Abstract
Two related searches for phenomena beyond the standard model (BSM) are performed using events with hadronic jets and significant transverse momentum imbalance. The results are based on a sample of proton–proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of \(13\,\text {Te}\text {V} \), collected by the CMS experiment at the LHC in 2016–2018 and corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 137\(\,\text {fb}^{-1}\). The first search is inclusive, based on signal regions defined by the hadronic energy in the event, the jet multiplicity, the number of jets identified as originating from bottom quarks, and the value of the kinematic variable \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) for events with at least two jets. For events with exactly one jet, the transverse momentum of the jet is used instead. The second search looks in addition for disappearing tracks produced by BSM long-lived charged particles that decay within the volume of the tracking detector. No excess event yield is observed above the predicted standard model background. This is used to constrain a range of BSM models that predict the following: the pair production of gluinos and squarks in the context of supersymmetry models conserving R-parity, with or without intermediate long-lived charginos produced in the decay chain; the resonant production of a colored scalar state decaying to a massive Dirac fermion and a quark; or the pair production of scalar and vector leptoquarks each decaying to a neutrino and a top, bottom, or light-flavor quark. In most of the cases, the results obtained are the most stringent constraints to date.
Similar content being viewed by others
1 Introduction
We present results of two related searches for physics beyond the standard model (BSM) in events with jets and significant transverse momentum imbalance. These are based on a data set of proton–proton (\({\text {p}} {\text {p}} \)) collisions at \(\sqrt{s} = 13\,\text {Te}\text {V} \), collected with the CMS detector at the CERN LHC in 2016–2018, and corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 137\(\,\text {fb}^{-1}\).
The first is an inclusive search that exploits the transverse momentum imbalance as inferred from the kinematic variable \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) [1], defined in Sect. 3.1, in events with at least two hadronic jets, or the transverse momentum (\(p_{\mathrm {T}}\)) of the jet in events with just one jet. Similar searches were previously conducted by both the ATLAS [2,3,4,5,6,7] and CMS [8,9,10,11,12] Collaborations. Our analysis builds on the work presented in Refs. [9, 11], using improved methods to estimate the background from standard model (SM) processes, in particular the multijet background arising from instrumental effects. Event counts in bins of the number of jets (\(N_{\mathrm {j}}\)), the number of jets identified as originating from the fragmentation of a bottom quark (b-tagged jets, \(N_{{\text {b}}}\)), the scalar \(p_{\mathrm {T}}\) sum of all selected jets (\(H_{\mathrm {T}}\)), and the \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) variable or the \(p_{\mathrm {T}}\) of the single jet, are compared against estimates of the background from SM processes, as derived from dedicated data control samples.
The second search aims at extending the sensitivity of the inclusive search for scenarios where the mass spectrum of potential new particles is compressed. In such scenarios, some theoretical models [13, 14] predict the existence of long-lived charged particles that can be identified as disappearing tracks, when they decay within the volume of the tracking detector and their charged decay products are below the \(p_{\mathrm {T}}\) detection threshold. Such signatures are rare in the SM and are often dominated by instrumental effects. The presence of disappearing tracks is exploited in order to suppress the background from SM processes, and to enhance the sensitivity towards these scenarios. Similar analyses were previously conducted by both the ATLAS [15, 16] and CMS [17,18,19,20] Collaborations. We use events with at least two jets, and the \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) variable to further suppress the background from SM processes. Event counts in bins of \(N_{\mathrm {j}}\), \(H_{\mathrm {T}}\), disappearing track length, and disappearing track \(p_{\mathrm {T}}\) are compared against estimates of the background from SM processes derived from dedicated data control samples.
The results are interpreted in the context of simplified models [21,22,23,24,25] of R-parity [26] conserving supersymmetry (SUSY) [27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34] where gluinos and squarks are pair-produced and the lightest SUSY particle is a neutralino.
The results of the inclusive \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) search are also interpreted in the context of a BSM scenario where a colored scalar state \(\phi \) is resonantly produced through coupling to quarks, and decays to an invisible massive Dirac fermion \(\psi \) and an SM quark. This is referred to as the mono-\(\phi \) model. It has been recently proposed as an explanation of an excess in data in regions with low jet multiplicities, identified in the context of a reinterpretation [35, 36] of the results of the previous inclusive \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) search [9] as well as of other similar searches by both the ATLAS [6, 7] and CMS [8, 37] Collaborations.
Finally, the inclusive \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) search is interpreted using models of leptoquark (LQ) pair production, similarly to Ref. [11]. Leptoquarks are hypothetical particles with quantum numbers of both quarks and leptons [38]. The spin of an LQ state is either 0 (scalar LQ or \(\mathrm {LQ_{S}}\)) or 1 (vector LQ or \(\mathrm {LQ_{V}}\)). Leptoquarks appear in BSM theories such as grand unified theories [38,39,40,41], technicolor models [42,43,44,45], compositeness scenarios [46, 47], and R-parity violating SUSY [27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34, 48], and have been suggested as an explanation of the anomalies observed in flavor physics [49,50,51,52,53,54,55] by the BaBar [56, 57], Belle [58,59,60,61,62], and LHCb [63,64,65,66,67,68] Collaborations. The best fit model of Refs. [54, 55] predicts an \(\mathrm {LQ_{V}}\) with a mass of \({\mathcal {O}}\left( \text {Te}\text {V} {}\right) \) decaying with 50% branching fraction to either a top quark and a neutrino (\({\text {t}} {{\upnu }} \)) or a bottom quark and a \(\uptau \) lepton (\({\text {b}} {\uptau } \)), which would be expected to be visible at the LHC. The final states and kinematic variables resulting from the pair production of \(\mathrm {LQ_{S}}\), each decaying to a quark and a neutrino, are the same as those considered in searches for squark pair production in R-parity conserving SUSY, assuming that the squark decays directly to a quark and a massless neutralino [11, 69]. The decay products of \(\mathrm {LQ_{V}}\) are also found to have similar kinematic properties [11, 69]. Therefore, as the search presented in this paper is already optimized for squark pair production, it is also sensitive to LQ pair production. The LQ production with decays to a quark and a neutrino has been constrained using LHC data by both the ATLAS [70,71,72] and CMS [11, 73,74,75,76,77] Collaborations, either by reinterpreting the existing squark searches, or considering scenarios with mixed branching fractions where an LQ also decays to a quark and a charged lepton. The same signatures have been previously covered at the Fermilab Tevatron by the CDF (e.g., in Refs. [78,79,80]) and D0 (e.g., in Refs. [81,82,83]) Collaborations. Constraints have been placed by direct searches for single LQ production performed at HERA by the H1 [84] and ZEUS [85] Collaborations. Finally, searches for LQs decaying to \({\text {b}} {\uptau } \) have been performed by the ATLAS [86], CMS [87, 88], CDF [89, 90], and D0 [91] Collaborations.
After a brief description of the CMS detector in Sect. 2, the event selection and categorization as well as details of the Monte Carlo (MC) simulation are presented in Sect. 3. Section 4 describes the SM background estimation. Results and their interpretations are presented in Sects. 5 and 6, respectively. Finally, a summary is provided in Sect. 7.
2 The CMS detector
The central feature of the CMS apparatus is a superconducting solenoid of 6\(\,\,\text {m}\) internal diameter providing a magnetic field of 3.8\(\,\,\text {T}\). Within the solenoid volume are a silicon pixel and strip tracker, a lead tungstate crystal electromagnetic calorimeter, and a brass and scintillator hadron calorimeter, each composed of a barrel and two endcap sections. Forward calorimeters extend the pseudorapidity (\(\eta \)) coverage provided by the barrel and endcap detectors. Muons are measured in gas-ionization detectors embedded in the steel flux-return yoke outside the solenoid. The first level of the CMS trigger system, composed of custom hardware processors, uses information from the calorimeters and muon detectors to select the most interesting events in a fixed time interval of less than 4\(\,\upmu \text {s}\). The high-level trigger processor farm further decreases the event rate from around 100 \(\,\,\text {kHz}\) to about 1\(\,\,\text {kHz}\), before data storage. A more detailed description of the CMS detector and trigger system, together with a definition of the coordinate system used and the relevant kinematic variables, can be found in Refs. [92, 93]. The pixel tracker was upgraded before the start of the data taking period in 2017, providing one additional layer of measurements compared to the older tracker [94].
3 Event selection and Monte Carlo simulation
3.1 Event selection
Events are processed using the particle-flow (PF) algorithm [95], which aims at reconstructing and identifying each individual particle in an event, with an optimal combination of information from the elements of the CMS detector. The particles reconstructed with this algorithm are hereafter referred to as PF candidates. The physics objects and the event preselection are similar to those described in Ref. [9]; they are summarized in Table 1, and described in detail below. We select events with at least one reconstructed vertex and at least one jet, and veto events with an isolated lepton (e or \(\upmu \)) or an isolated charged PF candidate. The isolated charged PF candidate veto is designed to provide additional rejection against events with electrons and muons, as well as to reject hadronic \(\uptau \) decays.
Jets are formed by clustering PF candidates using the anti-\(k_{\mathrm {T}}\) algorithm [97, 98] and are corrected for contributions from event pileup [99] and the effects of nonuniform detector response [100, 101]. Only jets passing the selection criteria in Table 1 are used for counting and for the determination of kinematic variables. In particular, we consider jets with \(p_{\mathrm {T}} >30\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V} \) and \(|\eta |<2.4\), unless otherwise stated. Jets that contain the decay of a bottom-flavored hadron are identified using a deep neural network algorithm [102] with a working point chosen such that the efficiency to identify a bottom quark jet is in the range 55–70% for jet \(p_{\mathrm {T}}\) between 20 and 400\(\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V}\). The misidentification rate is approximately 1–2% for light-flavor or gluon jets, and 10–15% for charm jets. We count b-tagged jets with \(p_{\mathrm {T}} >20\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V} \) and \(|\eta |<2.4\). The minimum \(p_{\mathrm {T}}\) threshold used for counting b-tagged jets is lowered to 20\(\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V}\) instead of 30, as used for \(N_{\mathrm {j}}\), in order to maximize the sensitivity towards BSM scenarios with bottom quarks.
The negative of the vector \(p_{\mathrm {T}}\) sum of all selected jets is denoted by \(\vec {H}_{\text {T}}^{\text {miss}}\), while the missing transverse momentum \({\vec p}_{\mathrm {T}}^{\text {miss}}\) is defined as the negative of the vector \(p_{\mathrm {T}}\) sum of all reconstructed PF candidates. Their magnitudes are referred to as \(H_{\mathrm {T}}^{\text {miss}}\) and \(p_{\mathrm {T}} ^\text {miss}\), respectively. The \({\vec p}_{\mathrm {T}}^{\text {miss}}\) is further adjusted to reflect the jet energy corrections [100, 101]. Events with possible contributions from beam halo processes or anomalous noise in the calorimeter are rejected using dedicated filters [103, 104]. For events with at least two jets, we start with the pair having the largest dijet invariant mass and iteratively cluster all selected jets using an algorithm that minimizes the Lund distance measure [105, 106] until two stable pseudo-jets are obtained. The resulting pseudo-jets together with the \({\vec p}_{\mathrm {T}}^{\text {miss}}\) are used to calculate the kinematic variable \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) [1] as:
where \({\vec p}_{\mathrm {T}}^{{\text {miss}}{ \mathrm {X}(i)}}\) (\(i=1,2\)) are trial vectors obtained by decomposing \({\vec p}_{\mathrm {T}}^{\text {miss}}\), and \(M_{\mathrm {T}} ^{(i)}\) are the transverse masses [107] obtained by pairing either of the trial vectors with one of the two pseudo-jets. The minimization is performed over all trial momenta satisfying the \({\vec p}_{\mathrm {T}}^{\text {miss}}\) constraint. The background from multijet events (discussed in Sect. 4) is characterized by small values of \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\), while processes with significant genuine \({\vec p}_{\mathrm {T}}^{\text {miss}}\) yield larger values of \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\). More detailed discussions of the \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) variable properties are given in Refs. [96, 108, 109].
In both the inclusive \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) search and the search for disappearing tracks, collision events are selected using triggers with requirements on \(H_{\mathrm {T}}\), \(p_{\mathrm {T}} ^\text {miss}\), \(H_{\mathrm {T}}^{\text {miss}}\), and jet \(p_{\mathrm {T}}\). The combined trigger efficiency, as measured in an orthogonal data sample of events with an isolated electron, is found to be >97% across the full kinematic range of the search. To suppress background from multijet production, we require \(M_{\mathrm {T2}} > 200\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V} \) in events with \(N_{\mathrm {j}} \ge 2\). In the inclusive \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) search, this \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) threshold is increased to 400\(\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V}\) for events with \(H_{\mathrm {T}} > 1500\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V} \) to maintain multijet processes as a subdominant background in all search regions. In events with \(N_{\mathrm {j}} = 1\), where \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) is not defined, we require \(p_{\mathrm {T}} ^{\text {jet}} >250\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V} \) and \(p_{\mathrm {T}} ^\text {miss} >250\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V} \). As a protection against jet mismeasurement, we require the minimum difference in the azimuthal angle between the \({\vec p}_{\mathrm {T}}^{\text {miss}}\) vector and the direction of each of the four \(p_{\mathrm {T}}\)-leading jets, \(\varDelta \phi _{\text {min}}\), to be greater than 0.3 radians, and the magnitude of the difference between \({\vec p}_{\mathrm {T}}^{\text {miss}}\) and \(\vec {H}_{\text {T}}^{\text {miss}}\) to be less than half of \(p_{\mathrm {T}} ^\text {miss}\). For the determination of \(\varDelta \phi _{\text {min}}\), we consider jets with \(|\eta |<4.7\). If fewer than four such jets are found, all are considered in the \(\varDelta \phi _{\text {min}}\) calculation.
In the search for disappearing tracks, events are selected requiring in addition the presence of at least one disappearing track. These are defined as well-reconstructed isolated tracks with no measurement points in at least two of the outermost layers of the tracker and no associated energy deposits in the calorimeter. These tracks are predominantly not considered as candidates by the PF algorithm; as a result they are not included in the calculation of \({\vec p}_{\mathrm {T}}^{\text {miss}}\).
3.2 Event categorization
3.2.1 Inclusive \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) search
Events containing at least two jets are categorized by the values of \(N_{\mathrm {j}}\), \(N_{{\text {b}}}\), and \(H_{\mathrm {T}}\). Each category is referred to as a topological region. Signal regions are defined by further dividing topological regions into bins of \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\). Events with only one jet are selected if the jet \(p_{\mathrm {T}}\) is at least 250\(\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V}\), and are classified according to the \(p_{\mathrm {T}}\) of this jet and whether the event contains a b-tagged jet. The 282 search regions are summarized in Tables 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 in Appendix B.1. We also define super signal regions, covering a subset of the kinematic space of the full analysis with simpler inclusive selection criteria. The super signal regions can be used to obtain approximate interpretations of our result, as discussed in Sect. 5, where these regions are defined.
3.2.2 Search for disappearing tracks
In the following, the selected disappearing tracks are called short tracks (STs). We also define short track candidates (STCs) as disappearing tracks that are required to satisfy relaxed selection criteria on the track quality and isolation compared to an ST, but not the tight ones required for STs. Both STs and STCs are required to have no measurement points in at least two of the outermost layers of the tracker and no associated energy deposits in the calorimeter.
We select events with at least one ST and at least two jets, and we categorize them by the values of \(N_{\mathrm {j}}\) and \(H_{\mathrm {T}}\). Disappearing tracks are categorized according to their length and \(p_{\mathrm {T}}\), in order to maximize the sensitivity to a range of lifetimes of potential BSM long-lived charged particles, and to distinguish tracks reconstructed with different precision. Two bins of \(p_{\mathrm {T}}\) are defined as:
\(15<p_{\mathrm {T}} <50\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V} \),
\(p_{\mathrm {T}} >50\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V} \).
Additionally, four track length categories are defined, depending on the number of layers of the tracking detector with a measurement:
pixel tracks (P), having at least three layers with a measurement in the pixel tracking detector, and none in the strip tracking detector,
medium length tracks (M), having less than seven layers with a measurement, and at least one outside of the pixel tracking detector,
long tracks (L), having at least seven layers with a measurement.
For 2017–2018 data, we further split the P tracks into two categories:
pixel tracks having three layers with a measurement (P3),
pixel tracks having at least four layers with a measurement (P4).
For long (L) tracks, no categorization in bins of \(p_{\mathrm {T}}\) is applied.
The full track selection requirements for both STs and STCs are listed in Table 11 of Appendix A, together with the track length categories they belong to. For signal STs, the track reconstruction and selection efficiency ranges from 50 to 65%, depending on the track length and the data taking period.
The 68 search regions (28 used for the categorization of the 2016 data set, and 40 for the 2017–2018 data set) are summarized in Tables 24 and 25 in Appendix B.2.
3.3 Monte Carlo simulation
The MC simulation is used to design the search, to help estimate SM backgrounds, and to evaluate the sensitivity to simplified models of BSM physics.
The main background samples (\({\text {Z}} + \text {jets}\), \({\text {W}} + \text {jets}\), \({{\text {t}} {\bar{{{\text {t}}}}}} + \text {jets}\), and multijet), as well as BSM signal samples, are generated at leading order (LO) precision with the MadGraph 5_amc@nlo 2 (2.2.2, or 2.4.2) generator [110]. Up to four, three, or two additional partons are considered in the matrix element calculations for the generation of the \({\text {V}} + \text {jets}\) \(({\text {V}} ={\text {W}},{\text {Z}})\), \({{\text {t}} {\bar{{{\text {t}}}}}} + \text {jets}\), and signal samples, respectively. Other background processes are also considered: \({{\text {t}} {\bar{{{\text {t}}}}}} {\text {V}} \) samples with up to two additional partons in the matrix element calculations are generated at LO precision with the MadGraph 5_amc@nlo 2 generator, while single top quark samples are generated at next-to-leading order (NLO) precision with the MadGraph 5_amc@nlo 2 or powheg (\(\mathrm {v}1.0\), or \(\mathrm {v}2.0\)) [111,112,113,114,115] generators. Finally, contributions from rarer processes such as diboson, triboson, and four top quark production, are also considered and found to be negligible. The expected yields of all samples are normalized using the most precise available cross section calculations, typically corresponding to NLO or next-to-NLO (NNLO) accuracy [110, 113, 115,116,117,118,119].
The detector response of SM samples and 2016 signal samples containing long-lived objects is modeled with the Geant4 [120] program, while the CMS fast simulation framework [121, 122] is used for other signal samples, and uncertainties are derived to account for the potential mismodeling of the event kinematics.
For all simulated samples, generators are interfaced with pythia 8.2 (8.205, 8.212, 8.226, or 8.230) [123] for fragmentation and parton showering. For samples simulated at LO (NLO) precision, the MLM [124] (FxFx [125]) prescription is used to match partons from the matrix element calculation to those from the parton showers. The CUETP8M1 [126] pythia 8.2 tune is used for the 2016 SM background and signal samples. For 2017 and 2018, the CP5 and CP2 tunes [127] are used for the SM background and signal samples, respectively. The NNPDF2.3LO (NNPDF2.3NLO) [128] parton distribution functions (PDFs) are used to generate the 2016 LO (NLO) samples, while the NNPDF3.1LO (NNPDF3.1NNLO) [129] PDFs are used for the 2017 and 2018 samples.
The output of the detector simulation is processed using the same chain of reconstruction algorithms as for collision data.
To improve on the MadGraph 5_amc@nlo modeling of the multiplicity of additional jets from initial-state radiation (ISR) in the 2016 sample, MadGraph 5_amc@nlo t \(\bar{{{\text {t}}}}\) MC events are weighted based on the number of ISR jets (\(N_\mathrm {j}^\mathrm {ISR}\)) so as to make the jet multiplicity agree with data. The same reweighting procedure is applied to BSM MC events. The weighting factors are obtained from a control region enriched in t \(\bar{{{\text {t}}}}\), defined as events with two leptons and exactly two b-tagged jets, and vary between 0.92 for \(N_\mathrm {j}^\mathrm {ISR}=1\) and 0.51 for \(N_\mathrm {j}^\mathrm {ISR}\ge 6\). We take one half of the deviation from unity as the systematic uncertainty in these reweighting factors, to cover for the experimental uncertainties in their derivation and for differences between t \(\bar{{{\text {t}}}}\) and BSM production. Owing to a better tuning of the MC generators, this reweighting procedure is not necessary for 2017 and 2018 MadGraph 5_amc@nlo t \(\bar{{{\text {t}}}}\) MC samples, while it is still applied to BSM MC events.
To improve the modeling of the flavor of additional jets, the simulation of t \(\bar{{{\text {t}}}}\) and \({{\text {t}} {\bar{{{\text {t}}}}}} {\text {V}} \) events is corrected to account for the measured ratio of \({{\text {t}} {\bar{{{\text {t}}}}}} {\text {b}} {\bar{{{\text {b}}}}} \)/\({{\text {t}} {\bar{{{\text {t}}}}}} \text {jj}\) cross sections reported in Ref. [130]. Specifically, simulated t \(\bar{{{\text {t}}}}\) and \({{\text {t}} {\bar{{{\text {t}}}}}} {\text {V}} \) events with two b quarks not originating from top quark decay are weighted to account for the CMS measurement of the ratio of cross sections \(\sigma ({{\text {t}} {\bar{{{\text {t}}}}}} {\text {b}} {\bar{{{\text {b}}}}} )/\sigma ({{\text {t}} {\bar{{{\text {t}}}}}} \text {jj})\), which was found to be a factor of \(1.7 \pm 0.5\) larger than the MC prediction [130].
4 Background estimation
4.1 Inclusive \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) search
The backgrounds in jets-plus-\(p_{\mathrm {T}} ^\text {miss}\) final states arise from three categories of SM processes.
The lost-lepton (LL) background: events with a lepton from a W boson decay where the lepton is either out of acceptance, not reconstructed, not identified, or not isolated. This background originates mostly from \({\text {W}} + \text {jets}\) and \({{\text {t}} {\bar{{{\text {t}}}}}} + \text {jets}\) events, with smaller contributions from more rare processes, such as diboson or \({{\text {t}} {\bar{{{\text {t}}}}}} {\text {V}} \) production.
The irreducible background: \({\text {Z}} + \text {jets}\) events, where the Z boson decays to neutrinos. This background is the most difficult to distinguish from the final states arising from potential signals. It is a major background in nearly all search regions, its importance decreasing with increasing \(N_{{\text {b}}}\).
The instrumental background: mostly multijet events with no genuine \(p_{\mathrm {T}} ^\text {miss}\). These events enter a search region due to either significant jet momentum mismeasurements or sources of anomalous noise. This is a subdominant background compared to others, after events are selected, as described in Sect. 3.1.
The backgrounds are estimated from data control regions. In the presence of BSM physics, these control regions could be affected by signal contamination. Although the expected signal contamination is typically negligible, its potential impact is accounted for in the interpretation of the results, as further described in Sect. 6.
4.1.1 Estimation of the background from events with leptonic W boson decays
The LL background is estimated from control regions with exactly one lepton candidate (e or \(\upmu \)) selected using the same triggers and preselection criteria used for the signal regions, with the exception of the lepton veto, which is inverted. The transverse mass \(M_{\mathrm {T}}\) determined using the lepton candidate and the \({\vec p}_{\mathrm {T}}^{\text {miss}}\) is required to satisfy \(M_{\mathrm {T}} <100\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V} \), in order to suppress the potential signal contamination of the control regions. Selected events are binned according to the same criteria as the search regions. The background in each signal bin, \(N^{\mathrm {SR}}_{\mathrm {LL}}\), is obtained by scaling the number of events in the control region, \(N^{\mathrm {CR}}_{1\ell }\), using transfer factors \(R^{0\ell /1\ell }_{\mathrm {MC}}\), as detailed below:
For events with \(N_{\mathrm {j}} =1\):
$$\begin{aligned}&N^{\mathrm {SR}}_{\mathrm {LL}} \left( p_{\mathrm {T}} ^{\text {jet}},N_{{\text {b}}} \right) \nonumber \\&\quad = N^{\mathrm {CR}}_{1\ell } \left( p_{\mathrm {T}} ^{\text {jet}},N_{{\text {b}}} \right) \, R^{0\ell /1\ell }_{\mathrm {MC}} \left( p_{\mathrm {T}} ^{\text {jet}},N_{{\text {b}}} \right) . \end{aligned}$$(2)For events with \(N_{\mathrm {j}} \ge 2\):
$$\begin{aligned}&N^{\mathrm {SR}}_{\mathrm {LL}} \left( \varOmega ,M_{\mathrm {T2}} \right) = N^{\mathrm {CR}}_{1\ell } \left( \varOmega ,M_{\mathrm {T2}} \right) \, \nonumber \\&\quad \times R^{0\ell /1\ell }_{\mathrm {MC}} \left( \varOmega ,M_{\mathrm {T2}} \right) \, k_{\mathrm {LL}} \left( M_{\mathrm {T2}} |\varOmega \right) , \end{aligned}$$(3)where:
$$\begin{aligned} \varOmega \equiv \left( H_{\mathrm {T}},N_{\mathrm {j}},N_{{\text {b}}} \right) . \end{aligned}$$(4)
The single-lepton control regions have 1–2 times as many events as the corresponding signal regions. The factor \(R^{0\ell /1\ell }_{\mathrm {MC}}\) accounts for lepton acceptance and efficiency, as well as the expected contribution from the decay of W bosons to hadrons through an intermediate \(\uptau \) lepton. It is obtained from MC simulation, and corrected for the measured differences in the lepton efficiencies between data and simulation.
For events with \(N_{\mathrm {j}} \ge 2\), the factor \(k_{\mathrm {LL}}\) is one, except at high \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) values, where the single-lepton control sample has insufficient data to allow \(N^{\mathrm {CR}}_{1\ell }\) to be measured in each (\(H_{\mathrm {T}}\), \(N_{\mathrm {j}}\), \(N_{{\text {b}}}\), \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\)) bin. In such cases, \(N^{\mathrm {CR}}_{1\ell }\) is integrated over the remaining \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) bins of the same (\(H_{\mathrm {T}}\), \(N_{\mathrm {j}}\), \(N_{{\text {b}}}\)) region, and the distribution in \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) across these bins is taken from simulation and applied through the factor \(k_{\mathrm {LL}}\).
The MC modeling of \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) is checked in data, in single-lepton events with either \(N_{{\text {b}}} =0\) or \(N_{{\text {b}}} \ge 1\), as shown in the left and right panels of Fig. 1, respectively. The predicted distributions in the comparison are obtained by summing all the relevant regions, after normalizing MC event yields to data and distributing events among the \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) bins according to the expectation from simulation.
Uncertainties arising from the limited size of the control samples and from theoretical and experimental considerations are evaluated and propagated to the final estimate. The dominant uncertainty in \(R^{0\ell /1\ell }_{\mathrm {MC}}\) is due to the modeling of the lepton efficiency (for electrons, muons, and hadronically decaying \(\uptau \) leptons) and jet energy scale (JES), and is of order 15–20%. The uncertainty in the \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) extrapolation via \(k_{\mathrm {LL}}\), which is as large as 40%, arises primarily from the JES, the relative fractions of \({\text {W}} + \text {jets}\) and \({{\text {t}} {\bar{{{\text {t}}}}}} + \text {jets}\) events, and the choice of the renormalization (\(\mu _{\mathrm {R}}\)) and factorization (\(\mu _{\mathrm {F}}\)) scales used in the event generation.
The uncertainties in the LL background prediction are summarized in Table 2 together with their typical size ranges across the search bins.
4.1.2 Estimation of the background from \({\text {Z}} ({{\upnu }} \bar{{{\upnu }}})+\text {jets}\)
The \({\text {Z}} \rightarrow {{\upnu }} \bar{{{\upnu }}} \) background is estimated from a \({\text {Z}} \rightarrow \ell ^{+}\ell ^{-}\) (\(\ell = {\text {e}},{\upmu } \)) control sample selected using dilepton triggers. The trigger efficiency, measured from a sample of events in data with large \(H_{\mathrm {T}}\), is found to be greater than 97% in the selected kinematic range.
The leptons in the control sample are required to be of the same flavor and have opposite charge. The \(p_{\mathrm {T}}\) of the leading and trailing leptons must be at least 100 and 30\(\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V}\), respectively. Finally, the invariant mass of the lepton pair must be within 20\(\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V}\) of the Z boson mass.
After requiring that the \(p_{\mathrm {T}}\) of the dilepton system is at least 200\(\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V}\) (corresponding to the \(M_{\mathrm {T2}} >200\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V} \) requirement), the preselection requirements are applied based on kinematic variables recalculated after removing the dilepton system from the event to replicate the \({\text {Z}} \rightarrow {{\upnu }} \bar{{{\upnu }}} \) kinematic properties. For events with \(N_{\mathrm {j}} = 1\), one control region is defined for each bin of jet \(p_{\mathrm {T}}\). For events with at least two jets, the selected events are binned in \(H_{\mathrm {T}}\), \(N_{\mathrm {j}}\), and \(N_{{\text {b}}}\), but not in \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\), to increase the dilepton event yield in each control region.
The contribution to each control region from flavor-symmetric processes, most importantly t \(\bar{{{\text {t}}}}\) production, is estimated using different-flavor (DF) \({\text {e}} {\upmu } \) events obtained with the same selection criteria as same-flavor (SF) \({\text {e}} {\text {e}} \) and \({\upmu } {\upmu } \) events. The background in each signal bin is then obtained using transfer factors.
For events with \(N_{\mathrm {j}} =1\), according to:
$$\begin{aligned}&N^{\mathrm {SR}}_{{\text {Z}} \rightarrow {{\upnu }} \bar{{{\upnu }}}} \left( p_{\mathrm {T}} ^{\text {jet}},N_{{\text {b}}} \right) = \Bigl [N^{\mathrm {CRSF}}_{\ell \ell } \left( p_{\mathrm {T}} ^{\text {jet}},N_{{\text {b}}} \right) \nonumber \\&\quad - N^{\mathrm {CRDF}}_{\ell \ell } \left( p_{\mathrm {T}} ^{\text {jet}},N_{{\text {b}}} \right) \, R^{\mathrm {SF}/\mathrm {DF}} \Bigr ] \nonumber \\&\quad \times R^{{\text {Z}} \rightarrow {{\upnu }} \bar{{{\upnu }}}/Z\rightarrow \ell ^{+}\ell ^{-}}_{\mathrm {MC}} \left( p_{\mathrm {T}} ^{\text {jet}},N_{{\text {b}}} \right) . \end{aligned}$$(5)For events with \(N_{\mathrm {j}} \ge 2\), according to:
$$\begin{aligned}&N^{\mathrm {SR}}_{{\text {Z}} \rightarrow {{\upnu }} \bar{{{\upnu }}}} \left( \varOmega ,M_{\mathrm {T2}} \right) = \Bigl [N^{\mathrm {CRSF}}_{\ell \ell } \left( \varOmega \right) \nonumber \\&\quad - N^{\mathrm {CRDF}}_{\ell \ell } \left( \varOmega \right) \, R^{\mathrm {SF}/\mathrm {DF}} \Bigr ] \nonumber \\&\quad \times R^{{\text {Z}} \rightarrow {{\upnu }} \bar{{{\upnu }}}/Z\rightarrow \ell ^{+}\ell ^{-}}_{\mathrm {MC}} \left( \varOmega \right) \, k_{{\text {Z}} \rightarrow {{\upnu }} \bar{{{\upnu }}}}\left( M_{\mathrm {T2}} ~|~\varOmega \right) , \end{aligned}$$(6)where \(\varOmega \) is defined in Eq. (4).
Here \(N^{\mathrm {CRSF}}_{\ell \ell }\) and \(N^{\mathrm {CRDF}}_{\ell \ell }\) are the number of SF and DF events in the control region, while \(R^{{\text {Z}} \rightarrow {{\upnu }} \bar{{{\upnu }}}/{\text {Z}} \rightarrow \ell ^{+}\ell ^{-}}_{\mathrm {MC}}\) and \(k_{{\text {Z}} \rightarrow {{\upnu }} \bar{{{\upnu }}}}\) are defined below. The factor \(R^{\mathrm {SF}/\mathrm {DF}}\) accounts for the difference in acceptance and efficiency between SF and DF events. It is determined as the ratio of the number of SF to DF events in a t \(\bar{{{\text {t}}}}\) enriched control sample, obtained with the same selection criteria as the \({\text {Z}} \rightarrow \ell ^{+}\ell ^{-}\) sample, but inverting the requirements on the \(p_{\mathrm {T}}\) and the invariant mass of the lepton pair. A measured value of \(R^{\mathrm {SF}/\mathrm {DF}}=1.06\pm 0.15\) is observed to be stable with respect to event kinematic variables, and is applied in all regions. Figure 2 (left) shows \(R^{\mathrm {SF}/\mathrm {DF}}\) measured as a function of the number of jets.
For events with \(N_{\mathrm {j}} =1\), an estimate of the \({\text {Z}} \rightarrow {{\upnu }} \bar{{{\upnu }}} \) background in each search bin is obtained from the corresponding dilepton control region via the factor \(R^{{\text {Z}} \rightarrow {{\upnu }} \bar{{{\upnu }}}/{\text {Z}} \rightarrow \ell ^{+}\ell ^{-}}_{\mathrm {MC}}\), which accounts for the acceptance and efficiency to select the dilepton pair and the ratio of branching fractions for the \({\text {Z}} \rightarrow \ell ^{+}\ell ^{-}\) and \({\text {Z}} \rightarrow {{\upnu }} \bar{{{\upnu }}} \) decays. For events with at least two jets, an estimate of the \({\text {Z}} \rightarrow {{\upnu }} \bar{{{\upnu }}} \) background is obtained analogously in each (\(H_{\mathrm {T}}\), \(N_{\mathrm {j}}\), \(N_{{\text {b}}}\)) region, integrated over \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\). The factor \(R^{{\text {Z}} \rightarrow {{\upnu }} \bar{{{\upnu }}}/{\text {Z}} \rightarrow \ell ^{+}\ell ^{-}}_{\mathrm {MC}}\) is obtained from simulation, including corrections for the differences in the lepton efficiencies between data and simulation.
For events with \(N_{\mathrm {j}} \ge 2\), the factor \(k_{{\text {Z}} \rightarrow {{\upnu }} \bar{{{\upnu }}}}\) accounts for the distribution in bins of \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) of the estimated background in each (\(H_{\mathrm {T}}\), \(N_{\mathrm {j}}\), \(N_{{\text {b}}}\)) region. This distribution is constructed using \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) shape templates from dilepton data and \({\text {Z}} \rightarrow {{\upnu }} \bar{{{\upnu }}} \) simulation in each (\(H_{\mathrm {T}}\), \(N_{\mathrm {j}}\), \(N_{{\text {b}}}\)) region. The templates obtained from data are used at low values of \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\), where the amount of data is sufficient. On the other hand, at high values of \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) we use the templates from simulation.
Studies with simulated samples have demonstrated that the shape of the \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) distribution of the function \(k_{{\text {Z}} \rightarrow {{\upnu }} \bar{{{\upnu }}}}\) is independent of \(N_{{\text {b}}}\) for a given \(H_{\mathrm {T}}\) and \(N_{\mathrm {j}}\) selection, and that the shape is also independent of \(N_{\mathrm {j}}\) for \(H_{\mathrm {T}} >1500\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V} \). The dilepton control sample supports this observation. Therefore, functions \(k_{{\text {Z}} \rightarrow {{\upnu }} \bar{{{\upnu }}}}\) are obtained for each (\(H_{\mathrm {T}}\), \(N_{\mathrm {j}}\)) region, integrated over \(N_{{\text {b}}}\). For \(H_{\mathrm {T}} >1500\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V} \), only one function \(k_{{\text {Z}} \rightarrow {{\upnu }} \bar{{{\upnu }}}}\) is constructed, integrating also over \(N_{\mathrm {j}}\).
The MC modeling of the \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) variable is validated in data using control samples enriched in \({\text {Z}} \rightarrow \ell ^{+}\ell ^{-}\) events, in each bin of \(H_{\mathrm {T}}\), as shown in the right panel of Fig. 2 for events with \(1200<H_{\mathrm {T}} <1500\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V} \).
The largest uncertainty in the estimate of the invisible Z background in most regions results from the limited size of the dilepton control sample. The dominant uncertainty of about 5% in the ratio \(R^{Z\rightarrow {{\upnu }} \bar{{{\upnu }}}/Z\rightarrow \ell ^{+}\ell ^{-}}_{\mathrm {MC}}\) reflects the uncertainty in the differences between the lepton efficiencies in data and simulation. The uncertainty in the \(k_{{\text {Z}} \rightarrow {{\upnu }} \bar{{{\upnu }}}}\) factor arises from data statistical uncertainty for bins at low values of \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\), where the function \(k_{{\text {Z}} \rightarrow {{\upnu }} \bar{{{\upnu }}}}\) is obtained from data, while for bins at high values of \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\), where the function \(k_{{\text {Z}} \rightarrow {{\upnu }} \bar{{{\upnu }}}}\) is obtained from simulation, it is due to the uncertainties in the JES and the choice of the \(\mu _{\mathrm {R}}\) and \(\mu _{\mathrm {F}}\). These can result in effects as large as 40%.
The uncertainties in the \({\text {Z}} \rightarrow {{\upnu }} \bar{{{\upnu }}} \) background prediction are summarized in Table 3 together with their typical size ranges across the search bins.
4.1.3 Estimation of the multijet background
The background from SM events comprised uniquely of jets produced through the strong interaction (multijet events) is estimated from control regions in data selected using triggers that require \(H_{\mathrm {T}}\) to exceed thresholds ranging from 125 (180) to 900 (1050)\(\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V}\) in 2016 (2017–2018) data samples. In addition, events are required to have at least two jets with \(p_{\mathrm {T}} > 10\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V} \).
The rebalance and smear (R&S) method used to estimate the multijet background consists of two steps. First, multijet data events are rebalanced by adjusting the \(p_{\mathrm {T}}\) of the jets such that the resulting \(p_{\mathrm {T}} ^\text {miss}\) is approximately zero. This rebalancing is performed through a likelihood maximization, accounting for the jet energy resolution [100, 101]. The output of the rebalancing step is an inclusive sample of multijet events with approximately zero \(p_{\mathrm {T}} ^\text {miss}\) that are used as a seed for the second step, the smearing. In the smearing step, the \(p_{\mathrm {T}}\) of the rebalanced jets is smeared according to the jet response function, in order to model the instrumental effects that lead to nonzero \(p_{\mathrm {T}} ^\text {miss}\). The smearing step is repeated many times for each rebalanced event. The output of each smearing step is an independent sample of events, which serves to populate the tails of kinematic distributions such as \(p_{\mathrm {T}} ^\text {miss}\) and \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\), and to obtain a more precise estimate of the multijet background than would be possible using only simulation.
The method makes use of jet response templates, i.e., distributions of the ratio of reconstructed jet \(p_{\mathrm {T}}\) to generator-level jet \(p_{\mathrm {T}}\). The templates are derived from simulation in bins of jet \(p_{\mathrm {T}}\) and \(\eta \), separately for b-tagged and non-b-tagged jets. Systematic uncertainties are assessed to cover for the modeling of the core and of the tails of the jet response templates.
Of all jets in the event, a jet qualifies for use in the R&S procedure if it has \(p_{\mathrm {T}} >10\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V} \), and if it is not identified as a jet from pileup [131] in the case that \(p_{\mathrm {T}} <100\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V} \). All other jets are left unchanged but are still used in the calculation of \({\vec p}_{\mathrm {T}}^{\text {miss}}\) and other jet-related quantities. An event with n qualifying jets is rebalanced by varying the \(p_{\mathrm {T}} ^\text {reb}\) of each jet, which is an estimate of the true jet \(p_{\mathrm {T}}\), to maximize the likelihood function
where
and
The term \(\text {P} ( p_{\text {T},i}^{\text {reco}} | p_{\text {T},i}^{\text {reb}} )\) in Eq. (7) is the probability for a jet with \(p_{\mathrm {T}}\) of \(p_{\text {T},i}^{\text {reb}}\) to be assigned a \(p_{\mathrm {T}}\) of \(p_{\text {T},i}^{\text {reco}}\) after reconstruction. This probability is taken directly from the jet response templates. The two G(x) terms in Eq. (7) enforce an approximate balancing condition. The \(\vec {p}_{\text {T},\text {reb}}^{\text {miss}}\) terms in Eq. (7) represent the \({\vec p}_{\mathrm {T}}^{\text {miss}}\) after rebalancing, and are obtained by simply propagating the changes in jet \(p_{\mathrm {T}}\) from rebalancing to \({\vec p}_{\mathrm {T}}^{\text {miss}}\). For the balancing of the x and y components of the \({\vec p}_{\mathrm {T}}^{\text {miss}}\), we use \(\sigma _\text {T}^{\text {soft}}=20\) \(\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V}\), which is approximately the width of the distributions of the x and y components of \({\vec p}_{\mathrm {T}}^{\text {miss}}\) in minimum bias events. This parameter represents the inherent missing energy due to low-\(p_{\mathrm {T}}\) jets, unclustered energy, and jets from pileup that cannot be eliminated by rebalancing. A systematic uncertainty is assessed to cover for the effects of the variation of \(\sigma _\text {T}^\text {soft}\).
The rebalanced events are used as input to the smearing procedure, where the \(p_{\mathrm {T}}\) of each qualifying jet is rescaled by a random factor drawn from the corresponding jet response template, and all kinematic quantities are recalculated accordingly.
The background from multijet events is estimated by applying the signal region selection requirements to the above rebalanced and smeared sample, except events are only used if \(p_{\text {T},\text {reb}}^\text {miss}<100\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V} \) to remove potential contamination from electroweak sources. This additional requirement is found to be fully efficient for multijet events, in simulation. Hence, no correction is applied to the prediction.
Systematic uncertainties are summarized in Table 4 together with their typical size ranges across the search bins.
The resulting background prediction is validated in data using control regions enriched in multijet events. The results of the validation in a control region selected by inverting the \(\varDelta \phi _{\text {min}}\) requirement are shown in Fig. 3. The electroweak backgrounds (LL and \({\text {Z}} \rightarrow {{\upnu }} \bar{{{\upnu }}} \)) in this control region are estimated from data using transfer factors from leptonic control regions as described above. In regions where the number of events in the data leptonic control regions are insufficient, the electroweak background is taken from simulation. The observation is found to agree with the prediction, within the uncertainties.
4.2 Search for disappearing tracks
In the search for disappearing tracks, the SM background consists of events with charged hadrons or leptons that interact in the tracker or are poorly reconstructed, as well as tracks built out of incorrect combinations of hits. The background is estimated from data, leveraging the orthogonal definition of STCs and selected STs (Sect. 3.2.2), as described by Eq. (10).
where \(N_{\mathrm {ST}}\) is the number of selected short tracks, \(N_{\mathrm {STC}}\) is the number of selected short track candidates, and \(f_{\text {short}}\) is defined as:
The \(f_{\text {short}}\) ratio is measured directly in data, in a control region of events selected using the same triggers and preselection criteria used for the signal regions, except the selection on \(p_{\mathrm {T}} ^\text {miss}\) is relaxed to \(p_{\mathrm {T}} ^\text {miss} >30\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V} \) for all \(H_{\mathrm {T}}\) values, and the selection on \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) is shifted to \(60<M_{\mathrm {T2}} <100\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V} \). We exploit the empirical invariance of this ratio with respect to the \(H_{\mathrm {T}}\) and \(p_{\mathrm {T}} ^\text {miss}\) selection criteria, as observed in data control regions, to reduce the statistical uncertainty in the measurement. The \(f_{\text {short}}\) ratio is therefore measured in data separately for each \(N_{\mathrm {j}}\), track \(p_{\mathrm {T}}\), track length category, and inclusively in \(H_{\mathrm {T}}\). The \(f_{\text {short}}\) values are measured separately in 2016 and 2017–2018 data, mainly to account for the upgrade of the CMS tracking detector after 2016. Since a reliable measurement in data of the \(f_{\text {short}}\) ratio for long (L) tracks is not achievable because of the insufficient number of events, the value measured in data for medium (M) length tracks is used instead, after applying a correction based on simulation:
A systematic uncertainty in the measured values of \(f_{\text {short}}\) is assigned to cover for the empirically motivated assumption of its invariance with respect to \(H_{\mathrm {T}}\) and \(p_{\mathrm {T}} ^\text {miss}\). Its size is determined by varying the \(H_{\mathrm {T}}\) and \(p_{\mathrm {T}} ^\text {miss}\) selection requirements in data events with \(60<M_{\mathrm {T2}} <100\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V} \). For long tracks, a conservative systematic uncertainty of 100% is assigned, as a correction based on simulation is used and there are insufficient data to study the effect of \(H_{\mathrm {T}}\) and \(p_{\mathrm {T}} ^\text {miss}\) variations.
The \(f_{\text {short}}\) ratio is then used to predict the expected background in events with \(M_{\mathrm {T2}} >100\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V} \), as described in Eq. (10).
In the presence of BSM physics, the above-defined control regions could be affected by signal contamination. Although the expected signal contamination is typically negligible, its potential impact is accounted for in the interpretation of the results, as further described in Sect. 6.
The background prediction is validated in data in an intermediate \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) region (\(100<M_{\mathrm {T2}} <200\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V} \)). No excess event yield is observed. The event categorization in this validation region is identical to the signal region, allowing for a bin-by-bin validation of the background prediction.
Figure 4 shows the result of the background prediction validation in 2016 data and in 2017–2018 data. We find good agreement between the observation and the background prediction in the validation region. An additional systematic uncertainty is assigned to cover for discrepancies exceeding statistical uncertainties. The uncertainties in the background prediction are summarized in Table 5 together with their typical size ranges across the search bins.
5 Results
The data yields in the search regions are statistically compatible with the estimated backgrounds from SM processes.
5.1 Inclusive \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) search
A summary of the results of the \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) inclusive search is shown in Fig. 5. Each bin in Fig. 5 (upper) corresponds to a single (\(H_{\mathrm {T}}\), \(N_{\mathrm {j}}\), \(N_{{\text {b}}}\)) topological region integrated over \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\). Figure 5 (lower) breaks down the background estimates and observed data yields into \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) bins for the region \(575< H_{\mathrm {T}} <1200\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V} \): each bin corresponds to a single \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) bin, and vertical lines identify (\(H_{\mathrm {T}}\), \(N_{\mathrm {j}}\), \(N_{{\text {b}}}\)) topological regions. Distributions for the other \(H_{\mathrm {T}}\) regions can be found in Figs. 23 and 24 in Appendix C.1. Background predictions and observed yields in all search regions are also summarized in Tables 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 in Appendix B.1. The background estimates and corresponding uncertainties rely exclusively on the inputs from control samples and simulation described in Sect. 4.1, prior to the fit to the data detailed in Sect. 6, and are referred to in the rest of the text as pre-fit background results.
To allow simpler reinterpretation, we also provide results for super signal regions, which cover subsets of the full analysis with simpler inclusive selection criteria and that can be used to obtain approximate interpretations of this search. The definitions of these regions are given in Table 6, with the predicted and observed number of events and the 95% confidence level (\(\text {CL}\)) upper limit on the number of signal events contributing to each region. Limits are set using a modified frequentist approach, employing the \(\text {CL}_\text {s}\) criterion and relying on asymptotic approximations to calculate the distribution of the profile likelihood test-statistic used [132,133,134,135].
5.2 Search for disappearing tracks
The results of the search for disappearing tracks are shown in Fig. 6. Just as in the case of the inclusive search, the background estimates and the uncertainties rely exclusively on the inputs from control samples and simulation (Sect. 4.2), prior to the fit to the data described in Sect. 6. We refer to them in the rest of the text as pre-fit background results. Background predictions and observed yields in all search regions are also summarized in Tables 24 and 25 in Appendix B.2.
6 Interpretation of the results
The measurements are interpreted in the context of models of new physics. Maximum likelihood fits to the data in the signal regions are carried out under either background-only or background+signal hypotheses. The uncertainties in the modeling of the backgrounds, summarized in Sect. 4, are inputs to the fitting procedure. The likelihoods are constructed as the product of Poisson probability density functions, one for each signal region, with additional log-normal constraint terms that account for the uncertainties in the background estimates and, if considered, in the signal yields.
The background+signal fits are used to set 95% \(\text {CL}\) upper limits on the cross sections for the signal models under consideration. These limits are then used, in conjunction with the theoretical cross section calculations, to exclude ranges of masses for the BSM particles of the signal models. Before the fits are performed, the signal yields are corrected to account for the expected signal contamination of the data control regions used to estimate the SM background.
For the interpretation of the results, simplified BSM physics models [21,22,23,24,25] are used. Simplified models are defined by sets of hypothetical particles and sequences of their production and decay. The theoretical parameters are thus reduced to a small number of masses and cross sections, providing an effective tool to characterize potential signals of BSM physics.
The results of the inclusive \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) search are used to constrain each of the simplified models of SUSY shown in Fig. 7. For each scenario of gluino (squark) pair production, the simplified models assume that all SUSY particles other than those shown in the corresponding diagram are too heavy to be produced directly, and that the gluino (squark) decays promptly. The models assume that each gluino (squark) decays with a 100% branching fraction into the decay products depicted in Fig. 7. For models where the decays of the two gluinos or squarks in the same diagram differ, a 1/3 (1/2) branching fraction for each of the three (two) decay modes is assumed. In particular, for the diagram of gluino pair production where the decays of the two gluinos differ, each gluino can decay via a \(\tilde{{\upchi }}_{2}^{0}\), \(\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{+}\), or \(\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{-}\). For scenarios with top squarks decaying into top quarks, the polarization of the top quark can be model dependent and a function of the top squark and neutralino mixing matrices. To maintain independence of any particular model realization, events are generated with unpolarized top quarks. Signal cross sections are calculated at approximately NNLO+NNLL (next-to-next-to-leading-logarithm) order in \(\alpha _S\) [136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147]. For direct light-flavor squark pair production we assume either one single squark, or eight degenerate squarks (\(\tilde{{\text {q}}}_{\mathrm{L}}{} +\tilde{{\text {q}}}_{\mathrm{R}}{} \), with \(\tilde{{\text {q}}} =\tilde{{\text {u}}},~\tilde{{\text {d}}},~\tilde{{\text {s}}},~\tilde{{\text {c}}} \)). For direct bottom and top squark pair production, we assume one single squark.
The mono-\(\phi \) model depicted in Fig. 8, that was recently proposed [35, 36] based on a reinterpretation of the results of Refs. [6,7,8,9, 37], is also probed by the inclusive \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) search. In this case, the cross section for the signal is only calculated at LO order in \(\alpha _S\).
Another interpretation of the inclusive \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) results places cross section limits on LQ pair production (depicted in Fig. 9) as a function of the LQ mass, similarly to Ref. [11]. We consider production of either \(\mathrm {LQ_{S}}\) or \(\mathrm {LQ_{V}}\). In each case, we assume that only one LQ state is within mass reach of the LHC, and that the LQ decays with 100% branching fraction to a neutrino and a single type of quark: a light-flavor quark (q \(=\) u, d, s, or c), a bottom quark, or a top quark. The cross sections for \(\mathrm {LQ_{S}}\) (\(\mathrm {LQ_{V}}\)) pair production are computed to NLO (LO) order in \(\alpha _S\) following Ref. [55]. The \(\mathrm {LQ_{S}}\) pair production cross section depends only on the LQ mass. For \(\mathrm {LQ_{V}}\), additional constraints are imposed by unitarity at high energy scales, leading to model dependent solutions and thus production cross sections. In the model of Ref. [55], developed to explain the flavor physics anomalies, the additional relevant parameter for the \(\mathrm {LQ_{V}}\) pair production cross section is \(\kappa \), a dimensionless coupling that is 1 in the Yang–Mills case and 0 in the minimal coupling case. We consider both values. For \(\kappa =1\), the cross section for the \(\mathrm {LQ_{V}}\) pair production is a factor 5–20 times larger than that of \(\mathrm {LQ_{S}}\), depending on the LQ mass. In the \(\mathrm {LQ_{V}}\) model, other free parameters are \(g_{{\text {t}} _{\text {L}}}\) and \(g_{{\text {b}} _{\text {L}}}\), the couplings of the \(\mathrm {LQ_{V}}\) to \({\text {t}} {{\upnu }} \) and \({\text {b}} {\uptau } \) pairs, respectively. However, \(g_{{\text {t}} _{\text {L}}}\) and \(g_{{\text {b}} _{\text {L}}}\) do not affect the cross section or the kinematics for the \(\mathrm {LQ_{V}}\) pair production, and we assume \(g_{{\text {t}} _{\text {L}}} = g_{{\text {b}} _{\text {L}}} = 0.1\), as predicted to explain the flavor physics anomalies.
The results of the search for disappearing tracks are used to constrain simplified models of SUSY where gluinos and squarks are produced in pairs, and each one decays either directly to the lightest neutralino (\(\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{0}\)), or first to a long-lived chargino (\({\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{\pm }}\)) as shown in Fig. 10. All possible decays are assumed to occur with equal probability. Thus, the gluino branching fraction is 1/3 each for the decay to \(\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{0}\), \(\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{+}\), and \(\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{-}\), and the squark branching fraction is 1/2 to \(\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{0}\) and 1/2 to the \({\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{\pm }}\) of opposite charge. The \({\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{\pm }}\) and \(\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{0}\) are assumed to be wino-like, and their masses to differ by a few hundred MeV [13, 14]. Thus, the phase space for the decay of the \({\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{\pm }}\) to a \(\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{0}\) and a charged pion is small. As a consequence, the \({\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{\pm }}\) has lifetime of the order of a few nanoseconds, and the momentum of the pion originating from its decay does not exceed a few hundred MeV. Hence, the final state shows negligible dependence on small variations of the mass difference between \({\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{\pm }}\) and \(\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{0}\). Lifetimes of the \({\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{\pm }}\) are probed in the range \(c\tau _{0}({\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{\pm }}) =\) 1–2000\(\,\text {cm}\).
Uncertainties in the signal yield for the simplified models considered are listed in Table 7. The sources of uncertainty and the methods used to evaluate their effect on the interpretation are the same as those discussed in Refs. [9, 96]. For each data sample corresponding to the different periods of data taking (2016, 2017, and 2018), uncertainties in the luminosity measurement [148,149,150], ISR modeling, fast simulation \(p_{\mathrm {T}} ^\text {miss}\) distributions, and b tagging and lepton efficiencies are treated as correlated across search bins. Uncertainties in fast simulation \(p_{\mathrm {T}} ^\text {miss}\) distributions, b tagging, and lepton efficiencies are treated as correlated also across data samples. The remaining uncertainties are taken as uncorrelated. In the search for disappearing tracks, all other tagging and lepton efficiencies are neglected. Other uncertainties associated with the modeling of disappearing tracks are treated as correlated across search bins. Specifically, an uncertainty in the signal yield is assigned, equal to one half of the track selection inefficiency: 25 (17.5)% for P (M and L) tracks in 2016, and 10% for tracks of all lengths in 2017–2018. Additionally, a 6% uncertainty in the 2017–2018 signal yield is assigned to account for inaccuracies in the fast simulation modeling of the signal acceptance.
6.1 Inclusive \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) search
Figure 11 shows the exclusion limits at 95% \(\text {CL}\) for direct gluino pair production where the gluinos decay to light-flavor quarks under three different decay scenarios. Exclusion limits for direct gluino pair production where the gluinos decay to bottom and top quarks are shown in Fig. 12, and those for the direct production of squark pairs are shown in Fig. 13. Three alternate decay scenarios are also considered for the direct pair production of top squarks, and their exclusion limits are shown in Fig. 14.
Table 8 summarizes the limits on the masses of SUSY particles excluded for the simplified model scenarios considered. These results extend the constraints on gluino and squark masses by about 100–350\(\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V}\) and on the \(\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{0}\) mass by 100–250\(\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V}\) with respect to the limits in Ref. [9].
Figure 15 shows the exclusion limits for the mono-\(\phi \) model [35, 36]. Based on the LO cross section calculation, we obtain mass limits as large as 1660 and 925\(\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V}\) on \(m_{\phi }\) and on \(m_{\psi }\), respectively. In this model, the analysis of Refs. [35, 36] reports best fit parameters \(\left( m_{\phi },~m_{\psi }\right) =\left( 1250,~900\right) \,\,\text {Ge}\text {V} \) and product of the cross section and branching fraction of about 0.3\(\,\,\text {pb}\). For this mass point, we find a modest (1.1 standard deviations) excess, and we set an upper limit on the product of the cross section and branching fraction of about 0.6 (0.4 expected)\(\,\,\text {pb}\), equal to 4.7 (3.2) times the assumed LO theoretical cross section.
The LQ limits from the \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) search are shown in Fig. 16, where only one LQ state is assumed to be within reach of the LHC, and where each LQ is assumed to decay to a neutrino and a single type of quark.
In Refs. [54, 55], a model is proposed as a coherent explanation of the flavor physics anomalies. It is based on an \(\mathrm {LQ_{V}}\) that can decay to \({\text {t}} {{\upnu }} \) and to \({\text {b}} {\uptau } \) final states, each with 50% branching fraction. In our analysis, events are selected with a charged-lepton veto, including hadronically decaying \(\uptau \) leptons. Hence, only the 25% of events where both LQs decay to \({\text {t}} {{\upnu }} \) are considered to set constraints on this model, and the theoretical prediction for this branching fraction is shown as a separate curve in Fig. 16 (lower).
Table 9 summarizes the limits on the masses of the LQs excluded for the considered scenarios. These results extend the constraints on LQ masses by up to about 200\(\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V}\) with respect to the limits of Ref. [11], providing the most stringent constraint to date in models of LQ pair production.
The 95% \(\text {CL}\) upper limits on signal cross sections obtained using the most sensitive super signal regions of Table 6 are typically less stringent by a factor of \(\sim 1.5{-}3\) compared to those obtained in the fully binned analysis. This difference in performance arises from the larger signal acceptance of the full analysis, as well as from the more favorable signal-to-background ratio achieved in its individual bins, compared to the super signal regions.
6.2 Search for disappearing tracks
Figure 17 shows the exclusion limits at 95% \(\text {CL}\) for direct gluino pair production where the gluinos decay to light-flavor (u, d, s, c) quarks, with \(c\tau _{0}({\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{\pm }}) = 10\), 50, and 200\(\,\text {cm}\). Exclusion limits for the direct production of light-flavor and top squark pairs are shown in Figs. 18 and 19, respectively, also for \(c\tau _{0}({\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{\pm }}) = 10\), 50, and 200\(\,\text {cm}\).
Exclusion limits from the disappearing track search tend to be strongest in longer \(c\tau _{0}({\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{\pm }})\) models, when \(m_{\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{0}}\) is near the mass of the gluino or squark, and in shorter \(c\tau _{0}({\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{\pm }})\) models, when a large mass splitting generates a large boost for the \({\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{\pm }}\), and in models characterized by large jet multiplicities. Models with these properties tend to populate the background depleted disappearing track regions with high \(N_{\mathrm {j}}\) and longer tracks. In the massless \({\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{\pm }}\) and \(\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{0}\) limit, the \({\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{\pm }}\) receives a large Lorentz boost. Therefore, it tends not to decay inside the tracking detector, with a consequent reduction in the signal acceptance and in the analysis sensitivity.
When a \({\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{\pm }}\) decays within the volume of the tracking detector, it is not counted as a PF candidate and, being almost mass degenerate with the \(\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{0}\), its decay products provide negligible visible energy in the detector. To a good approximation, as confirmed in simulation, the limits presented in Sect. 6.1 from the inclusive \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) search should apply also to these models with an intermediate \({\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{\pm }}\).
For SUSY models with long-lived \({\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{\pm }}\), the search for disappearing tracks significantly extends the sensitivity of the inclusive \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) search. Table 10 summarizes the limits on the masses of the SUSY particles excluded for the simplified model scenarios considered.
Two-dimensional constraints are also placed on the \({\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{\pm }}\) mass as a function of its proper decay length, as shown in Figs. 20 and 21, for the pair production of gluinos and light-flavor and top squarks, respectively. In particular, Figs. 20 and 21 show the excluded \({\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{\pm }}\) mass as a function of its proper decay length for representative gluino, light-flavor or top squark masses. For short \({\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{\pm }}\) lifetimes, the inclusive \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) search is more sensitive than the dedicated search for disappearing tracks, based on expected exclusion limits. As already mentioned above, the inclusive \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) search is not sensitive to the presence of an intermediate long-lived \({\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{\pm }}\) in the parent SUSY particle decay chain, especially when the \({\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{\pm }}\) lifetime is short, such that the \({\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{\pm }}\) cannot be reconstructed as a stable PF candidate. Furthermore, the signal acceptance of the inclusive \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) search is not affected by the track reconstruction inefficiencies which may arise when the \({\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{\pm }}\) decays before the CMS tracker, for very short \({\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{\pm }}\) lifetimes.
Figure 22 shows exclusion limits on \(\sigma /\sigma _{\mathrm {theory}}\) as a function of \(c\tau _{0}({\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{\pm }})\), for a choice of signal models where gluinos and squarks can decay via a long-lived \({\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{\pm }}\), as obtained from the search for disappearing tracks. Scenarios where the mass spectrum of SUSY particles is compressed are especially constrained across a wide range of \(c\tau _{0}({\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{\pm }})\). The exclusion limits are typically stronger at intermediate \(c\tau _{0}({\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{\pm }})\), as a larger fraction of \({\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{\pm }}\) decay within the CMS tracker and can therefore be identified as disappearing tracks.
7 Summary
This paper presents the results of two related searches for phenomena beyond the standard model using events with jets and large values of the kinematic variable \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\). The first is an inclusive search, while the second requires in addition disappearing tracks. The measurements are based on a data sample of proton–proton collisions at \(\sqrt{s} =13\,\text {Te}\text {V} \) collected in 2016–2018 with the CMS detector, and corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 137\(\,\text {fb}^{-1}\). No significant deviations from the standard model expectations are observed. Limits on pair-produced gluinos and squarks are established in the context of supersymmetry models conserving R-parity. The inclusive \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) search probes gluino masses up to 2250\(\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V}\) and the lightest neutralino \(\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{0}\) masses up to 1525\(\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V}\), as well as light-flavor, bottom, and top squark masses up to 1710, 1240, and 1200\(\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V}\), respectively, and \(\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{0}\) masses up to 870, 700, and 580\(\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V}\) in each respective scenario. In models with a long-lived chargino \({\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{\pm }}\), where the gluinos and squarks decay with equal probability to \(\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{0}\), \(\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{+}\), and \(\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{-}\), the search looking in addition for disappearing tracks probes gluino masses up to 2460\(\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V}\) and \(\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{0}\) masses up to 2000\(\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V}\), as well as light-flavor (top) squark masses up to 2090 (1660)\(\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V}\) and \(\tilde{{\upchi }}_{1}^{0}\) masses up to 1650 (1210)\(\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V}\).
A resonantly produced colored scalar state \(\phi \) decaying to a massive Dirac fermion \(\psi \) and a quark has recently been proposed as an explanation of an excess in data identified in regions with low jet multiplicities, based on previous results by the ATLAS and CMS Collaborations. From the inclusive \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) search, mass limits as high as 1660 and 925\(\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V}\) are obtained for \(\phi \) and \(\psi \), respectively, and an upper limit on the product of the cross section and branching fraction of about 0.6\(\,\,\text {pb}\) with a local significance of 1.1 standard deviations is observed for the previously reported best fit point \(\left( m_{\phi },m_{\psi }\right) =\left( 1250,900\right) \,\,\text {Ge}\text {V} \). The inclusive \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) search is also used to constrain models of scalar and vector leptoquark (LQ) pair production with the LQ decaying to a neutrino and a top, bottom, or light-flavor quark. A vector LQ decaying with equal branching fraction to \({\text {t}} {{\upnu }} \) and \({\text {b}} {\uptau } \) has been proposed as part of an explanation of recent flavor anomalies. In such a model, LQ masses below 1550\(\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V}\) are excluded assuming the Yang–Mills case with coupling \(\kappa =1\), or 1225\(\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V}\) in the minimal coupling case \(\kappa =0\). The results presented in this paper extend the mass limits of the previous version of the CMS inclusive \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) search, using a subset of the present data, by hundreds of \(\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V}\). In most of the cases, the results obtained are the most stringent constraints to date.
Data Availability Statement
This manuscript has no associated data or the data will not be deposited. [Authors’ comment: Release and preservation of data used by the CMS Collaboration as the basis for publications is guided by the CMS policy as written in its document “CMS data preservation, re-use and open access policy” (https://cms-docdb.cern.ch/cgi-bin/PublicDocDB/RetrieveFile?docid=6032&filename=CMSDataPolicyV1.2.pdf&version=2).]
References
C.G. Lester, D.J. Summers, Measuring masses of semiinvisibly decaying particles pair produced at hadron colliders. Phys. Lett. B 463, 99 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(99)00945-4. arXiv:hep-ph/9906349
ATLAS Collaboration, Search for new phenomena with large jet multiplicities and missing transverse momentum using large-radius jets and flavour-tagging at ATLAS in 13 TeV \({\rm pp}\) collisions. JHEP 12, 034 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2017)034. arXiv:1708.02794
ATLAS Collaboration, Search for supersymmetry in events with \(b\)-tagged jets and missing transverse momentum in \({\rm pp}\) collisions at \(\sqrt{s} = 13\) TeV with the ATLAS detector. JHEP 11, 195 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP11(2017)195. arXiv:1708.09266
ATLAS Collaboration, Search for a scalar partner of the top quark in the jets plus missing transverse momentum final state at \(\sqrt{s} = 13\) TeV with the ATLAS detector. JHEP 12, 085 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2017)085. arXiv:1709.04183
ATLAS Collaboration, Search for supersymmetry in final states with missing transverse momentum and multiple \(b\)-jets in proton-proton collisions at \( \sqrt{s} = 13 \) TeV with the ATLAS detector. JHEP 06, 107 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP06(2018)107. arXiv:1711.01901
ATLAS Collaboration, Search for dark matter and other new phenomena in events with an energetic jet and large missing transverse momentum using the ATLAS detector. JHEP 01, 126 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP01(2018)126. arXiv:1711.03301
ATLAS Collaboration, Search for squarks and gluinos in final states with jets and missing transverse momentum using 36 fb\(^{-1}\) of \(\sqrt{s} = 13\) TeV \({\rm pp}\) collision data with the ATLAS detector. Phys. Rev. D 97, 112001 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.112001. arXiv:1712.02332
CMS Collaboration, Search for supersymmetry in multijet events with missing transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV. Phys. Rev. D 96, 032003 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.032003, arXiv:1704.07781
CMS Collaboration, Search for new phenomena with the \(M_{\rm T2}\) variable in the all-hadronic final state produced in proton–proton collisions at \(\sqrt{s} = 13\) TeV. Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 710 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5267-x. arXiv:1705.04650
CMS Collaboration, Search for natural and split supersymmetry in proton–proton collisions at \( \sqrt{s} = 13 \) TeV in final states with jets and missing transverse momentum. JHEP 05, 025 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2018)025. arXiv:1802.02110
CMS Collaboration, Constraints on models of scalar and vector leptoquarks decaying to a quark and a neutrino at \(\sqrt{s} = 13\) TeV. Phys. Rev. D 98, 032005 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.032005. arXiv:1805.10228
CMS Collaboration, Inclusive search for supersymmetry in \({\rm pp}\) collisions at \( \sqrt{s} = 13 \) TeV using razor variables and boosted object identification in zero and one lepton final states. JHEP 03, 031 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP03(2019)031. arXiv:1812.06302
G.F. Giudice, M.A. Luty, H. Murayama, R. Rattazzi, Gaugino mass without singlets. JHEP 12, 027 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/1998/12/027. arXiv:hep-ph/9810442
L. Randall, R. Sundrum, Out of this world supersymmetry breaking. Nucl. Phys. B 557, 79 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0550-3213(99)00359-4. arXiv:hep-th/9810155
ATLAS Collaboration, Search for charginos nearly mass degenerate with the lightest neutralino based on a disappearing-track signature in \({\rm pp}\) collisions at \(\sqrt{s} = 8\) TeV with the ATLAS detector. Phys. Rev. D 88, 112006 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.112006, arXiv:1310.3675
ATLAS Collaboration, Search for long-lived charginos based on a disappearing-track signature in \({\rm pp}\) collisions at \( \sqrt{s} = 13 \) TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP 06, 022 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP06(2018)022, arXiv:1712.02118
CMS Collaboration, Search for disappearing tracks in proton-proton collisions at \( \sqrt{s} = 8 \) TeV. JHEP 01, 096 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP01(2015)096. arXiv:1411.6006
CMS Collaboration, Constraints on the pMSSM, AMSB model and on other models from the search for long-lived charged particles in proton-proton collisions at \(\sqrt{s} = 8\) TeV. Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 325 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3533-3. arXiv:1502.02522
CMS Collaboration, Search for disappearing tracks as a signature of new long-lived particles in proton-proton collisions at \(\sqrt{s} = 13\) TeV. JHEP 08, 016 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP08(2018)016. arXiv:1804.07321
CMS Collaboration, Search for long-lived charged particles in proton-proton collisions at \(\sqrt{s} = 13\) TeV. Phys. Rev. D 94, 112004 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.112004. arXiv:1609.08382
N. Arkani-Hamed et al., MARMOSET: The path from LHC data to the new standard model via on-shell effective theories, (2007). arXiv:hep-ph/0703088
J. Alwall, P. Schuster, N. Toro, Simplified models for a first characterization of new physics at the LHC. Phys. Rev. D 79, 075020 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.79.075020. arXiv:0810.3921
J. Alwall, M.-P. Le, M. Lisanti, J.G. Wacker, Model-independent jets plus missing energy searches. Phys. Rev. D 79, 015005 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.79.015005. arXiv:0809.3264
LHC New Physics Working Group Collaboration, Simplified models for LHC new physics searches. J. Phys. G 39, 105005 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1088/0954-3899/39/10/105005. arXiv:1105.2838
C.M.S. Collaboration, Interpretation of searches for supersymmetry with simplified models. Phys. Rev. D 88, 052017 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.052017. arXiv:1301.2175
G.R. Farrar, P. Fayet, Phenomenology of the production, decay, and detection of new hadronic states associated with supersymmetry. Phys. Lett. B 76, 575 (1978). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(78)90858-4
P. Ramond, Dual theory for free fermions. Phys. Rev. D 3, 2415 (1971). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.3.2415
Y.A. Golfand, E.P. Likhtman, Extension of the algebra of Poincaré group generators and violation of P invariance. JETP Lett. 13, 323 (1971)
A. Neveu, J.H. Schwarz, Factorizable dual model of pions. Nucl. Phys. B 31, 86 (1971). https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(71)90448-2
D.V. Volkov, V.P. Akulov, Possible universal neutrino interaction. JETP Lett. 16, 438 (1972)
J. Wess, B. Zumino, A Lagrangian model invariant under supergauge transformations. Phys. Lett. B 49, 52 (1974). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(74)90578-4
J. Wess, B. Zumino, Supergauge transformations in four dimensions. Nucl. Phys. B 70, 39 (1974). https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(74)90355-1
P. Fayet, Supergauge invariant extension of the Higgs mechanism and a model for the electron and its neutrino. Nucl. Phys. B 90, 104 (1975). https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(75)90636-7
H.P. Nilles, Supersymmetry, supergravity and particle physics. Phys. Rep. 110, 1 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(84)90008-5
P. Asadi et al., Digging deeper for new physics in the LHC data. JHEP 11, 194 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP11(2017)194. arXiv:1707.05783
P. Asadi et al., An update on the LHC monojet excess. JHEP 03, 130 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP03(2018)130. arXiv:1712.04939
CMS Collaboration, Search for new physics in final states with an energetic jet or a hadronically decaying \(W\) or \(Z\) boson and transverse momentum imbalance at \(\sqrt{s} = 13\) TeV. Phys. Rev. D 97, 092005 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.092005. arXiv:1712.02345
J.C. Pati, A. Salam, Unified lepton-hadron symmetry and a gauge theory of the basic interactions. Phys. Rev. D 8, 1240 (1973). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.8.1240
J.C. Pati, A. Salam, Lepton number as the fourth color. Phys. Rev. D 10, 275 (1974). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.10.275. (Erratum: 10.1103/PhysRevD.11.703.2)
H. Georgi, S.L. Glashow, Unity of all elementary particle forces. Phys. Rev. Lett. 32, 438 (1974). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.32.438
H. Fritzsch, P. Minkowski, Unified interactions of leptons and hadrons. Annals Phys. 93, 193 (1975). https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(75)90211-0
S. Dimopoulos, L. Susskind, Mass without scalars. Nucl. Phys. B 155, 237 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(79)90364-X. [2,930(1979)]
S. Dimopoulos, Technicolored signatures. Nucl. Phys. B 168, 69 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(80)90277-1
E. Farhi, L. Susskind, Technicolor. Phys. Rept. 74, 277 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-1573(81)90173-3
K.D. Lane, M.V. Ramana, Walking technicolor signatures at hadron colliders. Phys. Rev. D 44, 2678 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.44.2678
B. Schrempp, F. Schrempp, Light leptoquarks. Phys. Lett. B 153, 101 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(85)91450-9
B. Gripaios, Composite leptoquarks at the LHC. JHEP 02, 045 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP02(2010)045. arXiv:0910.1789
R. Barbier et al., R-parity violating supersymmetry. Phys. Rept. 420, 1 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2005.08.006. arXiv:hep-ph/0406039
M. Tanaka, R. Watanabe, New physics in the weak interaction of \({\bar{B}}\rightarrow D^{(*)}\tau \bar{\nu }\). Phys. Rev. D 87, 034028 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.87.034028. arXiv:1212.1878
Y. Sakaki, M. Tanaka, A. Tayduganov, R. Watanabe, Testing leptoquark models in \({\bar{B}} \rightarrow D^{(*)} \tau \bar{\nu }\). Phys. Rev. D 88, 094012 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.094012. arXiv:1309.0301
I. Doršner, S. Fajfer, N. Košnik, I. Nišandžić, Minimally flavored colored scalar in \(\bar{B} \rightarrow D^{(*)} \tau \bar{\nu }\) and the mass matrices constraints. JHEP 11, 084 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP11(2013)084. arXiv:1306.6493
B. Gripaios, M. Nardecchia, S.A. Renner, Composite leptoquarks and anomalies in \(B\)-meson decays. JHEP 05, 006 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2015)006. arXiv:1412.1791
M. Bauer, M. Neubert, Minimal leptoquark explanation for the \(\text{ R }_{D^{(*)}}\), \(\text{ R }_K\), and \((g-2)_g\) anomalies. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 141802 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.141802. arXiv:1511.01900
D. Buttazzo, A. Greljo, G. Isidori, D. Marzocca, B-physics anomalies: a guide to combined explanations. JHEP 11, 044 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP11(2017)044. arXiv:1706.07808
I. Doršner, A. Greljo, Leptoquark toolbox for precision collider studies. JHEP 05, 126 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2018)126. arXiv:1801.07641
BaBar Collaboration, Evidence for an excess of \(\bar{B} \rightarrow D^{(*)} \tau ^-{\bar{\nu }}_\tau \) decays. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 101802 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.101802. arXiv:1205.5442
BaBar Collaboration, Measurement of an excess of \(\bar{B} \rightarrow D^{(*)}\tau ^- {\bar{\nu }}_\tau \) decays and implications for charged Higgs bosons. Phys. Rev. D 88, 072012 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.072012. arXiv:1303.0571
Belle Collaboration, Observation of \(B^0 \rightarrow D^{*-}\tau ^{+}\nu _{\tau }\) decay at Belle. Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 191807 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.191807. arXiv:0706.4429
Belle Collaboration, Observation of \(B^+ \rightarrow \bar{D}^{*0}\tau ^{+}\nu _{\tau }\) and evidence for \(B^+ \rightarrow \bar{D}^{0}\tau ^{+}\nu _{\tau }\) at Belle. Phys. Rev. D 82, 072005 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.82.072005. arXiv:1005.2302
Belle Collaboration, Measurement of the branching ratio of \(\bar{B} \rightarrow D^{(\ast )} \tau ^- {\bar{\nu }}_\tau \) relative to \(\bar{B} \rightarrow D^{(\ast )} \ell ^- {\bar{\nu }}_\ell \) decays with hadronic tagging at Belle. Phys. Rev. D 92, 072014 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.072014. arXiv:1507.03233
Belle Collaboration, Measurement of the \(\tau \) lepton polarization and \(R(D^*)\) in the decay \(\bar{B} \rightarrow D^* \tau ^- {\bar{\nu }}_\tau \). Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 211801 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.211801. arXiv:1612.00529
Belle Collaboration, Test of lepton flavor universality in \({B\rightarrow K^\ast \ell ^+\ell ^-}\) decays at Belle, (2019). arXiv:1904.02440
LHCb Collaboration, Measurement of form-factor-independent observables in the decay \(B^{0} \rightarrow K^{*0} \mu ^+ \mu ^-\), Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 191801 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.191801, arXiv:1308.1707
LHCb Collaboration, Test of lepton universality using \(B^{+}\rightarrow K^{+}\ell ^{+}\ell ^{-}\) decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 151601 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.151601, arXiv:1406.6482
LHCb Collaboration, Measurement of the ratio of branching fractions \({\cal{B}}(\bar{B}^0 \rightarrow D^{*+}\tau ^{-}{\bar{\nu }}_{\tau })/{\cal{B}}(\bar{B}^0 \rightarrow D^{*+}\mu ^{-}{\bar{\nu }}_{\mu })\). Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 111803 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.111803, arXiv:1506.08614. [Erratum: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.159901]
LHCb Collaboration, Angular analysis of the \(B^{0} \rightarrow K^{*0} \mu ^{+} \mu ^{-}\) decay using 3 fb\(^{-1}\) of integrated luminosity. JHEP 02, 104 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP02(2016)104, arXiv:1512.04442
LHCb Collaboration, Test of lepton universality with \(B^{0} \rightarrow K^{*0}\ell ^{+}\ell ^{-}\) decays. JHEP 08, 055 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP08(2017)055, arXiv:1705.05802
LHCb Collaboration, Search for lepton-universality violation in \(B^+\rightarrow K^+\ell ^+\ell ^-\) decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 191801 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.191801, arXiv:1903.09252
B. Diaz, M. Schmaltz, Y.-M. Zhong, The leptoquark hunter’s guide: Pair production. JHEP 10, 097 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP10(2017)097. arXiv:1706.05033
ATLAS Collaboration, Searches for scalar leptoquarks in \({\rm pp}\) collisions at \(\sqrt{s} = 8\) TeV with the ATLAS detector. Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 5 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3823-9, arXiv:1508.04735
ATLAS Collaboration, Searches for scalar leptoquarks and differential cross-section measurements in dilepton-dijet events in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of \(\sqrt{s} = 13\) TeV with the ATLAS experiment (2019). arXiv:1902.00377(Submitted to: Eur. Phys. J. C)
ATLAS Collaboration, Searches for third-generation scalar leptoquarks in \(\sqrt{s} = 13\) TeV \({\rm pp}\) collisions with the ATLAS detector. JHEP 06 144 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP06(2019)144, arXiv:1902.08103
CMS Collaboration, Search for third-generation scalar leptoquarks decaying to a top quark and a \(\tau \) lepton at \(\sqrt{s} = 13\) TeV. Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 707 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6143-z. arXiv:1803.02864
CMS Collaboration, Search for pair production of first and second generation leptoquarks in proton-proton collisions at \(\sqrt{s} = 8\) TeV. Phys. Rev. D 93, 032004 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.93.032004. arXiv:1509.03744
CMS Collaboration, Search for pair production of third-generation scalar leptoquarks and top squarks in proton-proton collisions at \(\sqrt{s} = 8\) TeV. Phys. Lett. B 739, 229 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2014.10.063. arXiv:1408.0806
CMS Collaboration, Search for pair production of second-generation leptoquarks at \(\sqrt{s} = 13\) TeV. Phys. Rev. D 99, 032014 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.032014. arXiv:1808.05082
CMS Collaboration, Search for pair production of first-generation scalar leptoquarks at \(\sqrt{s} = 13\) TeV. Phys. Rev. D 99, 052002 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.052002. arXiv:1811.01197
CDF Collaboration, Search for first-generation scalar leptoquarks in \({\rm p}{\bar{{\rm p}}}\) collisions at \(\sqrt{s} = 1.96\) TeV, Phys. Rev. D 72 051107 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.72.051107, arXiv:hep-ex/0506074
CDF Collaboration, Search for second-generation scalar leptoquarks in \({\rm p}{\bar{{\rm p}}}\) collisions at \(\sqrt{s} = 1.96\) TeV. Phys. Rev. D 73 051102 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.73.051102, arXiv:hep-ex/0512055
CDF Collaboration, Search for new physics with a dijet plus missing transverse energy signature in \({\rm p}{\bar{{\rm p}}}\) collisions at \(\sqrt{s} = 1.96\) TeV. Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 131801 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.131801, arXiv:0912.4691
D0 Collaboration, Search for scalar leptoquarks and \(T\)-odd quarks in the acoplanar jet topology using 2.5 \(fb^{-1}\) of \({\rm p}{\bar{{\rm p}}}\) collision data at \(\sqrt{s} = 1.96\) TeV. Phys. Lett. B 668, 357 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2008.09.014, arXiv:0808.0446
D0 Collaboration, Search for pair production of second generation scalar leptoquarks. Phys. Lett. B 671, 224 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2008.12.017. arXiv:0808.4023
D0 Collaboration, Search for first generation leptoquark pair production in the electron + missing energy + jets final state. Phys. Rev. D 84, 071104 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.84.071104. arXiv:1107.1849
H1 Collaboration, Search for first generation leptoquarks in \(ep\) collisions at HERA. Phys. Lett. B 704, 388 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2011.09.017. arXiv:1107.3716
ZEUS Collaboration, Search for first-generation leptoquarks at HERA. Phys. Rev. D 86, 012005 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.012005. arXiv:1205.5179
ATLAS Collaboration, Search for third generation scalar leptoquarks in pp collisions at \(\sqrt{s} = 7\) TeV with the ATLAS detector. JHEP 06, 033 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP06(2013)033, arXiv:1303.0526
CMS Collaboration, Search for third-generation scalar leptoquarks and heavy right-handed neutrinos in final states with two tau leptons and two jets in proton–proton collisions at \(\sqrt{s} = 13\) TeV. JHEP 07, 121 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2017)121. arXiv:1703.03995
CMS Collaboration, Search for heavy neutrinos and third-generation leptoquarks in hadronic states of two \(\tau \) leptons and two jets in proton-proton collisions at \(\sqrt{s} = 13\) TeV. JHEP 03, 170 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP03(2019)170. arXiv:1811.00806
CDF Collaboration, Search for third generation vector leptoquarks in \(\text{ p } {\bar{{\rm p}}}\) collisions at \(\sqrt{s} = 1.96\) TeV, Phys. Rev. D 77, 091105 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.77.091105, arXiv:0706.2832
CDF Collaboration, Search for pair production of scalar top quarks decaying to a \(\tau \) lepton and a \(b\) quark in \(\text{ p }{\bar{{\rm p}}}\) collisions at \(\sqrt{s} = 1.96\) TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 071802 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.071802, arXiv:0802.3887
D0 Collaboration, Search for third generation scalar leptoquarks decaying into \(\tau b\). Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 241802 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.241802. arXiv:0806.3527
CMS Collaboration, The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC. JINST 3, S08004 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004
CMS Collaboration, The CMS trigger system. JINST 12, P01020 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020. arXiv:1609.02366
CMS Collaboration, CMS technical design report for the pixel detector upgrade, Technical Report CERN-LHCC-2012-016, CMS-TDR-011, 2012. https://doi.org/10.2172/1151650
CMS Collaboration, Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector. JINST 12, P10003 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/12/10/P10003. arXiv:1706.04965
CMS Collaboration, Search for new physics with the \(\text{ M }_{\rm T2}\) variable in all-jets final states produced in \({\rm pp}\) collisions at \( \sqrt{s} = 13 \) TeV. JHEP 10, 006 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP10(2016)006. arXiv:1603.04053
M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam, G. Soyez, The anti-\(k^{T}\) jet clustering algorithm. JHEP 04, 063 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063. arXiv:0802.1189
M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam, G. Soyez, FastJet user manual. Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 1896 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2. arXiv:1111.6097
M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam, Pileup subtraction using jet areas. Phys. Lett. B 659, 119 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2007.09.077. arXiv:0707.1378
CMS Collaboration, Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in \({\rm pp}\) collisions at 8 TeV. JINST 12, P02014 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/12/02/P02014. arXiv:1607.03663
CMS Collaboration, Jet energy scale and resolution performance with 13 TeV data collected by CMS in 2016, Detector Performance Report CMS-DP-2018-028, (2018). http://cds.cern.ch/record/2622157
CMS Collaboration, Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in \({\rm pp}\) collisions at 13 TeV. JINST 13, P05011 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/13/05/P05011. arXiv:1712.07158
CMS Collaboration, Missing transverse energy performance of the CMS detector. JINST 6, P09001 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/6/09/P09001. arXiv:1106.5048
CMS Collaboration, Performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction in proton–proton collisions at \(\sqrt{s} = 13\) TeV using the CMS detector. JINST 14, P07004 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/14/07/P07004. arXiv:1903.06078
T. Sjöstrand, The Lund Monte Carlo for e\(^{+}\)e\(^{-}\) jet physics. Comput. Phys. Commun. 28, 229 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-4655(83)90041-3
T. Sjöstrand, S. Mrenna, P. Skands, PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual. JHEP 05, 026 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2006/05/026. arXiv:hep-ph/0603175
UA1 Collaboration, Experimental observation of isolated large transverse energy electrons with associated missing energy at \(\sqrt{s} = 540\) GeV. Phys. Lett. B 122, 103 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(83)91177-2
CMS Collaboration, Searches for supersymmetry using the \(M_{\rm T2}\) variable in hadronic events produced in \({\rm pp}\) collisions at 8 TeV. JHEP 05, 078 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2015)078. arXiv:1502.04358
CMS Collaboration, Search for supersymmetry in hadronic final states using \(M_{{\rm T2}}\) in \({\rm pp}\) collisions at \(\sqrt{s} = 7\) TeV. JHEP 10, 018 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP10(2012)018. arXiv:1207.1798
J. Alwall et al., The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations. JHEP 07, 079 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2014)079. arXiv:1405.0301
P. Nason, A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms. JHEP 11, 040 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2004/11/040. arXiv:hep-ph/0409146
S. Frixione, P. Nason, C. Oleari, Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method. JHEP 11, 070 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2007/11/070. arXiv:0709.2092
S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, E. Re, NLO single-top production matched with shower in POWHEG: \(s\)- and \(t\)-channel contributions. JHEP 09, 111 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2009/09/111. arXiv:0907.4076. [Erratum: 10.1007/JHEP02(2010) 011]
S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, E. Re, A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX. JHEP 06, 043 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP06(2010)043. arXiv:1002.2581
E. Re, Single-top \(Wt\)-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method. Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1547 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1547-z. arXiv:1009.2450
R. Gavin, Y. Li, F. Petriello, S. Quackenbush, FEWZ 2.0: A code for hadronic Z production at next-to-next-to-leading order. Comput. Phys. Commun. 182, 2388 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2011.06.008. arXiv:1011.3540
R. Gavin, Y. Li, F. Petriello, S. Quackenbush, W physics at the LHC with FEWZ 2.1. Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 208 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2012.09.005. arXiv:1201.5896
M. Czakon, A. Mitov, Top++: a program for the calculation of the top-pair cross-section at hadron colliders. Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 2930 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2014.06.021. arXiv:1112.5675
C. Borschensky et al., Squark and gluino production cross sections in pp collisions at \(\sqrt{s} = 13\), 14, 33 and 100 TeV. Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 3174 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3174-y. arXiv:1407.5066
Geant4 Collaboration, Geant4—a simulation toolkit. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 506, 250 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8
S. Abdullin et al., The fast simulation of the CMS detector at LHC. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 331, 032049 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/331/3/032049
A. Giammanco, The fast simulation of the CMS experiment. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 513, 022012 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/513/2/022012
T. Sjöstrand et al., An Introduction to PYTHIA 8.2. Comput. Phys. Commun. 191, 159 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024. arXiv:1410.3012
J. Alwall et al., Comparative study of various algorithms for the merging of parton showers and matrix elements in hadronic collisions. Eur. Phys. J. C 53, 473 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-007-0490-5. arXiv:0706.2569
R. Frederix, S. Frixione, Merging meets matching in MC@NLO. JHEP 12, 061 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2012)061. arXiv:1209.6215
C.M.S. Collaboration, Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements. Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 155 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-3988-x. arXiv:1512.00815
CMS Collaboration, Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements, (2019). arXiv:1903.12179(Submitted to: Eur. Phys. J. C)
NNPDF Collaboration, Parton distributions with QED corrections. Nucl. Phys. B 877, 290 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2013.10.010, arXiv:1308.0598
NNPDF Collaboration, Parton distributions from high-precision collider data. Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 663 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5199-5, arXiv:1706.00428
CMS Collaboration, Measurements of \({\rm t}{\bar{\rm t}}\) cross sections in association with b jets and inclusive jets and their ratio using dilepton final states in \({\rm pp}\) collisions at \(\sqrt{s} = 13\) TeV. Phys. Lett. B 776, 355 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2017.11.043. arXiv:1705.10141
CMS Collaboration, Jet algorithms performance in 13 TeV data. CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-JME-16-003 (2017) http://cds.cern.ch/record/2656875
T. Junk, Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 434, 435 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9002(99)00498-2. arXiv:hep-ex/9902006
A.L. Read, Presentation of search results: the \(CL_{\rm s}\) technique. J. Phys. G 28, 2693 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1088/0954-3899/28/10/313
G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, O. Vitells, Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics. Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1554 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1554-0. arXiv:1007.1727 [Erratum: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2501-z ]
ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in summer 2011, ATLAS/CMS joint note ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-011, CMS-NOTE-2011-005, (2011). http://cds.cern.ch/record/1379837
W. Beenakker, R. Höpker, M. Spira, P.M. Zerwas, Squark and gluino production at hadron colliders. Nucl. Phys. B 492, 51 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0550-3213(97)00084-9. arXiv:hep-ph/9610490
W. Beenakker et al., Stop production at hadron colliders. Nucl. Phys. B 515, 3 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0550-3213(98)00014-5. arXiv:hep-ph/9710451
A. Kulesza, L. Motyka, Threshold resummation for squark-antisquark and gluino-pair production at the LHC. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 111802 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.111802. arXiv:0807.2405
A. Kulesza, L. Motyka, Soft gluon resummation for the production of gluino–gluino and squark–antisquark pairs at the LHC. Phys. Rev. D 80, 095004 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.80.095004. arXiv:0905.4749
W. Beenakker et al., Soft-gluon resummation for squark and gluino hadroproduction. JHEP 12, 041 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2009/12/041. arXiv:0909.4418
W. Beenakker et al., Supersymmetric top and bottom squark production at hadron colliders. JHEP 08, 098 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP08(2010)098. arXiv:1006.4771
W. Beenakker et al., Squark and gluino hadroproduction. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 26, 2637 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X11053560. arXiv:1105.1110
W. Beenakker et al., NNLL resummation for squark–antisquark pair production at the LHC. JHEP 01, 076 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP01(2012)076. arXiv:1110.2446
W. Beenakker et al., Towards NNLL resummation: hard matching coefficients for squark and gluino hadroproduction. JHEP 10, 120 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP10(2013)120. arXiv:1304.6354
W. Beenakker et al., NNLL resummation for squark and gluino production at the LHC. JHEP 12, 023 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2014)023. arXiv:1404.3134
W. Beenakker et al., NNLL resummation for stop pair-production at the LHC. JHEP 05, 153 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP05(2016)153. arXiv:1601.02954
W. Beenakker et al., NNLL-fast: predictions for coloured supersymmetric particle production at the LHC with threshold and Coulomb resummation. JHEP 12, 133 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP12(2016)133. arXiv:1607.07741
CMS Collaboration, CMS luminosity measurements for the 2016 data-taking period. CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001 (2017). https://cds.cern.ch/record/2257069
CMS Collaboration, CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at \(\sqrt{s} = 13\) TeV. CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004, (2018). https://cds.cern.ch/record/2621960
CMS Collaboration, CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at \(\sqrt{s} = 13\) TeV. CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002, (2019). https://cds.cern.ch/record/2676164
LEP2 SUSY Working Group, ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL experiments, Combined LEP chargino results, up to 208 GeV for low \(\Delta m\) (2002). http://lepsusy.web.cern.ch/lepsusy/www/inoslowdmsummer02/charginolowdm_pub.html
Acknowledgements
We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the excellent performance of the LHC and thank the technical and administrative staffs at CERN and at other CMS institutes for their contributions to the success of the CMS effort. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the computing centers and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid for delivering so effectively the computing infrastructure essential to our analyses. Finally, we acknowledge the enduring support for the construction and operation of the LHC and the CMS detector provided by the following funding agencies: BMBWF and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ, FAPERGS, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST, and NSFC (China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croatia); RPF (Cyprus); SENESCYT (Ecuador); MoER, ERC IUT, PUT and ERDF (Estonia); Academy of Finland, MEC, and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, and HGF (Germany); GSRT (Greece); NKFIA (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM (Iran); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); MSIP and NRF (Republic of Korea); MES (Latvia); LAS (Lithuania); MOE and UM (Malaysia); BUAP, CINVESTAV, CONACYT, LNS, SEP, and UASLP-FAI (Mexico); MOS (Montenegro); MBIE (New Zealand); PAEC (Pakistan); MSHE and NSC (Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Dubna); MON, RosAtom, RAS, RFBR, and NRC KI (Russia); MESTD (Serbia); SEIDI, CPAN, PCTI, and FEDER (Spain); MOSTR (Sri Lanka); Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland); MST (Taipei); ThEPCenter, IPST, STAR, and NSTDA (Thailand); TUBITAK and TAEK (Turkey); NASU and SFFR (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE and NSF (USA).
Individuals have received support from the Marie-Curie program and the European Research Council and Horizon 2020 Grant, contract Nos. 675440, 752730, and 765710 (European Union); the Leventis Foundation; the A.P. Sloan Foundation; the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office; the Fonds pour la Formation à la Recherche dans l’Industrie et dans l’Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT-Belgium); the F.R.S.-FNRS and FWO (Belgium) under the “Excellence of Science – EOS” – be.h project n. 30820817; the Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission, No. Z181100004218003; the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the Lendület (“Momentum”) Program and the János Bolyai Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, the New National Excellence Program ÚNKP, the NKFIA research Grants 123842, 123959, 124845, 124850, 125105, 128713, 128786, and 129058 (Hungary); the Council of Science and Industrial Research, India; the HOMING PLUS program of the Foundation for Polish Science, cofinanced from European Union, Regional Development Fund, the Mobility Plus program of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, the National Science Center (Poland), contracts Harmonia 2014/14/M/ST2/00428, Opus 2014/13/B/ST2/02543, 2014/15/B/ST2/03998, and 2015/19/B/ST2/02861, Sonata-bis 2012/07/E/ST2/01406; the National Priorities Research Program by Qatar National Research Fund; the Ministry of Science and Education, Grant no. 3.2989.2017 (Russia); the Programa Estatal de Fomento de la Investigación Científica y Técnica de Excelencia María de Maeztu, Grant MDM-2015-0509 and the Programa Severo Ochoa del Principado de Asturias; the Thalis and Aristeia programs cofinanced by EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF; the Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for Postdoctoral Fellowship, Chulalongkorn University and the Chulalongkorn Academic into Its 2nd Century Project Advancement Project (Thailand); the Welch Foundation, contract C-1845; and the Weston Havens Foundation (USA).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Consortia
Appendices
Disappearing track selection
The detailed selection of disappearing tracks (STs and STCs, as defined in Sect. 3.2.2) is summarized in Table 11.
Definition of search regions and yields
1.1 Inclusive \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) search: search regions and yields
The 282 exclusive search regions defined for the inclusive \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) search, as described in Sect. 3.2.1, are summarized in Tables 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23, together with the pre-fit background predictions and the observed yields.
1.2 Search for disappearing tracks: search regions and yields
The 68 search regions defined for the disappearing track search, as described in Sect. 3.2.2, are summarized in Tables 24, 25 and 26, together with the pre-fit background predictions and the observed yields.
Detailed results
1.1 Inclusive \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) search
Figures 23 and 24 show the background estimates and observed data yields in the regions \(250< H_{\mathrm {T}} <450\), \(450< H_{\mathrm {T}} <575\), \(1200< H_{\mathrm {T}} <1500\), and \(H_{\mathrm {T}} >1500\) \(\,\,\text {Ge}\text {V}\). Each bin corresponds to a single \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) bin, and vertical lines identify (\(H_{\mathrm {T}}\), \(N_{\mathrm {j}}\), \(N_{{\text {b}}}\)) topological regions.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Funded by SCOAP3
About this article
Cite this article
Sirunyan, A.M., Tumasyan, A., Adam, W. et al. Searches for physics beyond the standard model with the \(M_{\mathrm {T2}}\) variable in hadronic final states with and without disappearing tracks in proton–proton collisions at \(\sqrt{s}=13\,\text {Te}\text {V} \). Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 3 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7493-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7493-x