CMS logoCMS event Hgg
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN

CMS-EXO-20-015 ; CERN-EP-2021-125
Search for long-lived particles decaying in the CMS endcap muon detectors in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV
Phy. Rev. Lett. 127 (2021) 261804
Abstract: A search for long-lived particles (LLPs) produced in decays of standard model (SM) Higgs bosons is presented. The data sample consists of 137 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV, recorded at the LHC in 2016-2018. A novel technique is employed to reconstruct decays of LLPs in the endcap muon detectors. The search is sensitive to a broad range of LLP decay modes and to masses as low as a few GeV. No excess of events above the SM background is observed. The most stringent limits to date on the branching fraction of the Higgs boson to LLPs subsequently decaying to quarks and $\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$ are found for proper decay lengths greater than 6, 20, and 40 m, for LLP masses of 7, 15, and 40 GeV, respectively.
Figures Summary Additional Figures & Material References CMS Publications
Instructions for reinterpretation can be found here
Figures

png pdf
Figure 1:
The signal efficiency of the combined cluster reconstruction, veto, and identification selections as a function of the simulated $r$ and $z$ decay positions of S decaying to $\mathrm{b} {}\mathrm{\bar{b}} $, for a mass of 15 GeV and a uniformly distributed mixture of events with $c\tau $ between 1-10 m. The barrel and endcap muon stations are drawn as black boxes and labeled by their station names, showing the geometry of the muon detectors. Regions occupied by the steel return yoke are shaded in gray.

png pdf
Figure 2:
Distributions of $N_\text {hits}$ (left) and $\Delta \phi _{\mathrm {c}}$ (right) in the search region. The background predicted by the fit is shown in blue with the shaded region showing the fitted uncertainty. The expected signal with $ {\mathcal {B}({\mathrm{H} \to \mathrm{S} \mathrm{S}})} = $ 1%, $\mathrm{S} \to {\mathrm{d} \mathrm{\bar{d}}} $, and $c\tau = $ 1 m is shown for $m_\mathrm{S} $ of 7, 15, 40, and 55 GeV in various colors and dotted lines. The $N_\text {hits}$ distribution includes only events in bins C and D, while the $\Delta \phi _{\mathrm {c}}$ includes only events in bins A and D. The last bin in the $N_\text {hits}$ distributions includes overflow events.

png pdf
Figure 2-a:
Distribution of $N_\text {hits}$ in the search region. The background predicted by the fit is shown in blue with the shaded region showing the fitted uncertainty. The expected signal with $ {\mathcal {B}({\mathrm{H} \to \mathrm{S} \mathrm{S}})} = $ 1%, $\mathrm{S} \to {\mathrm{d} \mathrm{\bar{d}}} $, and $c\tau = $ 1 m is shown for $m_\mathrm{S} $ of 7, 15, 40, and 55 GeV in various colors and dotted lines. The $N_\text {hits}$ distribution includes only events in bins C and D, while the $\Delta \phi _{\mathrm {c}}$ includes only events in bins A and D. The last bin in the $N_\text {hits}$ distributions includes overflow events.

png pdf
Figure 2-b:
Distribution of $\Delta \phi _{\mathrm {c}}$ in the search region. The background predicted by the fit is shown in blue with the shaded region showing the fitted uncertainty. The expected signal with $ {\mathcal {B}({\mathrm{H} \to \mathrm{S} \mathrm{S}})} = $ 1%, $\mathrm{S} \to {\mathrm{d} \mathrm{\bar{d}}} $, and $c\tau = $ 1 m is shown for $m_\mathrm{S} $ of 7, 15, 40, and 55 GeV in various colors and dotted lines. The $N_\text {hits}$ distribution includes only events in bins C and D, while the $\Delta \phi _{\mathrm {c}}$ includes only events in bins A and D. The last bin in the $N_\text {hits}$ distributions includes overflow events.

png pdf
Figure 3:
The 95% CL expected (dotted curves) and observed (solid curves) upper limits on the branching fraction $ {\mathcal {B}({\mathrm{H} \to \mathrm{S} \mathrm{S}})} $ as functions of $c\tau $ for the $\mathrm{S} \to {\mathrm{d} \mathrm{\bar{d}}} $ (left) and $\mathrm{S} \to \tau^{+} \tau^{-} $ (right) decay modes. The exclusion limits are shown for four different mass hypotheses: 7, 15, 40, and 55 GeV.

png pdf
Figure 3-a:
The 95% CL expected (dotted curves) and observed (solid curves) upper limits on the branching fraction $ {\mathcal {B}({\mathrm{H} \to \mathrm{S} \mathrm{S}})} $ as a function of the $c\tau $ for the $\mathrm{S} \to {\mathrm{d} \mathrm{\bar{d}}} $ decay mode. The exclusion limits are shown for four different mass hypotheses: 7, 15, 40, and 55 GeV.

png pdf
Figure 3-b:
The 95% CL expected (dotted curves) and observed (solid curves) upper limits on the branching fraction $ {\mathcal {B}({\mathrm{H} \to \mathrm{S} \mathrm{S}})} $ as a function of the $c\tau $ for the $\mathrm{S} \to \tau^{+} \tau^{-} $ decay mode. The exclusion limits are shown for four different mass hypotheses: 7, 15, 40, and 55 GeV.
Summary
In summary, proton-proton collision data at $\sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV recorded by the CMS experiment in 2016--2018, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 137 fb$^{-1}$, have been used to conduct the first search for beyond the standard model (SM) long-lived particles (LLPs) using the CMS endcap muon detectors as a calorimeter. Based on a unique detector signature, the search is largely model-independent, with sensitivity to a broad range of LLP decay modes and to LLP masses as low as a few GeV. With the excellent shielding provided by the inner CMS detector, the background is suppressed to a low level and a search for a single LLP decay is possible. No significant deviation from the SM background is observed, and the most stringent limits on the branching fraction of Higgs boson to LLP decaying to $\mathrm{d\bar{d}}$, $\mathrm{b\bar{b}}$, and $\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$ are set for proper decay lengths $c\tau > $ 6, 20, and 40 m, and LLP masses of 7, 15, and 40GeV, respectively. For $c\tau > $ 100 m, this search outperforms the previous best limits [30,31] by a factor of 6 (2) for an LLP mass of 7 ($\ge$15) GeV.
Additional Figures

png pdf
Additional Figure 1:
The 95% CL expected (dotted curves) and observed (solid curves) upper limits on the branching fraction $ {\mathcal {B}({{\mathrm {h}^0} \rightarrow {\mathrm {S}} {\mathrm {S}}})} $ as a function of $c\tau $ for the $ {\mathrm {S}} \rightarrow {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}} $ decay mode. The exclusion limits are shown for three different mass hypotheses: 15 (black), 40 (red), and 55 (blue) GeV.

png pdf
Additional Figure 2:
The $N_\mathrm {hits}$ (left) and $\Delta \phi ({\vec{p}_{\mathrm {T}}^{\,\text {miss}}},\mathrm {cluster})$ (right) distributions. The signal (assuming $ {\mathcal {B}({{\mathrm {h}^0} \rightarrow {\mathrm {S}} {\mathrm {S}}})} = $ 1%, $ {\mathrm {S}} \rightarrow {{\mathrm {d}} {\overline {\mathrm {d}}}} $, and $c\tau =$ 1 m) and data (black) distributions have $\Delta \phi < $ 0.75 ($N_\mathrm {hits} > $ 130) selections applied in the left (right) plot. The data distribution shown in magenta includes the inverted cut $\Delta \phi > $ 0.75 ($N_\mathrm {hits} < $ 130) applied in the left (right) plot. The last bin in the $N_\mathrm {hits}$ distributions includes all events in the overflow.

png pdf
Additional Figure 2-a:
The $N_\mathrm {hits}$ distribution. The signal (assuming $ {\mathcal {B}({{\mathrm {h}^0} \rightarrow {\mathrm {S}} {\mathrm {S}}})} = $ 1%, $ {\mathrm {S}} \rightarrow {{\mathrm {d}} {\overline {\mathrm {d}}}} $, and $c\tau =$ 1 m) and data (black) distributions have the $\Delta \phi < $ 0.75 selection applied. The data distribution shown in magenta applies the inverted cut $\Delta \phi > $ 0.75. The last bin includes all events in the overflow.

