CMS logoCMS event Hgg
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN

CMS-PAS-SUS-21-006
Search for supersymmetry in final states with disappearing tracks in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV
Abstract: A search is presented for charged, long-lived supersymmetric particles in final states with one or more disappearing tracks. The search is based on a sample of proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV collected with the CMS detector at the CERN LHC between 2016 and 2018, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 137 fb$ ^{-1} $. The search is performed over final states characterized by varying numbers of jets, b-tagged jets, electrons, and muons. The transverse length of signal-candidate tracks is used to characterize the lifetimes of wino-like and higgsino-like charginos produced in the context of the minimal supersymmetric standard model. The d$ E/ $d$ x $ energy loss of candidate tracks is used to increase the sensitivity to charginos with a large mass due to their typically small Lorentz boost in the CMS detector. The observed results are found to be statistically consistent with the background-only hypothesis. Limits on the pair production cross section of gluinos and squarks are presented in the framework of simplified models of supersymmetric particle production and decay, and for electroweakino production based on a model of higgsino dark matter.
Figures & Tables Summary References CMS Publications
Figures

png pdf
Figure 1:
Representative production diagrams for the simplified models considered in this analysis. From left to right: T6btLL, T6tbLL, and T5btbtLL (top); and TChiWZ, TChiWW, and TChiW (bottom).

png pdf
Figure 1-a:
Representative production diagrams for the simplified models considered in this analysis. From left to right: T6btLL, T6tbLL, and T5btbtLL (top); and TChiWZ, TChiWW, and TChiW (bottom).

png pdf
Figure 1-b:
Representative production diagrams for the simplified models considered in this analysis. From left to right: T6btLL, T6tbLL, and T5btbtLL (top); and TChiWZ, TChiWW, and TChiW (bottom).

png pdf
Figure 1-c:
Representative production diagrams for the simplified models considered in this analysis. From left to right: T6btLL, T6tbLL, and T5btbtLL (top); and TChiWZ, TChiWW, and TChiW (bottom).

png pdf
Figure 1-d:
Representative production diagrams for the simplified models considered in this analysis. From left to right: T6btLL, T6tbLL, and T5btbtLL (top); and TChiWZ, TChiWW, and TChiW (bottom).

png pdf
Figure 1-e:
Representative production diagrams for the simplified models considered in this analysis. From left to right: T6btLL, T6tbLL, and T5btbtLL (top); and TChiWZ, TChiWW, and TChiW (bottom).

png pdf
Figure 1-f:
Representative production diagrams for the simplified models considered in this analysis. From left to right: T6btLL, T6tbLL, and T5btbtLL (top); and TChiWZ, TChiWW, and TChiW (bottom).

png pdf
Figure 2:
Comparison of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ distributions in the $ \kappa^{\text{low}}_{\text{high}} $ DY control region for the data and background prediction for long (top) and short (middle) showering tracks, and in the $ \kappa^{\mu\,\text{veto}}_{\mu\,\text{match}} $ DY control region for long muon tracks (bottom). The left (right) column corresponds to the Phase 0 (Phase 1) detector. The uncertainty bars on the ratios in the lower panels indicate the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the observed counts. The gray bands show the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the sideband region counts, added in quadrature with the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 2-a:
Comparison of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ distributions in the $ \kappa^{\text{low}}_{\text{high}} $ DY control region for the data and background prediction for long (top) and short (middle) showering tracks, and in the $ \kappa^{\mu\,\text{veto}}_{\mu\,\text{match}} $ DY control region for long muon tracks (bottom). The left (right) column corresponds to the Phase 0 (Phase 1) detector. The uncertainty bars on the ratios in the lower panels indicate the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the observed counts. The gray bands show the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the sideband region counts, added in quadrature with the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 2-b:
Comparison of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ distributions in the $ \kappa^{\text{low}}_{\text{high}} $ DY control region for the data and background prediction for long (top) and short (middle) showering tracks, and in the $ \kappa^{\mu\,\text{veto}}_{\mu\,\text{match}} $ DY control region for long muon tracks (bottom). The left (right) column corresponds to the Phase 0 (Phase 1) detector. The uncertainty bars on the ratios in the lower panels indicate the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the observed counts. The gray bands show the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the sideband region counts, added in quadrature with the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 2-c:
Comparison of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ distributions in the $ \kappa^{\text{low}}_{\text{high}} $ DY control region for the data and background prediction for long (top) and short (middle) showering tracks, and in the $ \kappa^{\mu\,\text{veto}}_{\mu\,\text{match}} $ DY control region for long muon tracks (bottom). The left (right) column corresponds to the Phase 0 (Phase 1) detector. The uncertainty bars on the ratios in the lower panels indicate the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the observed counts. The gray bands show the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the sideband region counts, added in quadrature with the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 2-d:
Comparison of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ distributions in the $ \kappa^{\text{low}}_{\text{high}} $ DY control region for the data and background prediction for long (top) and short (middle) showering tracks, and in the $ \kappa^{\mu\,\text{veto}}_{\mu\,\text{match}} $ DY control region for long muon tracks (bottom). The left (right) column corresponds to the Phase 0 (Phase 1) detector. The uncertainty bars on the ratios in the lower panels indicate the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the observed counts. The gray bands show the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the sideband region counts, added in quadrature with the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 2-e:
Comparison of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ distributions in the $ \kappa^{\text{low}}_{\text{high}} $ DY control region for the data and background prediction for long (top) and short (middle) showering tracks, and in the $ \kappa^{\mu\,\text{veto}}_{\mu\,\text{match}} $ DY control region for long muon tracks (bottom). The left (right) column corresponds to the Phase 0 (Phase 1) detector. The uncertainty bars on the ratios in the lower panels indicate the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the observed counts. The gray bands show the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the sideband region counts, added in quadrature with the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 2-f:
Comparison of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ distributions in the $ \kappa^{\text{low}}_{\text{high}} $ DY control region for the data and background prediction for long (top) and short (middle) showering tracks, and in the $ \kappa^{\mu\,\text{veto}}_{\mu\,\text{match}} $ DY control region for long muon tracks (bottom). The left (right) column corresponds to the Phase 0 (Phase 1) detector. The uncertainty bars on the ratios in the lower panels indicate the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the observed counts. The gray bands show the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the sideband region counts, added in quadrature with the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 3:
Comparison of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ distributions in the high-$ m_{\mathrm{T}} $ validation control regions for the data and background prediction for long (top) and short (middle) showering tracks, and for long muon tracks (bottom). The left (right) column corresponds to the Phase 0 (Phase 1) detector. The uncertainty bars on the ratios in the lower panels indicate the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the observed counts. The gray bands show the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the sideband region counts, added in quadrature with the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 3-a:
Comparison of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ distributions in the high-$ m_{\mathrm{T}} $ validation control regions for the data and background prediction for long (top) and short (middle) showering tracks, and for long muon tracks (bottom). The left (right) column corresponds to the Phase 0 (Phase 1) detector. The uncertainty bars on the ratios in the lower panels indicate the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the observed counts. The gray bands show the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the sideband region counts, added in quadrature with the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 3-b:
Comparison of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ distributions in the high-$ m_{\mathrm{T}} $ validation control regions for the data and background prediction for long (top) and short (middle) showering tracks, and for long muon tracks (bottom). The left (right) column corresponds to the Phase 0 (Phase 1) detector. The uncertainty bars on the ratios in the lower panels indicate the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the observed counts. The gray bands show the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the sideband region counts, added in quadrature with the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 3-c:
Comparison of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ distributions in the high-$ m_{\mathrm{T}} $ validation control regions for the data and background prediction for long (top) and short (middle) showering tracks, and for long muon tracks (bottom). The left (right) column corresponds to the Phase 0 (Phase 1) detector. The uncertainty bars on the ratios in the lower panels indicate the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the observed counts. The gray bands show the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the sideband region counts, added in quadrature with the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 3-d:
Comparison of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ distributions in the high-$ m_{\mathrm{T}} $ validation control regions for the data and background prediction for long (top) and short (middle) showering tracks, and for long muon tracks (bottom). The left (right) column corresponds to the Phase 0 (Phase 1) detector. The uncertainty bars on the ratios in the lower panels indicate the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the observed counts. The gray bands show the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the sideband region counts, added in quadrature with the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 3-e:
Comparison of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ distributions in the high-$ m_{\mathrm{T}} $ validation control regions for the data and background prediction for long (top) and short (middle) showering tracks, and for long muon tracks (bottom). The left (right) column corresponds to the Phase 0 (Phase 1) detector. The uncertainty bars on the ratios in the lower panels indicate the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the observed counts. The gray bands show the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the sideband region counts, added in quadrature with the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 3-f:
Comparison of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ distributions in the high-$ m_{\mathrm{T}} $ validation control regions for the data and background prediction for long (top) and short (middle) showering tracks, and for long muon tracks (bottom). The left (right) column corresponds to the Phase 0 (Phase 1) detector. The uncertainty bars on the ratios in the lower panels indicate the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the observed counts. The gray bands show the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the sideband region counts, added in quadrature with the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 4:
Comparison of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ distributions in the $ \theta^{\text{high}}_{\text{low}} $ QCD-enhanced control region for the data and background prediction for long (top) and short (bottom) tracks. The left (right) column corresponds to the Phase 0 (Phase 1) detector. The uncertainty bars on the ratios in the lower panels indicate the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the observed counts. The gray bands show the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the control region counts, added in quadrature with the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 4-a:
Comparison of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ distributions in the $ \theta^{\text{high}}_{\text{low}} $ QCD-enhanced control region for the data and background prediction for long (top) and short (bottom) tracks. The left (right) column corresponds to the Phase 0 (Phase 1) detector. The uncertainty bars on the ratios in the lower panels indicate the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the observed counts. The gray bands show the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the control region counts, added in quadrature with the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 4-b:
Comparison of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ distributions in the $ \theta^{\text{high}}_{\text{low}} $ QCD-enhanced control region for the data and background prediction for long (top) and short (bottom) tracks. The left (right) column corresponds to the Phase 0 (Phase 1) detector. The uncertainty bars on the ratios in the lower panels indicate the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the observed counts. The gray bands show the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the control region counts, added in quadrature with the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 4-c:
Comparison of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ distributions in the $ \theta^{\text{high}}_{\text{low}} $ QCD-enhanced control region for the data and background prediction for long (top) and short (bottom) tracks. The left (right) column corresponds to the Phase 0 (Phase 1) detector. The uncertainty bars on the ratios in the lower panels indicate the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the observed counts. The gray bands show the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the control region counts, added in quadrature with the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 4-d:
Comparison of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ distributions in the $ \theta^{\text{high}}_{\text{low}} $ QCD-enhanced control region for the data and background prediction for long (top) and short (bottom) tracks. The left (right) column corresponds to the Phase 0 (Phase 1) detector. The uncertainty bars on the ratios in the lower panels indicate the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the observed counts. The gray bands show the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the control region counts, added in quadrature with the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 5:
Comparison of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ distributions in events with one lepton and one DTk, in a control region with $ m_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 110 GeV and $ m_{\text{DTk},\ell} \not\in $ [65,110] GeV, for the data and background prediction for long (top) and short (bottom) tracks. The left (right) column corresponds to the Phase 0 (Phase 1) detector. The uncertainty bars on the ratios in the lower panels indicate the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the observed counts. The gray bands show the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the control region counts, added in quadrature with the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 5-a:
Comparison of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ distributions in events with one lepton and one DTk, in a control region with $ m_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 110 GeV and $ m_{\text{DTk},\ell} \not\in $ [65,110] GeV, for the data and background prediction for long (top) and short (bottom) tracks. The left (right) column corresponds to the Phase 0 (Phase 1) detector. The uncertainty bars on the ratios in the lower panels indicate the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the observed counts. The gray bands show the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the control region counts, added in quadrature with the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 5-b:
Comparison of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ distributions in events with one lepton and one DTk, in a control region with $ m_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 110 GeV and $ m_{\text{DTk},\ell} \not\in $ [65,110] GeV, for the data and background prediction for long (top) and short (bottom) tracks. The left (right) column corresponds to the Phase 0 (Phase 1) detector. The uncertainty bars on the ratios in the lower panels indicate the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the observed counts. The gray bands show the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the control region counts, added in quadrature with the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 5-c:
Comparison of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ distributions in events with one lepton and one DTk, in a control region with $ m_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 110 GeV and $ m_{\text{DTk},\ell} \not\in $ [65,110] GeV, for the data and background prediction for long (top) and short (bottom) tracks. The left (right) column corresponds to the Phase 0 (Phase 1) detector. The uncertainty bars on the ratios in the lower panels indicate the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the observed counts. The gray bands show the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the control region counts, added in quadrature with the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 5-d:
Comparison of the $ p_{\mathrm{T}} $ distributions in events with one lepton and one DTk, in a control region with $ m_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 110 GeV and $ m_{\text{DTk},\ell} \not\in $ [65,110] GeV, for the data and background prediction for long (top) and short (bottom) tracks. The left (right) column corresponds to the Phase 0 (Phase 1) detector. The uncertainty bars on the ratios in the lower panels indicate the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the observed counts. The gray bands show the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the control region counts, added in quadrature with the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 6:
Comparison in the baseline region for the long-track DTk category between the data and predicted SM background for the $ N_{\text{jet}} $ (top left), $ N_{\mathrm{b}\text{-jet}} $ (top right), hard $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $ (middle left), $ N_{\mathrm{e}} $ (middle right), $ N_{\mu} $ (bottom left), and $ m_{\text{DTk;\,\mathrm{d} E/\mathrm{d} x}} $ (bottom right) distributions. The uncertainty bars on the ratios in the lower panels indicate the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the observed counts. The gray bands show the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the control region counts, added in quadrature with the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 6-a:
Comparison in the baseline region for the long-track DTk category between the data and predicted SM background for the $ N_{\text{jet}} $ (top left), $ N_{\mathrm{b}\text{-jet}} $ (top right), hard $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $ (middle left), $ N_{\mathrm{e}} $ (middle right), $ N_{\mu} $ (bottom left), and $ m_{\text{DTk;\,\mathrm{d} E/\mathrm{d} x}} $ (bottom right) distributions. The uncertainty bars on the ratios in the lower panels indicate the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the observed counts. The gray bands show the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the control region counts, added in quadrature with the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 6-b:
Comparison in the baseline region for the long-track DTk category between the data and predicted SM background for the $ N_{\text{jet}} $ (top left), $ N_{\mathrm{b}\text{-jet}} $ (top right), hard $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $ (middle left), $ N_{\mathrm{e}} $ (middle right), $ N_{\mu} $ (bottom left), and $ m_{\text{DTk;\,\mathrm{d} E/\mathrm{d} x}} $ (bottom right) distributions. The uncertainty bars on the ratios in the lower panels indicate the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the observed counts. The gray bands show the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the control region counts, added in quadrature with the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 6-c:
Comparison in the baseline region for the long-track DTk category between the data and predicted SM background for the $ N_{\text{jet}} $ (top left), $ N_{\mathrm{b}\text{-jet}} $ (top right), hard $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $ (middle left), $ N_{\mathrm{e}} $ (middle right), $ N_{\mu} $ (bottom left), and $ m_{\text{DTk;\,\mathrm{d} E/\mathrm{d} x}} $ (bottom right) distributions. The uncertainty bars on the ratios in the lower panels indicate the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the observed counts. The gray bands show the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the control region counts, added in quadrature with the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 6-d:
Comparison in the baseline region for the long-track DTk category between the data and predicted SM background for the $ N_{\text{jet}} $ (top left), $ N_{\mathrm{b}\text{-jet}} $ (top right), hard $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $ (middle left), $ N_{\mathrm{e}} $ (middle right), $ N_{\mu} $ (bottom left), and $ m_{\text{DTk;\,\mathrm{d} E/\mathrm{d} x}} $ (bottom right) distributions. The uncertainty bars on the ratios in the lower panels indicate the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the observed counts. The gray bands show the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the control region counts, added in quadrature with the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 6-e:
Comparison in the baseline region for the long-track DTk category between the data and predicted SM background for the $ N_{\text{jet}} $ (top left), $ N_{\mathrm{b}\text{-jet}} $ (top right), hard $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $ (middle left), $ N_{\mathrm{e}} $ (middle right), $ N_{\mu} $ (bottom left), and $ m_{\text{DTk;\,\mathrm{d} E/\mathrm{d} x}} $ (bottom right) distributions. The uncertainty bars on the ratios in the lower panels indicate the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the observed counts. The gray bands show the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the control region counts, added in quadrature with the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 6-f:
Comparison in the baseline region for the long-track DTk category between the data and predicted SM background for the $ N_{\text{jet}} $ (top left), $ N_{\mathrm{b}\text{-jet}} $ (top right), hard $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $ (middle left), $ N_{\mathrm{e}} $ (middle right), $ N_{\mu} $ (bottom left), and $ m_{\text{DTk;\,\mathrm{d} E/\mathrm{d} x}} $ (bottom right) distributions. The uncertainty bars on the ratios in the lower panels indicate the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the observed counts. The gray bands show the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the control region counts, added in quadrature with the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 7:
Comparison in the baseline region for the short-track DTk category between the data and predicted SM background for the $ N_{\text{jet}} $ (top left), $ N_{\mathrm{b}\text{-jet}} $ (top right), $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $ (middle left), $ N_{\mathrm{e}} $ (middle right), $ N_{\mu} $ (bottom left), and $ m_{\text{DTk;\,\mathrm{d} E/\mathrm{d} x}} $ (bottom right) distributions. The uncertainty bars on the ratios in the lower panels indicate the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the observed counts. The gray bands show the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the control region counts, added in quadrature with the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 7-a:
Comparison in the baseline region for the short-track DTk category between the data and predicted SM background for the $ N_{\text{jet}} $ (top left), $ N_{\mathrm{b}\text{-jet}} $ (top right), $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $ (middle left), $ N_{\mathrm{e}} $ (middle right), $ N_{\mu} $ (bottom left), and $ m_{\text{DTk;\,\mathrm{d} E/\mathrm{d} x}} $ (bottom right) distributions. The uncertainty bars on the ratios in the lower panels indicate the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the observed counts. The gray bands show the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the control region counts, added in quadrature with the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 7-b:
Comparison in the baseline region for the short-track DTk category between the data and predicted SM background for the $ N_{\text{jet}} $ (top left), $ N_{\mathrm{b}\text{-jet}} $ (top right), $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $ (middle left), $ N_{\mathrm{e}} $ (middle right), $ N_{\mu} $ (bottom left), and $ m_{\text{DTk;\,\mathrm{d} E/\mathrm{d} x}} $ (bottom right) distributions. The uncertainty bars on the ratios in the lower panels indicate the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the observed counts. The gray bands show the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the control region counts, added in quadrature with the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 7-c:
Comparison in the baseline region for the short-track DTk category between the data and predicted SM background for the $ N_{\text{jet}} $ (top left), $ N_{\mathrm{b}\text{-jet}} $ (top right), $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $ (middle left), $ N_{\mathrm{e}} $ (middle right), $ N_{\mu} $ (bottom left), and $ m_{\text{DTk;\,\mathrm{d} E/\mathrm{d} x}} $ (bottom right) distributions. The uncertainty bars on the ratios in the lower panels indicate the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the observed counts. The gray bands show the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the control region counts, added in quadrature with the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 7-d:
Comparison in the baseline region for the short-track DTk category between the data and predicted SM background for the $ N_{\text{jet}} $ (top left), $ N_{\mathrm{b}\text{-jet}} $ (top right), $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $ (middle left), $ N_{\mathrm{e}} $ (middle right), $ N_{\mu} $ (bottom left), and $ m_{\text{DTk;\,\mathrm{d} E/\mathrm{d} x}} $ (bottom right) distributions. The uncertainty bars on the ratios in the lower panels indicate the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the observed counts. The gray bands show the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the control region counts, added in quadrature with the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 7-e:
Comparison in the baseline region for the short-track DTk category between the data and predicted SM background for the $ N_{\text{jet}} $ (top left), $ N_{\mathrm{b}\text{-jet}} $ (top right), $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $ (middle left), $ N_{\mathrm{e}} $ (middle right), $ N_{\mu} $ (bottom left), and $ m_{\text{DTk;\,\mathrm{d} E/\mathrm{d} x}} $ (bottom right) distributions. The uncertainty bars on the ratios in the lower panels indicate the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the observed counts. The gray bands show the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the control region counts, added in quadrature with the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 7-f:
Comparison in the baseline region for the short-track DTk category between the data and predicted SM background for the $ N_{\text{jet}} $ (top left), $ N_{\mathrm{b}\text{-jet}} $ (top right), $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $ (middle left), $ N_{\mathrm{e}} $ (middle right), $ N_{\mu} $ (bottom left), and $ m_{\text{DTk;\,\mathrm{d} E/\mathrm{d} x}} $ (bottom right) distributions. The uncertainty bars on the ratios in the lower panels indicate the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the observed counts. The gray bands show the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the control region counts, added in quadrature with the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 8:
Comparison between the data and SM background predictions for the 49 signal regions. The uncertainty bars on the ratios in the lower panels indicate the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the observed counts. The gray bands show the fractional Poisson uncertainties in the control region counts, added in quadrature with the systematic uncertainties.

