Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN
Visit us: CMS Public Website, CMS Physics ;
Contact us: CMS Publications Committee
| CMS-PAS-EXO-22-015 | ||
| Search for new physics with emerging jets in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | ||
| CMS Collaboration | ||
| 20 February 2024 | ||
| Abstract: A search for emerging jets produced in proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV is performed using data collected by the CMS experiment corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$ ^{-1} $. This search examines a hypothetical dark quantum chromodynamics (QCD) sector that couples to the standard model (SM) through a scalar mediator. The scalar mediator decays into an SM quark and a dark sector quark. As the dark sector quark showers and hadronizes, it produces long-lived dark mesons that subsequently decay into SM particles, resulting in a jet, known as an emerging jet, with multiple displaced vertices. This search looks for pair production of the scalar mediator at the LHC, which yields events with two SM jets and two emerging jets at leading order. The results are interpreted using two dark sector models with different flavor structures, and exclude mediator masses up to 1950 (1800) GeV for an unflavored (flavor-aligned) dark QCD model. | ||
|
Links:
CDS record (PDF) ;
CADI line (restricted) ;
These preliminary results are superseded in this paper, Submitted to JHEP. The superseded preliminary plots can be found here. |
||
| Figures | |
png pdf |
Figure 1:
Feynman diagrams for pair production of dark mediator particles via gluon-gluon fusion (left) and quark-antiquark annihilation (right), with mediators decaying to an SM quark and a dark quark. |
png pdf |
Figure 1-a:
Feynman diagrams for pair production of dark mediator particles via gluon-gluon fusion (left) and quark-antiquark annihilation (right), with mediators decaying to an SM quark and a dark quark. |
png pdf |
Figure 1-b:
Feynman diagrams for pair production of dark mediator particles via gluon-gluon fusion (left) and quark-antiquark annihilation (right), with mediators decaying to an SM quark and a dark quark. |
png pdf |
Figure 2:
Distributions of the jet variables $ < d_{xy} > $ (left) and $ \alpha_\text{3D} $ with $ D_{N}^\text{max}= $ 4 (right) used for the model-agnostic EJ tagging that targets the unflavored dark sector models are shown for data (points), SM multijet events from simulation (gray line), and signal jets in simulation (colored lines). The distributions are normalized to unit area. |
png pdf |
Figure 2-a:
Distributions of the jet variables $ < d_{xy} > $ (left) and $ \alpha_\text{3D} $ with $ D_{N}^\text{max}= $ 4 (right) used for the model-agnostic EJ tagging that targets the unflavored dark sector models are shown for data (points), SM multijet events from simulation (gray line), and signal jets in simulation (colored lines). The distributions are normalized to unit area. |
png pdf |
Figure 2-b:
Distributions of the jet variables $ < d_{xy} > $ (left) and $ \alpha_\text{3D} $ with $ D_{N}^\text{max}= $ 4 (right) used for the model-agnostic EJ tagging that targets the unflavored dark sector models are shown for data (points), SM multijet events from simulation (gray line), and signal jets in simulation (colored lines). The distributions are normalized to unit area. |
png pdf |
Figure 3:
Distributions of the jet variables used for the model-agnostic EJ tagging targeting flavor-aligned dark sector models for jets obtained in data (points), SM multijet events from simulation (gray line), and signal jets in simulation (colored lines). The distribution of the number of tracks with $ d_{xy} > $ 10$^{-2.2} $ cm (jet girth) is shown on the left (right). The distributions are normalized to unit area. |
png pdf |
Figure 3-a:
Distributions of the jet variables used for the model-agnostic EJ tagging targeting flavor-aligned dark sector models for jets obtained in data (points), SM multijet events from simulation (gray line), and signal jets in simulation (colored lines). The distribution of the number of tracks with $ d_{xy} > $ 10$^{-2.2} $ cm (jet girth) is shown on the left (right). The distributions are normalized to unit area. |
png pdf |
Figure 3-b:
Distributions of the jet variables used for the model-agnostic EJ tagging targeting flavor-aligned dark sector models for jets obtained in data (points), SM multijet events from simulation (gray line), and signal jets in simulation (colored lines). The distribution of the number of tracks with $ d_{xy} > $ 10$^{-2.2} $ cm (jet girth) is shown on the left (right). The distributions are normalized to unit area. |
png pdf |
Figure 4:
Distributions of the GNN output score for jets obtained from SM multijet simulation events (dark gray line), signal jets from the unflavored model (colored lines, left), and signal jets from the flavor-aligned models (colored lines, right). Results of the uGNN (aGNN) are shown on the left (right). The performance of the GNN varies only slightly over a wide range of the c$ \tau $ of the dark mesons. The distributions are normalized to unit area. |
png pdf |
Figure 4-a:
Distributions of the GNN output score for jets obtained from SM multijet simulation events (dark gray line), signal jets from the unflavored model (colored lines, left), and signal jets from the flavor-aligned models (colored lines, right). Results of the uGNN (aGNN) are shown on the left (right). The performance of the GNN varies only slightly over a wide range of the c$ \tau $ of the dark mesons. The distributions are normalized to unit area. |
png pdf |
Figure 4-b:
Distributions of the GNN output score for jets obtained from SM multijet simulation events (dark gray line), signal jets from the unflavored model (colored lines, left), and signal jets from the flavor-aligned models (colored lines, right). Results of the uGNN (aGNN) are shown on the left (right). The performance of the GNN varies only slightly over a wide range of the c$ \tau $ of the dark mesons. The distributions are normalized to unit area. |
png pdf |
Figure 5:
Template fit of the DEEPJET discriminator used to determine the b jet fraction of the non-EJ tagged jets in data events that pass the 1-EJ selection of the ``u-set validation'' criteria. |
png pdf |
Figure 6:
The EJ tagger misidentification probability for b quark jets (red, orange) and light jets (blue) as a function of jet $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ for the model-agnostic tagger ``u-tag 1'' (left) and the ML-based tagger ``uGNN tag 1'' (right)---as defined in Tables 3 and 5---evaluated using data (red, dark blue) and generator-level flavor information from simulated samples (orange, light blue) in events containing a high-$ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ photon. The lower panel shows the difference between the mistag rate calculated in MC to the mistag rate in data divided by the uncertainty measured in data. |
png pdf |
Figure 6-a:
The EJ tagger misidentification probability for b quark jets (red, orange) and light jets (blue) as a function of jet $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ for the model-agnostic tagger ``u-tag 1'' (left) and the ML-based tagger ``uGNN tag 1'' (right)---as defined in Tables 3 and 5---evaluated using data (red, dark blue) and generator-level flavor information from simulated samples (orange, light blue) in events containing a high-$ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ photon. The lower panel shows the difference between the mistag rate calculated in MC to the mistag rate in data divided by the uncertainty measured in data. |
png pdf |
Figure 6-b:
The EJ tagger misidentification probability for b quark jets (red, orange) and light jets (blue) as a function of jet $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ for the model-agnostic tagger ``u-tag 1'' (left) and the ML-based tagger ``uGNN tag 1'' (right)---as defined in Tables 3 and 5---evaluated using data (red, dark blue) and generator-level flavor information from simulated samples (orange, light blue) in events containing a high-$ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ photon. The lower panel shows the difference between the mistag rate calculated in MC to the mistag rate in data divided by the uncertainty measured in data. |
png pdf |
Figure 7:
The 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section for various signal models in the unflavored scenario (upper plots) and the flavor-aligned scenario (lower plots) with $ m_{\pi_\text{dark}}= $ 10 GeV using the model-agnostic (GNN) EJ tagging method on the left (right). The red curve is the expected exclusion limit, with the band representing its 68% CL variation. The black curve is the observed limit. The dark blue dotted curves in the upper plots are the expected and observed limits previously obtained by CMS [20]. |
png pdf |
Figure 7-a:
The 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section for various signal models in the unflavored scenario (upper plots) and the flavor-aligned scenario (lower plots) with $ m_{\pi_\text{dark}}= $ 10 GeV using the model-agnostic (GNN) EJ tagging method on the left (right). The red curve is the expected exclusion limit, with the band representing its 68% CL variation. The black curve is the observed limit. The dark blue dotted curves in the upper plots are the expected and observed limits previously obtained by CMS [20]. |
png pdf |
Figure 7-b:
The 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section for various signal models in the unflavored scenario (upper plots) and the flavor-aligned scenario (lower plots) with $ m_{\pi_\text{dark}}= $ 10 GeV using the model-agnostic (GNN) EJ tagging method on the left (right). The red curve is the expected exclusion limit, with the band representing its 68% CL variation. The black curve is the observed limit. The dark blue dotted curves in the upper plots are the expected and observed limits previously obtained by CMS [20]. |
png pdf |
Figure 7-c:
The 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section for various signal models in the unflavored scenario (upper plots) and the flavor-aligned scenario (lower plots) with $ m_{\pi_\text{dark}}= $ 10 GeV using the model-agnostic (GNN) EJ tagging method on the left (right). The red curve is the expected exclusion limit, with the band representing its 68% CL variation. The black curve is the observed limit. The dark blue dotted curves in the upper plots are the expected and observed limits previously obtained by CMS [20]. |
png pdf |
Figure 7-d:
The 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section for various signal models in the unflavored scenario (upper plots) and the flavor-aligned scenario (lower plots) with $ m_{\pi_\text{dark}}= $ 10 GeV using the model-agnostic (GNN) EJ tagging method on the left (right). The red curve is the expected exclusion limit, with the band representing its 68% CL variation. The black curve is the observed limit. The dark blue dotted curves in the upper plots are the expected and observed limits previously obtained by CMS [20]. |
png pdf |
Figure 8:
The 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section for various signal models in the unflavored scenario (upper plots) and the flavor-aligned scenario (lower plots) with $ m_{\pi_\text{dark}}= $ 20 GeV using the model-agnostic (GNN) emerging jet tagging method on the left (right). The red curve is the expected exclusion limit, with the band representing its 68% CL variation. The black curve is the observed limit. |
png pdf |
Figure 8-a:
The 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section for various signal models in the unflavored scenario (upper plots) and the flavor-aligned scenario (lower plots) with $ m_{\pi_\text{dark}}= $ 20 GeV using the model-agnostic (GNN) emerging jet tagging method on the left (right). The red curve is the expected exclusion limit, with the band representing its 68% CL variation. The black curve is the observed limit. |
png pdf |
Figure 8-b:
The 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section for various signal models in the unflavored scenario (upper plots) and the flavor-aligned scenario (lower plots) with $ m_{\pi_\text{dark}}= $ 20 GeV using the model-agnostic (GNN) emerging jet tagging method on the left (right). The red curve is the expected exclusion limit, with the band representing its 68% CL variation. The black curve is the observed limit. |
png pdf |
Figure 8-c:
The 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section for various signal models in the unflavored scenario (upper plots) and the flavor-aligned scenario (lower plots) with $ m_{\pi_\text{dark}}= $ 20 GeV using the model-agnostic (GNN) emerging jet tagging method on the left (right). The red curve is the expected exclusion limit, with the band representing its 68% CL variation. The black curve is the observed limit. |
png pdf |
Figure 8-d:
The 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section for various signal models in the unflavored scenario (upper plots) and the flavor-aligned scenario (lower plots) with $ m_{\pi_\text{dark}}= $ 20 GeV using the model-agnostic (GNN) emerging jet tagging method on the left (right). The red curve is the expected exclusion limit, with the band representing its 68% CL variation. The black curve is the observed limit. |
png pdf |
Figure 9:
The 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section for various signal models in the flavor-aligned scenario with $ m_{\pi_\text{dark}}= $ 6 GeV using the model-agnostic (GNN) EJ tagging method on the left (right). The red curve is the expected exclusion limit, with the band representing its 68% CL variation. |
png pdf |
Figure 9-a:
The 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section for various signal models in the flavor-aligned scenario with $ m_{\pi_\text{dark}}= $ 6 GeV using the model-agnostic (GNN) EJ tagging method on the left (right). The red curve is the expected exclusion limit, with the band representing its 68% CL variation. |
png pdf |
Figure 9-b:
The 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section for various signal models in the flavor-aligned scenario with $ m_{\pi_\text{dark}}= $ 6 GeV using the model-agnostic (GNN) EJ tagging method on the left (right). The red curve is the expected exclusion limit, with the band representing its 68% CL variation. |
| Tables | |
png pdf |
Table 1:
Model parameters for the unflavored model. |
png pdf |
Table 2:
Parameters used for the flavor-aligned model. In order to probe a range of lifetimes, the value of $ \kappa_0 $ is tuned to give the desired $ c\tau_{\pi_\text{dark}}^{\text{max}} $ (the last five columns of the table). In addition to these tuned values of $ \kappa_0 $, samples were made with $ \kappa_0= $ 1, which have varying $ c\tau_{\pi_\text{dark}}^{\text{max}} $ values depending on the other model parameters and therefore are listed in the column marked as $ \text{---} $. In a few cases, the model with $ \kappa_0 = $ 1 corresponds to one of the tuned values, so the value in the third column is omitted ($ \text{---} $). |
png pdf |
Table 3:
Emerging jet selection criteria for the model-agnostic analysis designed for the unflavored scenario. The validation tag is described in Section 5.4. The symbols in parentheses indicate a minimum $ ( > ) $ or maximum $ ( < ) $ requirement. |
png pdf |
Table 4:
Emerging jet selection criteria for the model-agnostic analysis designed for the flavor-aligned scenario. The validation tag is described in Section 5.4. The symbols in parentheses indicate a minimum $ ( > ) $ or maximum $ ( < ) $ requirement. |
png pdf |
Table 5:
The GNN score range used to identify a jet as an EJ. The uGNN (aGNN) tag indicates that the tagger uses the output score of the GNN trained on the unflavored (flavor-aligned) simulated signal samples. The validation tags are described in Section 5.4. |
png pdf |
Table 6:
Event selection criteria used for the analysis. The validation selection criteria are described in Section 5.4. |
png pdf |
Table 7:
The observed yield of events in data satisfying the validation selection criteria with at least two jets passing the corresponding validation tag, and the estimation based on the misidentification rate calculated using validation events with exactly one jet passing the validation tagger scaled by the factor given in Eq. (4). The statistical and systematic uncertainties are reported for the estimated yields. |
png pdf |
Table 8:
Mean and standard deviation (std.) of the relative uncertainty calculated across the surveyed signal samples, by source, in percent. |
png pdf |
Table 9:
The estimated number of events from the background prediction based on control samples in data and the observed event yields. Statistical and systematic uncertainties in the estimated background are provided. |
| Summary |
| A search for emerging jet signatures arising from a strongly interacting dark sector produced in hadron collisions has been presented, using data corresponding to a total integrated luminosity of 138 fb$ ^{-1} $ at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV. The signal model contains a family of dark quarks that couples to the standard model (SM) quarks via a scalar mediator $ \text{X}_\text{dark} $. Dark pions ($ \pi_\text{dark} $) with a significant lifetime ($ c\tau_{\pi_\text{dark}} $) are produced by the hadronization of the dark quarks and then decay to SM particles at vertices displaced from the original interaction point. As the scalar mediator is assumed to be produced in pairs, with each decaying to a SM quark and a dark quark, the signature of this process is two SM jets plus two jets of particles with the constituents emerging from displaced vertices. Both unflavored and flavor-aligned couplings between the SM quarks and the dark quarks are examined in the search. The selection criteria were optimized for each class of couplings and as a function of the mediator particle mass, the dark pion mass, and the dark pion lifetime, using both a traditional cut-based selection and a graph neural network. The observed 95% confidence level exclusion limits agree with the expected limits. For the unflavored model, dark mediator masses up to $ m_{\text{X}_\text{dark}} < $ 1950 GeV are excluded for $ c\tau_{\pi_\text{dark}}\sim $ 100 mm and $ m_{\pi_\text{dark}}\sim $ 10 GeV, while the flavor-aligned model result excludes $ m_{\text{X}_\text{dark}} < $ 1850 GeV at $ c\tau_{\pi_\text{dark}}\sim$ 500 mm for $ m_{\pi_\text{dark}}\sim $ 10 GeV. This result greatly surpasses the previous search for emerging jets in the unflavored scenario, increasing the experimental limit of the dark mediator particle by $ {\sim} $ 500 GeV to set the most stringent limits to date, and provides the first direct exclusion of the flavor-aligned scenario. |
| References | ||||
| 1 | V. C. Rubin, N. Thonnard, and W. K. Ford, Jr. | Rotational properties of 21 SC galaxies with a large range of luminosities and radii, from NGC 4605 (R = 4 kpc) to UGC 2885 (R = 122 kpc) | Astrophys. J. 238 (1980) 471 | |
| 2 | M. Persic, P. Salucci, and F. Stel | The universal rotation curve of spiral galaxies: I. The dark matter connection | Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 281 (1996) 27 | astro-ph/9506004 |
| 3 | D. Clowe et al. | A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter | Astrophys. J. 648 (2006) L109 | astro-ph/0608407 |
| 4 | DES Collaboration | Dark Energy Survey year 1 results: curved-sky weak lensing mass map | Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 475 (2018) 3165 | 1708.01535 |
| 5 | Planck Collaboration | Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters | Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A6 | 1807.06209 |
| 6 | M. J. Strassler and K. M. Zurek | Echoes of a hidden valley at hadron colliders | PLB 651 (2007) 374 | hep-ph/0604261 |
| 7 | K. Petraki and R. R. Volkas | Review of asymmetric dark matter | Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 28 (2013) 1330028 | 1305.4939 |
| 8 | H. Beauchesne, E. Bertuzzo, and G. Grilli di Cortona | Dark matter in Hidden Valley models with stable and unstable light dark mesons | JHEP 04 (2019) 118 | 1809.10152 |
| 9 | Y. Bai and P. Schwaller | Scale of dark QCD | PRD 89 (2014) 063522 | 1306.4676 |
| 10 | T. Cohen, M. Lisanti, and H. K. Lou | Semi-visible jets: Dark matter undercover at the LHC | PRL 115 (2015) 171804 | 1503.00009 |
| 11 | P. Schwaller, D. Stolarski, and A. Weiler | Emerging jets | JHEP 05 (2015) 059 | 1502.05409 |
| 12 | P. Agrawal, M. Blanke, and K. Gemmler | Flavored dark matter beyond Minimal Flavor Violation | JHEP 10 (2014) 072 | 1405.6709 |
| 13 | S. Renner and P. Schwaller | A flavoured dark sector | JHEP 08 (2018) 052 | 1803.08080 |
| 14 | P. Fayet and S. Ferrara | Supersymmetry | Phys. Rept. 32 (1977) 249 | |
| 15 | C. Borschensky et al. | Squark and gluino production cross sections in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} $ = 13, 14, 33 and 100 TeV | EPJC 74 (2014) 3174 | 1407.5066 |
| 16 | W. Beenakker et al. | NNLL-fast: predictions for coloured supersymmetric particle production at the LHC with threshold and Coulomb resummation | JHEP 12 (2016) 133 | 1607.07741 |
| 17 | CMS Collaboration | Search for resonant production of strongly coupled dark matter in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV | JHEP 06 (2022) 156 | CMS-EXO-19-020 2112.11125 |
| 18 | ATLAS Collaboration | Search for non-resonant production of semi-visible jets using Run 2 data in ATLAS | PLB 848 (2024) 138324 | 2305.18037 |
| 19 | ATLAS Collaboration | Search for resonant production of dark quarks in the dijet final state with the ATLAS detector | Submitted to \emphJHEP, 2023 | 2311.03944 |
| 20 | CMS Collaboration | Search for new particles decaying to a jet and an emerging jet | JHEP 02 (2019) 179 | CMS-EXO-18-001 1810.10069 |
| 21 | CMS Collaboration | Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker | JINST 9 (2014) P10009 | CMS-TRK-11-001 1405.6569 |
| 22 | CMS Tracker Group | The CMS phase-1 pixel detector upgrade | JINST 16 (2021) P02027 | 2012.14304 |
| 23 | CMS Collaboration | Track impact parameter resolution for the full pseudo rapidity coverage in the 2017 dataset with the CMS phase-1 pixel detector | CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2020-049, 2020 CDS |
|
| 24 | CMS Collaboration | Performance of the CMS Level-1 trigger in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13\,TeV | JINST 15 (2020) P10017 | CMS-TRG-17-001 2006.10165 |
| 25 | CMS Collaboration | The CMS trigger system | JINST 12 (2017) P01020 | CMS-TRG-12-001 1609.02366 |
| 26 | CMS Collaboration | The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC | JINST 3 (2008) S08004 | |
| 27 | L. Carloni and T. Sjöstrand | Visible effects of invisible hidden valley radiation | JHEP 09 (2010) 105 | 1006.2911 |
| 28 | L. Carloni, J. Rathsman, and T. Sjöstrand | Discerning secluded sector gauge structures | JHEP 04 (2011) 091 | 1102.3795 |
| 29 | T. Sjöstrand et al. | An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 | Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159 | 1410.3012 |
| 30 | 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 (2014) 079 | 1405.0301 |
| 31 | J. Alwall et al. | Comparative study of various algorithms for the merging of parton showers and matrix elements in hadronic collisions | EPJC 53 (2008) 473 | 0706.2569 |
| 32 | CMS Collaboration | Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements | EPJC 80 (2020) 4 | CMS-GEN-17-001 1903.12179 |
| 33 | NNPDF Collaboration | Parton distributions from high-precision collider data | EPJC 77 (2017) 663 | 1706.00428 |
| 34 | GEANT4 Collaboration | GEANT4---a simulation toolkit | NIM A 506 (2003) 250 | |
| 35 | CMS Collaboration | Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector | JINST 12 (2017) P10003 | CMS-PRF-14-001 1706.04965 |
| 36 | CMS Collaboration | Performance of reconstruction and identification of $ \tau $ leptons decaying to hadrons and $ \nu_\tau $ in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV | JINST 13 (2018) P10005 | CMS-TAU-16-003 1809.02816 |
| 37 | CMS Collaboration | Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV | JINST 12 (2017) P02014 | CMS-JME-13-004 1607.03663 |
| 38 | CMS Collaboration | Performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13\,TeV using the CMS detector | JINST 14 (2019) P07004 | CMS-JME-17-001 1903.06078 |
| 39 | M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez | The anti-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ jet clustering algorithm | JHEP 04 (2008) 063 | 0802.1189 |
| 40 | M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez | FastJet user manual | EPJC 72 (2012) 1896 | 1111.6097 |
| 41 | E. Bols et al. | Jet flavour classification using DeepJet | JINST 15 (2020) P12012 | 2008.10519 |
| 42 | CMS Collaboration | Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV | JINST 13 (2018) P05011 | CMS-BTV-16-002 1712.07158 |
| 43 | CMS Collaboration | Performance summary of AK4 jet b tagging with data from proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV with the CMS detector | CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2023-005, 2023 CDS |
|
| 44 | K. Rose | Deterministic annealing for clustering, compression, classification, regression, and related optimization problems | IEEE Proc. 86 (1998) 2210 | |
| 45 | R. Fruhwirth, W. Waltenberger, and P. Vanlaer | Adaptive vertex fitting | JPG 34 (2007) N343 | |
| 46 | CMS Collaboration | Technical proposal for the Phase-II upgrade of the Compact Muon Solenoid | CMS Technical Proposal CERN-LHCC-2015-010, CMS-TDR-15-02, 2015 CDS |
|
| 47 | CMS Collaboration | Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data | JINST 15 (2020) P09018 | CMS-JME-18-001 2003.00503 |
| 48 | CMS Collaboration | Jet algorithms performance in 13 TeV data | CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2017 CMS-PAS-JME-16-003 |
CMS-PAS-JME-16-003 |
| 49 | J. Thaler and K. Van Tilburg | Identifying boosted objects with N-subjettiness | JHEP 03 (2011) 015 | 1011.2268 |
| 50 | H. Qu and L. Gouskos | Jet tagging via particle clouds | PRD 101 (2020) 056019 | 1902.08570 |
| 51 | CMS Collaboration | Precision luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV in 2015 and 2016 at CMS | EPJC 81 (2021) 800 | CMS-LUM-17-003 2104.01927 |
| 52 | CMS Collaboration | CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV | CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2018 CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004 |
CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004 |
| 53 | CMS Collaboration | CMS luminosity measurement for the 2018 data-taking period at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV | CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2019 CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002 |
CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002 |
| 54 | CMS Collaboration | Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV | JHEP 07 (2018) 161 | CMS-FSQ-15-005 1802.02613 |
| 55 | NNPDF Collaboration | Parton distributions with QED corrections | NPB 877 (2013) 290 | 1308.0598 |
| 56 | CMS Collaboration | Muon tracking performance in the CMS Run-2 Legacy data using the tag-and-probe technique | CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2020-035, 2020 CDS |
|
| 57 | M. Cacciari et al. | The t anti-t cross-section at 1.8-TeV and 1.96-TeV: A Study of the systematics due to parton densities and scale dependence | JHEP 04 (2004) 068 | hep-ph/0303085 |
| 58 | S. Catani, D. de Florian, M. Grazzini, and P. Nason | Soft gluon resummation for Higgs boson production at hadron colliders | JHEP 07 (2003) 028 | hep-ph/0306211 |
| 59 | T. Junk | Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics | NIM A 434 (1999) 435 | hep-ex/9902006 |
| 60 | A. L. Read | Presentation of search results: the $ \text{CL}_\text{s} $ technique | JPG 28 (2002) 2693 | |
| 61 | ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, and LHC Higgs Combination Group | Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011 | Technical Report CMS-NOTE-2011-005, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-11, 2011 | |
|
|
Compact Muon Solenoid LHC, CERN |
|
|
|
|
|
|