png pdf
Additional Figure 2-b:
The $\Delta \phi ({\vec{p}_{\mathrm {T}}^{\,\text {miss}}},\mathrm {cluster})$ distribution. The signal (assuming $ {\mathcal {B}({{\mathrm {h}^0} \rightarrow {\mathrm {S}} {\mathrm {S}}})} = $ 1%, $ {\mathrm {S}} \rightarrow {{\mathrm {d}} {\overline {\mathrm {d}}}} $, and $c\tau =$ 1 m) and data (black) distributions have the $N_\mathrm {hits} > $ 130 selection applied. The data distribution shown in magenta applies the inverted cut $N_\mathrm {hits} < $ 130.

png pdf
Additional Figure 3:
The signal (assuming $ {\mathcal {B}({{\mathrm {h}^0} \rightarrow {\mathrm {S}} {\mathrm {S}}})} = $ 1%, $ {\mathrm {S}} \rightarrow {{\mathrm {d}} {\overline {\mathrm {d}}}} $, and $c\tau =$ 1 m), in-time data ($N_\mathrm {hits} < $ 130), and out-of-time data (inclusive in $N_\mathrm {hits}$) distributions of $N_\mathrm {hits}$ (left) and $\Delta \phi ({\vec{p}_{\mathrm {T}}^{\,\text {miss}}},\mathrm {cluster})$ (right). The signal distributions include events from regions A, B, C, and D (as defined in the analysis summary), the in-time data distributions include events from regions B and C, and the OOT data are out-of-time clusters from previous bunch crossings, with the yield normalized to that of the in-time distribution. The last bin in the $N_\mathrm {hits}$ distributions includes all events in the overflow.

png pdf
Additional Figure 3-a:
The signal (assuming $ {\mathcal {B}({{\mathrm {h}^0} \rightarrow {\mathrm {S}} {\mathrm {S}}})} = $ 1%, $ {\mathrm {S}} \rightarrow {{\mathrm {d}} {\overline {\mathrm {d}}}} $, and $c\tau =$ 1 m), in-time data ($N_\mathrm {hits} < $ 130), and out-of-time data (inclusive in $N_\mathrm {hits}$) distributions of $N_\mathrm {hits}$. The signal distributions include events from regions A, B, C, and D (as defined in the analysis summary), the in-time data distributions include events from regions B and C, and the OOT data are out-of-time clusters from previous bunch crossings, with the yield normalized to that of the in-time distribution. The last bin includes all events in the overflow.

png pdf
Additional Figure 3-b:
The signal (assuming $ {\mathcal {B}({{\mathrm {h}^0} \rightarrow {\mathrm {S}} {\mathrm {S}}})} = $ 1%, $ {\mathrm {S}} \rightarrow {{\mathrm {d}} {\overline {\mathrm {d}}}} $, and $c\tau =$ 1 m), in-time data ($N_\mathrm {hits} < $ 130), and out-of-time data (inclusive in $N_\mathrm {hits}$) distributions of $\Delta \phi ({\vec{p}_{\mathrm {T}}^{\,\text {miss}}},\mathrm {cluster})$. The signal distributions include events from regions A, B, C, and D (as defined in the analysis summary), the in-time data distributions include events from regions B and C, and the OOT data are out-of-time clusters from previous bunch crossings, with the yield normalized to that of the in-time distribution.

png pdf
Additional Figure 4:
The event display of a simulated signal event for $m_ {\mathrm {S}} = $ 40 GeV, $c\tau =$ 1 m, and $ {\mathrm {S}} \rightarrow {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}} $ in $rz$-plane (left) and $r\phi $-plane (right). The LLP decayed at the position $x, y, z =$ $-$364, 92, 796 cm and produced a CSC hit cluster with 711 hits (orange dots). The green lines represent the tracks. The yellow lines represent jets. The red arrow represents the MET direction. The red and blue cones represent the ECAL and HCAL energy deposits, respectively.

png pdf
Additional Figure 4-a:
The event display of a simulated signal event for $m_ {\mathrm {S}} = $ 40 GeV, $c\tau =$ 1 m, and $ {\mathrm {S}} \rightarrow {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}} $ in $rz$-plane. The LLP decayed at the position $x, y, z =$ $-$364, 92, 796 cm and produced a CSC hit cluster with 711 hits (orange dots). The green lines represent the tracks. The yellow lines represent jets. The red arrow represents the MET direction. The red and blue cones represent the ECAL and HCAL energy deposits, respectively.

png pdf
Additional Figure 4-b:
The event display of a simulated signal event for $m_ {\mathrm {S}} = $ 40 GeV, $c\tau =$ 1 m, and $ {\mathrm {S}} \rightarrow {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}} $ in $r\phi $-plane. The LLP decayed at the position $x, y, z =$ $-$364, 92, 796 cm and produced a CSC hit cluster with 711 hits (orange dots). The green lines represent the tracks. The yellow lines represent jets. The red arrow represents the MET direction. The red and blue cones represent the ECAL and HCAL energy deposits, respectively.

png pdf
Additional Figure 5:
Distributions of cluster time in data and in simulated $ {\mathrm {S}} \rightarrow {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}} $ signal events. The signal distribution contains equal fractions of events with mass of 15, 40, and 55 GeV, each simulated with a uniform mixture of $c\tau $ between 0.1 and 100 m. Both distributions are normalized to unit area and are required to pass the veto requirements as defined in the analysis summary.

png pdf
Additional Figure 6:
The clustering efficiency requiring $ > 50$ hits (left) and the overall signal efficiency of the clustering requiring $ > $50 hits, veto, and identification selections (right), as defined in the analysis summary, as a function of the simulated $z$ decay positions of ${\mathrm {S}}$ decaying to $ {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}} $, for a mass of 15 GeV and a uniform mixture of $c\tau $ between 1 and 100 m. The endcap muon stations are labeled by their station names. Regions occupied by steel shielding are shaded in gray.

png pdf
Additional Figure 6-a:
The clustering efficiency requiring $ > 50$ hits, as defined in the analysis summary, as a function of the simulated $z$ decay positions of ${\mathrm {S}}$ decaying to $ {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}} $, for a mass of 15 GeV and a uniform mixture of $c\tau $ between 1 and 100 m. The endcap muon stations are labeled by their station names. Regions occupied by steel shielding are shaded in gray.

png pdf
Additional Figure 6-b:
The overall signal efficiency of the clustering requiring $ > $50 hits, veto, and identification selections, as defined in the analysis summary, as a function of the simulated $z$ decay positions of ${\mathrm {S}}$ decaying to $ {{\mathrm {b}} {\overline {\mathrm {b}}}} $, for a mass of 15 GeV and a uniform mixture of $c\tau $ between 1 and 100 m. The endcap muon stations are labeled by their station names. Regions occupied by steel shielding are shaded in gray.

png pdf
Additional Figure 7:
The cluster efficiency in bins of hadronic and EM energy in region A (left) and B (right), estimated with LLPs decaying to ${{\tau}^{+} {\tau}^{-}}$. The sample contains equal fractions of events with LLP mass of 7, 15, 40, and 55 GeV and LLP lifetime of 0.1, 1, 10, and 100m. The first hadronic energy bins correspond to LLPs that decayed leptonically with 0 hadronic energy. Region A is defined as 391 cm $ < r < $ 695.5 cm and 400 cm $ < |z| < $ 671 cm. Region B is defined as 671 cm $ < |z| < $ 1100 cm, $r < $ 695.5 cm and $|\eta | < $ 2. The cluster efficiency includes all cluster-level selections described in the paper, except for the jet veto, time cut, and $\Delta \phi ({\vec{p}_{\mathrm {T}}^{\,\text {miss}}},\mathrm {cluster})$ cut. The full simulation signal yield prediction for samples with various LLP mass between 7 - 55 GeV, lifetime between 0.1 - 100 m, and decay mode to $ {{\mathrm {d}} {\overline {\mathrm {d}}}} $ and $ {{\tau}^{+} {\tau}^{-}} $ can be reproduced using this parameterization to within 35% and 20% for region A and B, respectively. The statistical uncertainty for each bin is documented in Figure 7 of the HEPData record of this paper.

png pdf
Additional Figure 7-a:
The cluster efficiency in bins of hadronic and EM energy in region A, estimated with LLPs decaying to ${{\tau}^{+} {\tau}^{-}}$. The sample contains equal fractions of events with LLP mass of 7, 15, 40, and 55 GeV and LLP lifetime of 0.1, 1, 10, and 100m. The first hadronic energy bins correspond to LLPs that decayed leptonically with 0 hadronic energy. Region A is defined as 391 cm $ < r < $ 695.5 cm and 400 cm $ < |z| < $ 671 cm. The cluster efficiency includes all cluster-level selections described in the paper, except for the jet veto, time cut, and $\Delta \phi ({\vec{p}_{\mathrm {T}}^{\,\text {miss}}},\mathrm {cluster})$ cut. The full simulation signal yield prediction for samples with various LLP mass between 7 - 55 GeV, lifetime between 0.1 - 100 m, and decay mode to $ {{\mathrm {d}} {\overline {\mathrm {d}}}} $ and $ {{\tau}^{+} {\tau}^{-}} $ can be reproduced using this parameterization to within 35% for region A. The statistical uncertainty for each bin is documented in Figure 7 of the HEPData record of this paper.

png pdf
Additional Figure 7-b:
The cluster efficiency in bins of hadronic and EM energy in region B, estimated with LLPs decaying to ${{\tau}^{+} {\tau}^{-}}$. The sample contains equal fractions of events with LLP mass of 7, 15, 40, and 55 GeV and LLP lifetime of 0.1, 1, 10, and 100m. The first hadronic energy bins correspond to LLPs that decayed leptonically with 0 hadronic energy. Region B is defined as 671 cm $ < |z| < $ 1100 cm, $r < $ 695.5 cm and $|\eta | < $ 2. The cluster efficiency includes all cluster-level selections described in the paper, except for the jet veto, time cut, and $\Delta \phi ({\vec{p}_{\mathrm {T}}^{\,\text {miss}}},\mathrm {cluster})$ cut. The full simulation signal yield prediction for samples with various LLP mass between 7 - 55 GeV, lifetime between 0.1 - 100 m, and decay mode to $ {{\mathrm {d}} {\overline {\mathrm {d}}}} $ and $ {{\tau}^{+} {\tau}^{-}} $ can be reproduced using this parameterization to within 20% for region B. The statistical uncertainty for each bin is documented in Figure 7 of the HEPData record of this paper.

png pdf
Additional Figure 8:
The efficiency of $N_{station} > 1$ requirement in bins of hadronic energy in region B, estimated with LLPs decaying to ${{\tau}^{+} {\tau}^{-}}$. The sample contains equal fractions of events with LLP mass of 7, 15, 40, and 55 GeV and LLP lifetime of 0.1, 1, 10, and 100m. This efficiency is independent of the EM energy. The first hadronic energy bin corresponds to LLPs that decayed leptonically with 0 hadronic energy. Region B is defined as 671 cm $ < |z| < $ 1100 cm, $r < $ 695.5 cm and $|\eta | < $ 2. The efficiency is calculated with respect to clusters that pass all the cluster-level cuts described in the paper, except for the jet veto, time cut, and $\Delta \phi ({\vec{p}_{\mathrm {T}}^{\,\text {miss}}},\mathrm {cluster})$ cut. The full simulation signal yield prediction for samples with various LLP mass between 7 - 55 GeV, lifetime between 0.1 - 100 m, and decay mode to $ {{\mathrm {d}} {\overline {\mathrm {d}}}} $ and $ {{\tau}^{+} {\tau}^{-}} $ can be reproduced using this parameterization to within 10%.

png pdf
Additional Figure 9:
The geometric signal acceptance as a function of $c\tau $. The acceptance is shown for four different LLP mass hypotheses: 7 (green), 15 (black), 40 (red), and 55 (blue) GeV. The acceptance is defined by requiring at least 1 LLP to decay in the region defined as 400 cm $ < |z| < $ 1100 cm, $r < $ 695.5 cm, and $|\eta | < $ 2.4.
Instructions for Reinterpretation

We provide signal efficiency parameterization for the cluster-level selections that allows for reproduction of the full-simulation signal yield for various LLP masses (7-55 GeV), lifetimes (0.1 - 100 m) and decay modes (dd̅ and τ+τ-). In order to recast this analysis, only the generator level LLP hadronic energy, EM energy, and decay position are needed. The following selection efficiencies are needed to account for all cluster-level selections mentioned in the paper:

  • Cluster efficiency, including the segment and rechit vetos, muon veto, time spread cut, and Nhits ≥ 130. This efficiency is provided as a function LLP EM and hadronic energy in two separate LLP decay regions A and B, as shown in Additional Figure 7 a and b, respectively. The LLP decay regions, EM, and hadronic energy are defined in the following paragraphs.

  • The jet veto, time cut, and Δφ(pTmiss, cluster) cut efficiencies. These three cuts are not included in the cluster efficiency parameterization, because they are model dependent. However, the 3 quantities can be calculated accurately for each model using generator level information, so it is left up to the recaster to calculate the efficiency of the jet veto, time cut, and Δφ(pTmiss, cluster) cut for the specific models.

  • Cut-based ID efficiency. This is provided in the python file cut_based_id.py attached. The function uses the LLP decay position to predict the average station of the cluster and the Nstation > 1 efficiency parameterization (Additional Figure 8).

The LLP EM and hadronic energy is assigned by matching stable (status 1) GenParticles that are produced 0.1 m from the LLP decay vertex. Neutral pions, electrons, and photons are assigned as EM energy. All other particles, except for neutrinos and muons, are assigned as hadronic energy. Neutrinos and muons are ignored because they do not produce showers in the muon system.

The LLP decay region is categorized into 2 regions. These 2 regions have qualitatively different behavior. Within each region, they have quantitatively similar behavior, so we will provide the efficiency parameterization for each region separately. Region A is defined as 391 cm < r < 695.5 cm and 400 cm < |z| < 671 cm. Region B is defined as 671 cm < |z| < 1100 cm, r < 695.5 cm, and |η| < 2. The fraction of LLPs that decay in each region are dependent on the LLP mass and cτ. However, the signal efficiency in B is much larger than A, so for the models considered, more than 90% of clusters passing all selections are from LLPs that decay in region B.

The cluster efficiency is parameterized in bins of LLP hadronic energy and EM energy in each LLP decay region (Additional Figure 7). The efficiency includes cluster-level selections mentioned in the paper, including the segment and rechit vetos, muon veto, time spread cut, and Nhits ≥ 130, except for the jet veto, time cut, and Δφ(pTmiss, cluster) cut. These latter requirements are model dependent, but they can be calculated accurately for each model using generator level information. When recasting the analysis, these additional selections need to be implemented, to be consistent with applying all selections described in the paper. The full simulation signal yield prediction for samples with various LLP mass between 7 - 55 GeV, lifetime between 0.1 - 100 m, and decay mode to dd̅ and τ+τ- can be reproduced using this parameterization to within 35% and 20% for region A and B, respectively.

The parameterization of the cut-based ID is provided in python file cut_based_id.py attached. The function uses the LLP decay position to predict the average station of the cluster (AvgStation function in the code) and the Nstation > 1 efficiency parameterization (Additional Figure 8). As described in the paper, the cluster ID requirement applies different η cuts depending on the Nstation and average station number. We need a parametrization of the efficiency of the Nstation > 1 requirement and a transfer function that takes gen-level LLP decay position to RECO-level cluster average station (only for clusters with Nstation = 1 ). Since the entire region A is in an η region (|η| < 1.3) that passes all the η selections used in the cut-based ID (tightest cut is |η| < 1.6), the cut-based ID efficiency in this region is 100%. The focus of the parameterization will be on region B only. The efficiency of Nstation > 1 in region B is provided in bins of LLP hadronic energy (Additional Figure 8) and the efficiency is independent of the LLP EM energy. The average station transfer function is provided as the AvgStation function in the code attached. The full simulation signal yield prediction for samples with various LLP mass between 7 - 55 GeV, lifetime between 0.1 - 100 m, and decay mode to dd̅ and τ+τ- can be reproduced using this parameterization to within 10%.

References
1 G. F. Giudice and A. Romanino Split supersymmetry NPB 699 (2004) 65 hep-ph/0406088
2 J. L. Hewett, B. Lillie, M. Masip, and T. G. Rizzo Signatures of long-lived gluinos in split supersymmetry JHEP 09 (2004) 070 hep-ph/0408248
3 N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, G. F. Giudice, and A. Romanino Aspects of split supersymmetry NPB 709 (2005) 3 hep-ph/0409232
4 P. Gambino, G. F. Giudice, and P. Slavich Gluino decays in split supersymmetry NPB 726 (2005) 35 hep-ph/0506214
5 A. Arvanitaki, N. Craig, S. Dimopoulos, and G. Villadoro Mini-split JHEP 02 (2013) 126 1210.0555
6 N. Arkani-Hamed et al. Simply unnatural supersymmetry 1212.6971
7 P. Fayet Supergauge invariant extension of the Higgs mechanism and a model for the electron and its neutrino NPB 90 (1975) 104
8 G. R. Farrar and P. Fayet Phenomenology of the production, decay, and detection of new hadronic states associated with supersymmetry PLB 76 (1978) 575
9 S. Weinberg Supersymmetry at ordinary energies. Masses and conservation laws PRD 26 (1982) 287
10 R. Barbier et al. $ R $-parity violating supersymmetry PR 420 (2005) 1 hep-ph/0406039
11 G. F. Giudice and R. Rattazzi Theories with gauge mediated supersymmetry breaking PR 322 (1999) 419 hep-ph/9801271
12 P. Meade, N. Seiberg, and D. Shih General gauge mediation Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 177 (2009) 143 0801.3278
13 M. Buican, P. Meade, N. Seiberg, and D. Shih Exploring general gauge mediation JHEP 03 (2009) 016 0812.3668
14 J. Fan, M. Reece, and J. T. Ruderman Stealth supersymmetry JHEP 11 (2011) 012 1105.5135
15 J. Fan, M. Reece, and J. T. Ruderman A stealth supersymmetry sampler JHEP 07 (2012) 196 1201.4875
16 M. J. Strassler and K. M. Zurek Echoes of a hidden valley at hadron colliders PLB 651 (2007) 374 hep-ph/0604261
17 M. J. Strassler and K. M. Zurek Discovering the Higgs through highly-displaced vertices PLB 661 (2008) 263 hep-ph/0605193
18 T. Han, Z. Si, K. M. Zurek, and M. J. Strassler Phenomenology of hidden valleys at hadron colliders JHEP 07 (2008) 008 0712.2041
19 Y. Cui, L. Randall, and B. Shuve A WIMPy baryogenesis miracle JHEP 04 (2012) 075 1112.2704
20 Y. Cui and R. Sundrum Baryogenesis for weakly interacting massive particles PRD 87 (2013) 116013 1212.2973
21 Y. Cui and B. Shuve Probing baryogenesis with displaced vertices at the LHC JHEP 02 (2015) 049 1409.6729
22 D. Smith and N. Weiner Inelastic dark matter PRD 64 (2001) 043502 hep-ph/0101138
23 Z. Chacko, H.-S. Goh, and R. Harnik Natural electroweak breaking from a mirror symmetry PRL 96 (2006) 231802 hep-ph/0506256
24 D. Curtin and C. B. Verhaaren Discovering uncolored naturalness in exotic Higgs decays JHEP 12 (2015) 072 1506.06141
25 H.-C. Cheng, S. Jung, E. Salvioni, and Y. Tsai Exotic quarks in twin Higgs models JHEP 03 (2016) 074 1512.02647
26 N. Craig, A. Katz, M. Strassler, and R. Sundrum Naturalness in the dark at the LHC JHEP 07 (2015) 105 1501.05310
27 M. J. Strassler On the phenomenology of hidden valleys with heavy flavor 0806.2385
28 J. E. Juknevich, D. Melnikov, and M. J. Strassler A pure-glue hidden valley I. states and decays JHEP 07 (2009) 055 0903.0883
29 CMS Collaboration Search for long-lived particles using displaced jets in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV Submitted to \emphPRD CMS-EXO-19-021
2012.01581
30 ATLAS Collaboration Search for long-lived particles produced in $ pp $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV that decay into displaced hadronic jets in the ATLAS muon spectrometer PRD 99 (2019) 052005 1811.07370
31 ATLAS Collaboration Search for long-lived neutral particles produced in $ pp $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV decaying into displaced hadronic jets in the ATLAS inner detector and muon spectrometer PRD 101 (2020) 052013 1911.12575
32 CMS Collaboration HEPData record for this analysis link
33 CMS Collaboration The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC JINST 3 (2008) S08004 CMS-00-001
34 CMS Collaboration Performance of the CMS cathode strip chambers with cosmic rays JINST 5 (2010) T03018 CMS-CFT-09-011
0911.4992
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 M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam Dispelling the $ N^{3} $ myth for the $ {k_{\mathrm{T}}} $ jet-finder PLB 641 (2006) 57 hep-ph/0512210
37 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez The anti-$ {k_{\mathrm{T}}} $ jet clustering algorithm JHEP 04 (2008) 063 0802.1189
38 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez FastJet user manual EPJC 72 (2012) 1896 1111.6097
39 M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam Pileup subtraction using jet areas PLB 659 (2008) 119 0707.1378
40 P. Nason A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms JHEP 11 (2004) 040 hep-ph/0409146
41 S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method JHEP 11 (2007) 070 0709.2092
42 S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG JHEP 06 (2010) 043 1002.2581
43 E. Re Single-top Wt-channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method EPJC 71 (2011) 1547 1009.2450
44 T. Sjostrand et al. An introduction to $ PYTHIA $ 8.2 CPC 191 (2015) 159 1410.3012
45 CMS Collaboration Event generator tunes obtained from underlying event and multiparton scattering measurements EPJC 76 (2016) 155 CMS-GEN-14-001
1512.00815
46 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
47 NNPDF Collaboration Parton distributions for the LHC Run II JHEP 04 (2015) 040 1410.8849
48 NNPDF Collaboration Parton distributions from high-precision collider data EPJC 77 (2017) 663 1706.00428
49 GEANT4 Collaboration GEANT4--a simulation toolkit NIMA 506 (2003) 250
50 CMS Collaboration The CMS trigger system JINST 12 (2017) P01020 CMS-TRG-12-001
1609.02366
51 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
52 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
53 CMS Collaboration Performance of the reconstruction and identification of high-momentum muons in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV JINST 15 (2020) P02027 CMS-MUO-17-001
1912.03516
54 M. Ester, H.-P. Kriegel, J. Sander, and X. Xu A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining,Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence
55 CMS Collaboration Missing transverse energy performance of the CMS detector JINST 6 (2011) P09001 CMS-JME-10-009
1106.5048
56 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
57 CMS Collaboration CMS luminosity measurements for the 2016 data-taking period CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001 CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001
58 CMS Collaboration CMS luminosity measurements for the 2017 data-taking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004 CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004
59 CMS Collaboration CMS luminosity measurements for the 2018 data-taking period at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002 CMS-PAS-LUM-18-002
60 T. Junk Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics NIMA 434 (1999) 435 hep-ex/9902006
61 A. L. Read Presentation of search results: the CL$ _\mathrm{s} $ technique JPG 28 (2002) 2693
62 The ATLAS Collaboration, The CMS Collaboration, The LHC Higgs Combination Group Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011 CMS-NOTE-2011-005
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN