prioritize physical products?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could expanding digital options help us reach a more global audience? Are there emerging trends that we could leverage in our strategy?"

[end sys2]

[sys1]
To address this shift, consider a strategy that incorporates both digital-only offerings and educational campaigns about the benefits of digital solutions.
Use insights from customer feedback and current trends to guide product development.
Focus on flexibility and adaptation to cater to different customer segments.
[end sys1]


\#1\#2\#3\#4[[\#1]{} [**\#2**]{}, \#3 (\#4)]{}

0.7in

[**Phenomenology of “inos” in the Light Gaugino Scenario,\
and Possible Evidence for a $\sim 53$ GeV Chargino**]{}\
[^1]\
\

0.3in [**Abstract:**]{} The tree-level-massless gaugino scenario predicts that the lighter chargino mass is less than $m_W$ and that gluino and lightest neutralino masses are $ {\,\raisebox{-0.13cm}{$\stackrel{\textstyle<}
{\textstyle\sim}$}\,}1$ GeV. In this case the dominant decay mode of charginos and non-LSP neutralinos is generically to three jets. The excess of “$4j$” events with total invariant mass $\sim 105$ GeV observed in LEP running at 130-136 GeV is noted to be consistent with pair production of $\sim 53$ GeV charginos. Data at 161 and 172 GeV from Fall, 1996, cannot conclusively test this hypothesis (because cuts to eliminate $W^+W^-$ background reduce the efficiency significantly) but is suggestive that the signal persists.

Some supersymmetry (SUSY) breaking scenarios produce negligible tree-level gaugino masses and scalar trilinear couplings ($M_1=M_2=M_3=A=0$). This has several attractive theoretical consequences such as the absence of the “SUSY CP problem" and avoidance of certain cosmological problems[@f99101]. Although massless at tree level, gauginos get calculable masses through radiative corrections from electroweak (gaugino/higgsino-Higgs/gauge boson) and top-stop loops. Evaluating these within the constrained parameter space leads to a gluino mass range $m_{\tilde{g}}\sim
\frac{1}{10} - \frac{1}{2}$ GeV and photino mass range $m_{\tilde{\gamma}} \sim \frac{1}{10} - 1 \frac{1}{2}$ GeV[@f99101]. The chargino and other neutralino masses are, at tree level, functions only of $\mu$ and $tan \beta$. In particular, $$2 M_{{\chi^{\pm}}}^2 = \mu^2 + 2 m_W^2 \pm \sqrt{\mu^4 + 4 m_W^4 cos^2
2 \beta + 4 m_W^2 \mu^2}, 
\label{mch}$$ so one chargino is lighter, and the other heavier, than $m_W$. The photino is an attractive dark matter candidate, with a correct abundance for parameters in the predicted ranges[@f:100].

Due to the non-negligible mass of the photino compared to the lightest gluino-containing hadron, prompt photinos[@f:24] are not a useful signature for the light gluinos and the energy they carry[@f:51]. Gluino masses less than about $ \frac{1}{2}$ GeV are largely unconstrained[@f:95]. \[The recent claims[@murfod] that LEP $Z^0 \rightarrow 4j$ data can be used to exclude light gluinos are premature. The statistical power of the data is indeed sufficient, however the relevant angular distributions are sensitive to jet definition and higher order effects such as 5-jet production, so systematic uncertainties dominate and no conclusions can be drawn until such effects can be controlled[^2]\] The lifetime of the gluon-gluino bound state ($R^0$) is predicted to be $10^{-5}-10^{-10}$ sec[@f99101]. Proposals for direct searches for hadrons containing gluinos, via their decays in $K^0$ beams and otherwise, are given in Ref. [@f:104; @nussinov].

For the purposes of detecting squarks and charginos, the crucial phenomenological difference arising when the gluino is light rather than heavy as is usually assumed, is that the gluino is long-lived. Therefore it makes a jet rather than missing energy[@f:51]. Squarks decay to gluino and quark, thus generating two jets with negligible missing energy. QCD background makes it impossible, with present jet resolution, to search at hadron colliders in the dijet channel for masses lower than about 200 GeV; a search for equal-mass dijet pairs as suggested in [@f:105] has not yet been completed. At present, the best squark mass limits come from the hadronic width of the $Z^0$ and are only $\sim 50-60$ GeV[@sqlim; @f:105].

If the gluino is light, the lighter chargino and the three heavier neutralinos will usually decay to $q \bar{q'} {\tilde{g}}$, via a virtual or real squark[^3], unless all flavors of squarks are much more massive than sneutrinos, sleptons and $W$’s. The heavier chargino generally has the kinematically allowed two-body decay ${\chi^{\pm}}_2
\rightarrow W^{\pm} + {\tilde{\gamma}}$.

Although ${\chi^{\pm}}_1 \rightarrow q \bar{q'} {\tilde{g}}$ gives a 3-parton final state, it may be reconstructed as $2j$, particularly when one jet is much softer than the others. Then, the hadrons of the soft jet have low invariant mass with respect to hadrons of the other jets and the jet finding algorithm can interpret the multijet system as $2j$. The likelihood of this increases when $M_{{\chi^{\pm}}} - M_{{\tilde{q}}} << M_{{\chi^{\pm}}}$, as is illustrated by the cascade chain ${\chi^{\pm}}\rightarrow {\tilde{q}}+ q'~, {\tilde{q}}\rightarrow {\tilde{g}}q$, for which $E(q')\approx
M_{{\chi^{\pm}}}-M_{{\tilde{q}}}$ and $E({\tilde{g}}) = E(q) = M_{{\tilde{q}}}/2$, in the ${\chi^{\pm}}$ rest frame. Below we will use $P_{6},~ P_{5},~P_4$ to denote the probabilities that ${\chi^{\pm}}\chi^{\mp}$ decay produces events which are designated $6j,~5j,~4j$ in the experimental analysis. Since these depend strongly on $M_{{\chi^{\pm}}}-M_{{\tilde{q}}}$, a limit on, say, $P_6/P_4$ implies a limit on the mass splitting between chargino and intermediate squark.

In the LEP 130 and 136 GeV run, ALEPH observed 16 $4j$ events when 8.6 were expected [@aleph:4j]. Their jet-reconstruction algorithm explicitly merged $5j$ to $4j$ (i.e., $P_5 \equiv 0$), and ignored the small number of clear $6j$ events[^4]. Nine events were observed in the total-dijet-mass range 102-108 GeV when 0.8 event was expected. Most of the events in the peak region are not characteristic of the SM expectation in their kinematic distribution, and they have a dijet charge-difference $\Delta Q$ larger than expected in the SM and well-described by a parton-level $\Delta Q = 2$ as predicted for ${\chi^{\pm}}\chi^{\mp}$ events. A statistical fluctuation or experimental reconstruction artifact would not readily account for such deviations from SM event characteristics.

The other three LEP experiments, using the ALEPH analysis procedure, found 6 events in the 102-108 GeV bin, when 2.6 were expected. Including events from 19 pb$^{-1}$ of data at $E_{cm} = 161$ and 171 GeV, ALEPH finds a total of 18 events in the peak region when 3.1 are expected[^5]. The other experiments have reported neither a significant signal nor upper limit, so far[^6].

It should be emphasized that there is a substantial uncertainty in the expected rate of $\ge 4$ jet events due to the renormalization scale sensitivity of the tree-level cross sections which have been used. For instance, the observed rate of $Z^0 \rightarrow 4j~ (5j)$ is a factor 3 (5) higher than predicted taking the scale $\mu =
m_Z$[@opal:5j]. Thus the important feature of the LEP $4j$ anomaly is the [*peaking*]{} in total invariant mass and the anomalous properties of the correct fraction of peak region events.

In order to quote a cross section corresponding to the observed rate of anomalous events it is necessary to make an assumption as to the source of the signal. Taking it to be due to pair production of equal mass particles which decay to two jets[^7] implies a cross section at 130-136 GeV of $3.1~\pm~1.7$ pb using ALEPH alone, or $1.2 ~\pm
~0.4$ pb averaging all LEP experiments[@mattig]. Averaging the 161 GeV data available at Warsaw, Mattig quotes a 95% cl upper limit of 0.85 pb assuming the same efficiency as at 130-136 GeV. Extrapolating 1.2 pb from 130-136 GeV with $1/s$ gives 0.8 pb.

Pair production of $\sim 53$ GeV charginos could give rise to “$4j$” events with total dijet mass of 105 GeV at the observed rate and with the observed $\Delta Q$ values. Let us denote by $\epsilon_{6/4}$ the ratio of probabilities that a ${\chi^{\pm}}\chi^{\mp} \rightarrow 6j$ or a $h A \rightarrow 4j$ event is accepted by the ALEPH cuts. Like the $P_i$’s defined above, $\epsilon_{6/4}$ depends on $M_{{\tilde{q}}}$ as well as $E_{cm}$. A careful Monte Carlo calculation is needed to determine these quantities. The two (hard) gluino jets contain $R^0$’s[^8] which may decay before reaching the calorimeter (typically, to $\pi^+
\pi^- {\tilde{\gamma}}$[@f:104]). Due to experimental imprecision in energy measurements, the ALEPH $4j$ analysis rescales the momenta and energies of jets to obtain an improvement in precision by enforcing overall energy momentum conservation. The directions of the jets are assumed to be accurately measured, and the jets taken to be massless. Energy-momentum conservation provides 4 equations, so up to 4 jets can be independently rescaled. If an event actually contains 6 jets, possibly with some energy and directional imprecision due to $R^0$ decays, the rescaling procedure distorts the dijet invariant masses. Detailed Monte Carlo study is needed to estimate the $P_i$’s, ${\epsilon_{6/4}}$ and predict the dijet mass-sum and mass-difference distributions and other observables.

The chargino production cross section depends on $\mu,~tan \beta$ and $M_{{\tilde{\nu}}_e}$. $M_{{\chi^{\pm}}_1}= 53$ GeV requires a relation between $\mu$ and $tan \beta$, eq. (\[mch\]). Imposing $M_{{\chi^{0}}_2} \ge 38$ GeV (see below), causes $[\mu,tan\beta]$ to range between $[45,1.6]$ and $[70,1] $[^9]. In this constrained parameter space the chargino contains comparable higgsino and wino components. The main uncertainty in the cross section comes from its sensitivity to the electron sneutrino mass, $M_{{\tilde{\nu}}_e}$. For $M_{{\tilde{\nu}}_e} = 60$ GeV, $tan \beta = 1.4$ and $\mu
= 56$ GeV, one finds[@mlm:xsecn] $\sigma(\chi^+ \chi^-) = 3.6$ pb at $E = 130-136$ GeV, and 2.1 (1.9) pb at $E=161~(190)$ GeV. For $M_{{\tilde{\nu}}_e} = 50$ GeV the lowest $\sigma_{\chi^+_1 \chi^-_1}(130-136 {\rm
GeV}) = 2.4$ pb, while for $M_{{\tilde{\nu}}_e}>> M_{{\chi^{\pm}}_1}$ the 130-136 GeV cross section could be as large as 14 pb, for $tan \beta = 1$ and $\mu = 68.4$ GeV.

Comparing to the LEP average ($1.2 \pm 0.4$ pb, assuming $hA$ for the efficiency) these predicted cross sections are compatible with $br(\chi^{\pm} \rightarrow 3j) = 1$ if ${\epsilon_{6/4}}{\,\raisebox{-0.13cm}{$\stackrel{\textstyle<}
{\textstyle\sim}$}\,}\frac{1}{2}$. If ${\epsilon_{6/4}}> \frac{1}{2}$, a competing decay mode to reduce $br(\chi^{\pm} \rightarrow 3j)$ would be indicated. This could be ${\chi^{\pm}}_1 \rightarrow l {\tilde{\nu}}$, with the ${\tilde{\nu}}$ decaying to lsp and neutrino. The branching fraction for ${\chi^{\pm}}_1 \rightarrow l {\tilde{\nu}}$ is a very sensitive function of the sneutrino mass and also depends on the squark mass and the number of light sneutrinos. The mass splitting $M({\chi^{\pm}}) - M({\tilde{\nu}})$ must be ${\,\raisebox{-0.13cm}{$\stackrel{\textstyle<}
{\textstyle\sim}$}\,}1$ GeV in order not to excessively reduce the branching fraction to the hadronic channel. With such a small splitting, the lepton energy is too low for lepton identification so the events with one or both charginos decaying leptonically would not be noticed. However ${\chi^{\pm}}\rightarrow \tilde{l} 
\nu$ would give rise to a hard lepton and thus would show up in conventional SUSY searches, so we can infer $M(\tilde{l}) {\,\raisebox{-0.13cm}{$\stackrel{\textstyle>}
{\textstyle\sim}$}\,}M({\chi^{\pm}}_1)$.

A stop lighter than the chargino, decaying through FCNC mixing to a gluino and charm quark, may be excludable by ALEPH. It would lead to two hard $c$ jets in each event (plus two soft $b$ jets if ${\chi^{\pm}}_1
\rightarrow \tilde{t}_1 + b$ were allowed). ALEPH has searched for hard $b$ jets in their $4j$ sample. They found only a single event consistent with a displaced vertex, or excess lepton activity from the $e$ or $\mu$, which would be expected in 20% of hard $b$ decays[@aleph:4j]. Although the detection efficiency of hard $c$’s and soft $b$’s is lower than for hard $b$’s, it may still be large enough to exclude the dominant chargino decay being ${\chi^{\pm}}_1
\rightarrow \tilde{g} + c + b$. This would either mean that $M_{\tilde{t}_1} {\,\raisebox{-0.13cm}{$\stackrel{\textstyle>}
{\textstyle\sim}$}\,}M_{{\chi^{\pm}}_1}$ or that the dominant decay of the stop is $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow \tilde{g} + u$. Since FCNC mixing involving the third generation is poorly constrained, the latter possibility should not be dismissed[^10].

We can hope that higher integrated luminosity will allow the 53 GeV chargino hypothesis to be confirmed or excluded, however this will not be easy. In future runs at higher CM energy the jet systems from each chargino decay will be better collimated and more readily separated from one another, so the angular distribution of the jet systems can be more cleanly determined than at lower energy. It should $\sim 1 + cos^2
\theta$ because charginos are spin-1/2. On the other hand, Monte Carlo simulations[^11] show that the resolution in dijet mass difference does not improve significantly with energy even for genuine two-body decays of pair-produced particles, due to reduced effectiveness of the energy-momentum constraint at higher energy. This will be an even more severe problem for the $6j$ case at hand. It is ironic that $W^+ W^-$ production is a non-trivial background at 161 GeV and above, since $W$’s presumably decay with rather high probability to $>
2j$ (40 % of $Z^0$ decays contain $\ge 3j$, with $y_{cut} = 0.01$) and their cross section is much larger than that of the $4j$ signal.

Now let us turn to the neutralinos and heavier chargino whose masses are shown in Fig. \[masses\] for $M({\chi^{\pm}}_1) = 53$ GeV. ${\chi^{0}}_1
{\chi^{0}}_1$ and ${\chi^{0}}_1 {\chi^{0}}_2$ production is suppressed because ${\chi^{0}}_1$ is practically pure photino. Since the final state of ${\chi^{0}}_2 {\chi^{0}}_2$ is $6j$, existing neutralino searches would not have been sensitive to it, so the best limit comes from the hadronic width of the $Z^0$, whose PDG value is $\Gamma_{had}(Z^0) = 1741 \pm 6$ MeV. Requiring the ${\chi^{0}}_2 {\chi^{0}}_2$ contribution to be $< 10$ MeV implies $M({\chi^{0}}_2) \ge 38$ GeV, which in turn limits the $[\mu, tan \beta]$ range to $[45,1.6] - [70,1]$. For $M_{{\chi^{0}}_2} = 38$ GeV, ${\chi^{0}}_2$ has a large $\tilde{h}_D$ component (${\chi^{\pm}}_2 = -0.86 \tilde{h}_D -0.39
\tilde{h}_U + 0.31 \tilde{z}^0$). This leads to an excess in the $b
\bar{b} {\tilde{g}}$ final state in ${\chi^{0}}_2$ decay, but not enough to affect $R_b$ significantly. At 130-136 GeV, $\sigma(e^+ e^- \rightarrow {\chi^{0}}_2
{\chi^{0}}_2) < 0.5$ pb for typical parameter choices, although for $M({\chi^{0}}_2) {\,\raisebox{-0.13cm}{$\stackrel{\textstyle<}
{\textstyle\sim}$}\,}45$ GeV the cross section (including enhancement from initial state radiation) is ${\,\raisebox{-0.13cm}{$\stackrel{\textstyle>}
{\textstyle\sim}$}\,}1$ pb. Thus a small number of events might be present in the LEP multi-jet samples. Such events should exhibit $\Delta Q$ consistent with zero. Production of ${\chi^{0}}_2
{\chi^{0}}_3$ is at least an order of magnitude lower.

Since ${\chi^{\pm}}_2 \rightarrow W {\tilde{\gamma}}$, Drell-Yan production of ${\chi^{\pm}}_2
{\chi^{\pm}}_2$ and ${\chi^{\pm}}_2 {\chi^{0}}$ might be detectable in $p \bar{p}$ collisions via events with $3j + W + E_{miss}$, where the $3j$ system has an invariant mass of ${\chi^{\pm}}_2$ or ${\chi^{0}}$ (see Fig. 1). The $6j$ signal would probably be difficult to discriminate from QCD background. For some range of parameters$^b$ ${\chi^{0}}_3 \rightarrow
\gamma {\tilde{\gamma}}$ might lead to $\gamma E_{miss}$ at an interesting rate.

To summarize:\
$\bullet$ The tree-level-massless gaugino scenario predicts $m(\chi^0_1) {\,\raisebox{-0.13cm}{$\stackrel{\textstyle<}
{\textstyle\sim}$}\,}1 $ GeV and $m(\chi^{\pm}_1) {\,\raisebox{-0.13cm}{$\stackrel{\textstyle<}
{\textstyle\sim}$}\,}m_W$; the measured $Z^0$ hadronic width requires $m(\chi^0_2) {\,\raisebox{-0.13cm}{$\stackrel{\textstyle>}
{\textstyle\sim}$}\,}38 $ GeV.\
$\bullet$ The generic final state for neutralinos and charginos in the light gaugino scenario is three jets, unless $m({\tilde{\nu}})$ or $m(\tilde{l})$ is small enough that two-body leptonic decays are allowed. The heavier chargino has the characteristic 2-body decay ${\chi^{\pm}}_2 \rightarrow W^{\pm} {\tilde{\gamma}}$.\
$\bullet$ Chargino production and decay may account for the rate and characteristics of “$4j$” events seen at LEP, for chargino mass of $\approx 53$ GeV. No R-parity violation is needed.\
$\bullet$ If the present hint of charginos at 53 GeV disappears, experiments should still search for charginos via a $6j$ signature until light gluinos are ruled out. At $E_{cm}=190$ GeV the cross section for chargino pair production is greater than 1.4 pb for $M_{{\tilde{\nu}}_e} = 100$ GeV, even for the most pessimistic case of degenerate charginos with mass $m_W$. Above $WW$ threshold the $6j$ signal is difficult to discriminate from the background, however.

[**Acknowledgements:**]{} I am indebted to many people for information and helpful discussions, including M. Albrow, H. Baer, J. Berryhill, J. Carr, J. Conway, J. Feng, H. Frisch, E. Gross, G. Kane, P. Janot, M. Mangano, F. Richard, M. Schmitt, A. Tilquin, and S. L. Wu.

[10]{}

G. R. Farrar. RU-95-17 (hep-ph/9504295) and RU-95-25 (hep-ph/9508291), Rutgers Univ., 1995.

G. R. Farrar and E. W. Kolb. , D53:2990, 1996.

G. R. Farrar and P. Fayet. , 79B:442–446, 1978.

G. R. Farrar. , 53:1029–1033, 1984.

G. R. Farrar. , D51:3904, 1995.

A. de Gouvea and H. Murayama. LBL-39030 (hep-ph/9606449), 1996. F.  Csikor and Z. Fodor. CERN-TH/96-323,ITP-Budapest 522 (hep-ph/9606449), 1996.

G. R. Farrar. , 76:4111, 1996.

S.  Nussinov. hep-ph/9610236, 1996.

G. R. Farrar. , 76:4115, 1996.

L. Clavelli et al. , B291:426, 1992. G. Bhattacharyya and A. Raychaudhuri. , D49:1156, 1994.

The Aleph Collaboration. Technical Report PPE/96-052, CERN, 1996.

The Opal Collaboration. Opal Physics Note PN-188, Brussels EPS-HEP 1995.

P. Mattig. In [*Proceedings of the XXVIII Intl. Conf. for High Energy Physics, Warsaw, July 24-31*]{}. World Scientific, 1996.

A. deRujula and R. Petronzio. , B261:587, 1985.

M. Mangano, G. Ridolfi, et al. Yellow Report 96-01 p299, CERN (hep-ph/9602203), 1996.

=

[^1]: Invited talk at ICHEP96, Warsaw, July, 1996. Based on contributed paper pa11-048 and RU-96-71 (hep-ph/9608387). Research supported in part by NSF-PHY-94-23002

[^2]: C.f., J. W. Gary, CTEQ Workshop on QCD, FNAL, Nov. 1996.

[^3]: For $M_{{\tilde{q}}} \sim m_W$, decay via virtual squark is a factor $\frac{2 \cdot 8 \alpha_3}{(2 \cdot 3 + 3)
    \alpha_2} \sim 5$ larger than via a virtual $W$, summing over the two generations of light quarks and three generations of leptons, and a factor $8\frac{\alpha_3}{\alpha_2} \sim 25$ larger than via virtual slepton or sneutrino. When $tan \beta \approx 1$, ${\chi^{0}}_3 \approx
    \tilde{h}_U + \tilde{h}_D$ and has very little $\tilde{z}$ component; its dominant decay mode may be ${\chi^{0}}_3 \rightarrow \gamma {\tilde{\gamma}}$, through a stop-top loop.

[^4]: M. Schmitt, private communication.

[^5]: F. Ragusa, LEPC Nov. 19, 1996

[^6]: C.f., joint LEP seminar, CERN, Oct. 8, 1996.

[^7]: E.g., $h~A$, although that is unlikely to be the origin of the excess events, since the predicted cross section is 0.49 pb for $M(h) = M(A) = 53$ GeV and there is no observed excess of $b \bar{b}$’s in the events.

[^8]: Refs. [@nussinov; @deR_P] estimate their $x_F$.

[^9]: We take $tan \beta \ge 1$ without loss of generality because in the absence of tree-level gaugino masses and scalar trilinear couplings, the chargino and neutralino spectrum is unchanged by $tan \beta \rightarrow 1/(tan \beta)$; only the roles of the higgsinos, $h_U$ and $h_D$, are interchanged in the eigenstates.

[^10]: If $M_{\tilde{t}_1} +
    m_{\tilde{g}} < m_t $, $br(t \rightarrow \tilde{t}_1 + \tilde{g})
    \approx \frac{1}{2}$ and $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow \chi^+_1 b$, $c
    \tilde{g}$, or $u {\tilde{g}}$. The rate of purely SM decays in $t \bar{t}$ events would be reduced, but present theoretical and experimental uncertainties in $\sigma(p \bar{p} \rightarrow t \bar{t})$ are too large to exclude this, especially when the stop decays to $b$ quark plus multijets. More promising is to compare the ratio of $t
    \bar{t}$ events obtained with a single lepton versus dilepton tag. I am indebted to S. Lammel for a discussion of this point.

[^11]: (M. Schmitt, FNAL seminar, Nov. 22, 1996.