png pdf
Figure 9:
Observed 95% CL upper limits on the signal cross sections versus the bottom or top squark and neutralino mass for the T6tbLL (upper row) and T6btLL (lower row) model for a chargino proper decay length $ c\tau $ of 10 (left column) or 200 (right column) cm. Also shown are the contours corresponding to the observed and expected lower limits, including their uncertainties, on the squark and neutralino masses.

png
Figure 9-a:
Observed 95% CL upper limits on the signal cross sections versus the bottom or top squark and neutralino mass for the T6tbLL (upper row) and T6btLL (lower row) model for a chargino proper decay length $ c\tau $ of 10 (left column) or 200 (right column) cm. Also shown are the contours corresponding to the observed and expected lower limits, including their uncertainties, on the squark and neutralino masses.

png
Figure 9-b:
Observed 95% CL upper limits on the signal cross sections versus the bottom or top squark and neutralino mass for the T6tbLL (upper row) and T6btLL (lower row) model for a chargino proper decay length $ c\tau $ of 10 (left column) or 200 (right column) cm. Also shown are the contours corresponding to the observed and expected lower limits, including their uncertainties, on the squark and neutralino masses.

png
Figure 9-c:
Observed 95% CL upper limits on the signal cross sections versus the bottom or top squark and neutralino mass for the T6tbLL (upper row) and T6btLL (lower row) model for a chargino proper decay length $ c\tau $ of 10 (left column) or 200 (right column) cm. Also shown are the contours corresponding to the observed and expected lower limits, including their uncertainties, on the squark and neutralino masses.

png
Figure 9-d:
Observed 95% CL upper limits on the signal cross sections versus the bottom or top squark and neutralino mass for the T6tbLL (upper row) and T6btLL (lower row) model for a chargino proper decay length $ c\tau $ of 10 (left column) or 200 (right column) cm. Also shown are the contours corresponding to the observed and expected lower limits, including their uncertainties, on the squark and neutralino masses.

png pdf
Figure 10:
Observed 95% CL upper limits on the signal cross sections versus the gluino and neutralino mass for the T5btbtLL model for a chargino proper decay length $ c\tau $ of 10 (left column) and 200 (right column) cm. Also shown are the contours corresponding to the observed and expected lower limits, including their uncertainties, on the gluino and neutralino masses.

png
Figure 10-a:
Observed 95% CL upper limits on the signal cross sections versus the gluino and neutralino mass for the T5btbtLL model for a chargino proper decay length $ c\tau $ of 10 (left column) and 200 (right column) cm. Also shown are the contours corresponding to the observed and expected lower limits, including their uncertainties, on the gluino and neutralino masses.

png
Figure 10-b:
Observed 95% CL upper limits on the signal cross sections versus the gluino and neutralino mass for the T5btbtLL model for a chargino proper decay length $ c\tau $ of 10 (left column) and 200 (right column) cm. Also shown are the contours corresponding to the observed and expected lower limits, including their uncertainties, on the gluino and neutralino masses.

png pdf
Figure 11:
Observed 95% CL upper limits on the signal cross sections versus the chargino-LSP mass difference and the mass of the chargino. The red solid line indicates the boundary where the upper limit equals the cross section of fully degenerate higgsino production [91,92]. The green line represents the set of model points corresponding to the pure higgsino model where only radiative corrections to the mass splitting are assumed [21].
Tables

png pdf
Table 1:
Overview of the simplified models of supersymmetry considered in this analysis.

png pdf
Table 2:
Selection criteria on the BDT classifier and on the calorimetric energy $ E_{\text{dep}} $ associated with a disappearing track candidate for the search regions (SR) and for the control regions (CR) discussed in Section 8.

png pdf
Table 3:
Definition of the search regions (SR) for the hadronic channel. The low (L) and high (H) categories refer to the ranges $ \mathrm{d} E/\mathrm{d} x\leq $ 4.0 and $ \mathrm{d} E/\mathrm{d} x > $ 4.0 MeV/cm, respectively.

png pdf
Table 4:
Definition of the search regions (SR) for the muon, electron, and $ N_{\mathrm{DTk}}\geq $ 2 channels. The low (L) and high (H) categories refer to the ranges $ \mathrm{d} E/\mathrm{d} x\leq $ 4.0 and $ \mathrm{d} E/\mathrm{d} x > $ 4.0 MeV/cm, respectively.

png pdf
Table 5:
The transfer factors $ \kappa^{\text{low}}_{\text{high}} $ and $ \kappa^{\mu\,\text{veto}}_{\mu\,\text{match}} $ used for the evaluation of the real-particle backgrounds. The ``Real shower'' columns refer to the $ \kappa^{\text{low}}_{\text{high}} $ factors while the ``Real muon'' columns refer to the $ \kappa^{\mu\,\text{veto}}_{\mu\,\text{match}} $ factors. The real-particle muon background is negligible for the short category of DTk tracks. The uncertainties are statistical.

png pdf
Table 6:
The transfer factor $ \theta^{\text{high}}_{\text{low}} $ used for the evaluation of the fake-track background. The uncertainties are statistical.

png pdf
Table 7:
Top: The considered sources of systematic uncertainty in the predicted signal yield and the corresponding range of values over the 49 search regions. Bottom: The ranges for the total prefit uncertainty in the predicted background counts. A value of 0 is reported when the relative uncertainty is determined to be less than 0.5%.

png pdf
Table 8:
The predicted prefit background counts and uncertainties in the 49 search regions. Statistical and bin-wise systematic uncertainties are added in quadrature. The control region counts corresponding to each background prediction are given in the column to the left of the respective background column. The numbers in parentheses for the signal points indicate the squark mass $ m_{\tilde{\mathrm{q}}} $ in GeV, the LSP mass $ m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}} $ in GeV, and $ c\tau $ for the chargino $ \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} $ in cm, respectively.
Summary
A search for semi-stable charginos based on 137 fb$ ^{-1} $ of data collected in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV is presented. Event yields are studied in 49 non-overlapping search regions defined by the number of electrons, muons, jets, and b-tagged jets, and the missing transverse momentum $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $, in final states with at least one identified disappearing track. Further categorization of the search regions is based on the approximate length of the track and on its d$ E$/d$ x $ energy loss in the inner tracking detector. The analysis targets a wide variety of possible production modes appearing in simplified models of R-parity conserving supersymmetry, including gluino, top squark, bottom squark, and electroweakino pair production. A machine learning-based classifier is employed to optimally select disappearing tracks while rejecting tracks originating from failures in the reconstruction or from combinatoric effects. Background contributions to the search regions are evaluated based on the observed yields in data control regions. The observed yields in the search regions are found to be consistent with the background-only predictions, and thus no evidence for supersymmetry is found. In the context of the examined models, bottom squarks, top squarks, and gluinos with masses as large as 1500, 1600, and 2300 GeV, respectively, are excluded. For bottom squark pair production, charginos and the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) are excluded up to masses of 850 (1150) GeV for a chargino proper decay length $ c\tau $ of 10 (200) cm. For top squark pair production, the corresponding limit on the chargino and LSP mass is 1050 (1450) GeV. These results extend the maximum limit on the LSP mass in the compressed phase space scenario by hundreds of GeV compared to the previous study [17], and extend the reach of sensitivity into mass regions where a pure higgsino-like or wino-like LSP can account for the observed dark matter relic density. Limits are also determined for a pure higgsino dark matter model [21]. In the context of this latter model, charginos and LSPs are excluded up to 200 GeV.
References
1 P. Ramond Dual theory for free fermions PRD 3 (1971) 2415
2 Y. A. Golfand and E. P. Likhtman Extension of the algebra of Poincaré group generators and violation of P invariance JETP Lett. 13 (1971) 323
3 A. Neveu and J. H. Schwarz Factorizable dual model of pions NPB 31 (1971) 86
4 D. V. Volkov and V. P. Akulov Possible universal neutrino interaction JETP Lett. 16 (1972) 438
5 J. Wess and B. Zumino A Lagrangian model invariant under supergauge transformations PLB 49 (1974) 52
6 J. Wess and B. Zumino Supergauge transformations in four dimensions NPB 70 (1974) 39
7 P. Fayet Supergauge invariant extension of the Higgs mechanism and a model for the electron and its neutrino NPB 90 (1975) 104
8 P. Fayet and S. Ferrara Supersymmetry Phys. Rept. 32 (1977) 249
9 H. P. Nilles Supersymmetry, supergravity and particle physics Phys. Rep. 110 (1984) 1
10 F. Zwicky On the masses of nebulae and of clusters of nebulae Astrophys. J. 86 (1937) 217
11 V. C. Rubin and W. K. Ford, Jr. Rotation of the Andromeda nebula from a spectroscopic survey of emission regions Astrophys. J. 159 (1970) 379
12 ATLAS Collaboration The ATLAS experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider JINST 3 (2008) S08003
13 CMS Collaboration The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC JINST 3 (2008) S08004
14 Planck Collaboration Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A6 1807.06209
15 G. R. Farrar and P. Fayet Phenomenology of the production, decay, and detection of new hadronic states associated with supersymmetry PLB 76 (1978) 575
16 A. Delgado and M. Quirós Higgsino dark matter in the MSSM PRD 103 (2021) 015024 2008.00954
17 CMS Collaboration 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 TeV EPJC 80 (2020) 3 CMS-SUS-19-005
1909.03460
18 CMS Collaboration Search for disappearing tracks in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV PLB 806 (2020) 135502 CMS-EXO-19-010
2004.05153
19 ATLAS Collaboration Search for long-lived charginos based on a disappearing-track signature using 136 fb$ ^{-1} $ of pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector EPJC 82 (2022) 606 2201.02472
20 N. Nagata and S. Shirai Higgsino dark matter in high-scale supersymmetry JHEP 01 (2015) 029 1410.4549
21 H. Fukuda, N. Nagata, H. Otono, and S. Shirai Higgsino dark matter or not: role of disappearing track searches at the LHC and future colliders PLB 781 (2018) 306 1703.09675
22 S. P. Martin A Supersymmetry primer Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys. 18 (1998) 1 hep-ph/9709356
23 B. C. Allanach SOFTSUSY: a program for calculating supersymmetric spectra Comput. Phys. Commun. 143 (2002) 305 hep-ph/0104145
24 CMS Tracker Group Collaboration The CMS phase-1 pixel detector upgrade JINST 16 (2021) P02027 2012.14304
25 CMS Collaboration The CMS trigger system JINST 12 (2017) P01020 CMS-TRG-12-001
1609.02366
26 CMS Collaboration Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector JINST 12 (2017) P10003 CMS-PRF-14-001
1706.04965
27 CMS Collaboration Electron and photon reconstruction and identification with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC JINST 16 (2021) P05014 CMS-EGM-17-001
2012.06888
28 CMS Collaboration Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV JINST 13 (2018) P06015 CMS-MUO-16-001
1804.04528
29 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
30 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez The anti-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ jet clustering algorithm JHEP 04 (2008) 063 0802.1189
31 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez FastJet user manual EPJC 72 (2012) 1896 1111.6097
32 CMS Collaboration Jet performance in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2010
link
33 CMS Collaboration Jet algorithms performance in 13 TeV data CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2017
CMS-PAS-JME-16-003
CMS-PAS-JME-16-003
34 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
35 M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam Pileup subtraction using jet areas PLB 659 (2008) 119 0707.1378
36 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
37 K. Rehermann and B. Tweedie Efficient identification of boosted semileptonic top quarks at the LHC JHEP 03 (2011) 059 1007.2221
38 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
39 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
40 R. Frederix and S. Frixione Merging meets matching in MC@NLO JHEP 12 (2012) 061 1209.6215
41 P. Nason A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms JHEP 11 (2004) 040 hep-ph/0409146
42 S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method JHEP 11 (2007) 070 0709.2092
43 S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX JHEP 06 (2010) 043 1002.2581
44 S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re NLO single-top production matched with shower in POWHEG: $ s $- and $ t $-channel contributions JHEP 09 (2009) 111 0907.4076
45 E. Re Single-top Wt-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method EPJC 71 (2011) 1547 1009.2450
46 T. Melia, P. Nason, R. Rontsch, and G. Zanderighi W$ ^+ $W$ ^- $, WZ and ZZ production in the POWHEG BOX JHEP 11 (2011) 078 1107.5051
47 M. Beneke, P. Falgari, S. Klein, and C. Schwinn Hadronic top-quark pair production with NNLL threshold resummation NPB 855 (2012) 695 1109.1536
48 M. Cacciari et al. Top-pair production at hadron colliders with next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic soft-gluon resummation PLB 710 (2012) 612 1111.5869
49 P. Bärnreuther, M. Czakon, and A. Mitov Percent level precision physics at the Tevatron: First genuine NNLO QCD corrections to $ \mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}\to{\mathrm{t}\overline{\mathrm{t}}} +X $ PRL 109 (2012) 132001 1204.5201
50 M. Czakon and A. Mitov NNLO corrections to top-pair production at hadron colliders: the all-fermionic scattering channels JHEP 12 (2012) 054 1207.0236
51 M. Czakon and A. Mitov NNLO corrections to top pair production at hadron colliders: the quark-gluon reaction JHEP 01 (2013) 080 1210.6832
52 M. Czakon, P. Fiedler, and A. Mitov Total top-quark pair-production cross section at hadron colliders through $ O(\alpha_\mathrm{S}^4) $ PRL 110 (2013) 252004 1303.6254
53 R. Gavin, Y. Li, F. Petriello, and S. Quackenbush W physics at the LHC with FEWZ 2.1 Comput. Phys. Commun. 184 (2013) 208 1201.5896
54 R. Gavin, Y. Li, F. Petriello, and S. Quackenbush FEWZ 2.0: A code for hadronic Z production at next-to-next-to-leading order Comput. Phys. Commun. 182 (2011) 2388 1011.3540
55 GEANT4 Collaboration GEANT4---a simulation toolkit NIM A 506 (2003) 250
56 W. Beenakker, R. Höpker, M. Spira, and P. M. Zerwas Squark and gluino production at hadron colliders NPB 492 (1997) 51 hep-ph/9610490
57 A. Kulesza and L. Motyka Threshold resummation for squark-antisquark and gluino-pair production at the LHC PRL 102 (2009) 111802 0807.2405
58 A. Kulesza and L. Motyka Soft gluon resummation for the production of gluino-gluino and squark-antisquark pairs at the LHC PRD 80 (2009) 095004 0905.4749
59 W. Beenakker et al. Soft-gluon resummation for squark and gluino hadroproduction JHEP 12 (2009) 041 0909.4418
60 W. Beenakker et al. Squark and gluino hadroproduction Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 26 (2011) 2637 1105.1110
61 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
62 W. Beenakker et al. NNLL resummation for squark-antisquark pair production at the LHC JHEP 01 (2012) 076 1110.2446
63 W. Beenakker et al. Towards NNLL resummation: hard matching coefficients for squark and gluino hadroproduction JHEP 10 (2013) 120 1304.6354
64 W. Beenakker et al. NNLL resummation for squark and gluino production at the LHC JHEP 12 (2014) 023 1404.3134
65 W. Beenakker et al. Stop production at hadron colliders NPB 515 (1998) 3 hep-ph/9710451
66 W. Beenakker et al. Supersymmetric top and bottom squark production at hadron colliders JHEP 08 (2010) 098 1006.4771
67 W. Beenakker et al. NNLL resummation for stop pair-production at the LHC JHEP 05 (2016) 153 1601.02954
68 T. Sjöstrand et al. An Introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159 1410.3012
69 S. Abdullin et al. The fast simulation of the CMS detector at LHC J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 331 (2011) 032049
70 A. Giammanco The fast simulation of the CMS experiment J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 513 (2014) 022012
71 CMS Collaboration Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements EPJC 76 (2016) 155 CMS-GEN-14-001
1512.00815
72 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
73 NNPDF Collaboration Parton distributions with QED corrections NPB 877 (2013) 290 1308.0598
74 NNPDF Collaboration Parton distributions from high-precision collider data EPJC 77 (2017) 663 1706.00428
75 CMS Collaboration Search for heavy stable charged particles in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 7 TeV JHEP 03 (2011) 024 CMS-EXO-10-011
1101.1645
76 CMS Collaboration Search for long-lived charged particles in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt s= $ 13 TeV PRD 94 (2016) 112004 CMS-EXO-15-010
1609.08382
77 UA1 Collaboration Experimental observation of isolated large transverse energy electrons with associated missing energy at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 540 GeV PLB 122 (1983) 103
78 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
79 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
80 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
81 A. Giraldi Precision luminosity measurement with proton-proton collisions at the CMS experiment in Run 2 in 41st International Conference on High Energy physics (ICHEP), 2022
link
2208.08214
82 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
83 A. Kalogeropoulos and J. Alwall The SysCalc code: A tool to derive theoretical systematic uncertainties 1801.08401
84 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
85 M. Cacciari et al. The $ \mathrm{t} \overline{\mathrm{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
86 CMS Collaboration Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data JINST 15 (2020) P09018 CMS-JME-18-001
2003.00503
87 G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics EPJC 71 (2011) 1554 1007.1727
88 T. Junk Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics NIM A 434 (1999) 435 hep-ex/9902006
89 A. L. Read Presentation of search results: The $ \text{CL}_\text{s} $ technique JPG 28 (2002) 2693
90 LEP2 SUSY Working Group, ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL experiments Combined LEP chargino results, up to 208 GeV for low delta-m link
91 B. Fuks, M. Klasen, D. R. Lamprea, and M. Rothering Gaugino production in proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 8 TeV JHEP 10 (2012) 081 1207.2159
92 B. Fuks, M. Klasen, D. R. Lamprea, and M. Rothering Precision predictions for electroweak superpartner production at hadron colliders with Resummino EPJC 73 (2013) 2480 1304.0790
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN