CMS logoCMS event Hgg
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN

CMS-PAS-EXO-24-010
Search for nonresonant production of strongly coupled dark matter in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV
Abstract: A search is presented for strongly coupled dark matter in the form of semivisible jets---containing both visible matter and invisible dark matter---produced in nonresonant processes, using 138 fb$ ^{-1} $ of proton-proton collision data at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV collected with the CMS detector at the CERN LHC. The signal model includes a bifundamental scalar, $ \Phi $, that couples simultaneously to standard model quarks and dark sector quarks, the latter forming semivisible jets. The final state therefore includes moderate missing energy aligned with a jet, a signature rejected by most dark matter searches. Two separate strategies are employed to identify semivisible jets: a supervised graph neural network and an unsupervised autoencoder. No significant excess corresponding to the dark sector signal hypotheses is observed. Upper limits at 95% confidence level on signal model parameters are determined for each strategy. The supervised search excludes mediator masses of 0.5--2.4 TeV, depending on the other signal model parameters. For signal models with semivisible jets containing higher fractions of invisible dark matter, the unsupervised search demonstrates increased sensitivity and excludes mediator masses up to 2.2 TeV, whereas the supervised analysis excludes the same models up to mediator masses of 1.7--2.0 TeV.
Figures & Tables Summary References CMS Publications
Figures

png pdf
Figure 1:
Representative Feynman diagrams of leading-order production of dark quarks $ \chi $ through a bifundamental mediator $ \Phi $. Left: direct $ t $-channel production. Middle: associated production. Right: pair production.

png pdf
Figure 1-a:
Representative Feynman diagrams of leading-order production of dark quarks $ \chi $ through a bifundamental mediator $ \Phi $. Left: direct $ t $-channel production. Middle: associated production. Right: pair production.

png pdf
Figure 1-b:
Representative Feynman diagrams of leading-order production of dark quarks $ \chi $ through a bifundamental mediator $ \Phi $. Left: direct $ t $-channel production. Middle: associated production. Right: pair production.

png pdf
Figure 1-c:
Representative Feynman diagrams of leading-order production of dark quarks $ \chi $ through a bifundamental mediator $ \Phi $. Left: direct $ t $-channel production. Middle: associated production. Right: pair production.

png pdf
Figure 2:
Normalized distributions of the characteristic variables $ S_{\mathrm{T}} $, $ \Delta\phi_{\text{min}} $, and $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $ for the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models. For each variable, the selection on that variable is omitted, but all other preselection criteria are applied. The vertical black dotted line indicates the preselection requirement on the variable, with the arrow indicating the region of the distribution included in the analysis.

png pdf
Figure 2-a:
Normalized distributions of the characteristic variables $ S_{\mathrm{T}} $, $ \Delta\phi_{\text{min}} $, and $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $ for the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models. For each variable, the selection on that variable is omitted, but all other preselection criteria are applied. The vertical black dotted line indicates the preselection requirement on the variable, with the arrow indicating the region of the distribution included in the analysis.

png pdf
Figure 2-b:
Normalized distributions of the characteristic variables $ S_{\mathrm{T}} $, $ \Delta\phi_{\text{min}} $, and $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $ for the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models. For each variable, the selection on that variable is omitted, but all other preselection criteria are applied. The vertical black dotted line indicates the preselection requirement on the variable, with the arrow indicating the region of the distribution included in the analysis.

png pdf
Figure 2-c:
Normalized distributions of the characteristic variables $ S_{\mathrm{T}} $, $ \Delta\phi_{\text{min}} $, and $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $ for the simulated SM backgrounds and several signal models. For each variable, the selection on that variable is omitted, but all other preselection criteria are applied. The vertical black dotted line indicates the preselection requirement on the variable, with the arrow indicating the region of the distribution included in the analysis.

png pdf
Figure 3:
The PARTICLENET score distribution for data, background simulation, and a selection of signal models (left), and the performance discriminating between the simulated QCD background and signal models with varying $ m_{\Phi} $ and $ r_{\mathrm{inv}} $ values with $ m_{\mathrm{dark}} = $ 20 GeV, $ \lambda = $ 1 (right). The signal models used for training PARTICLENET are marked with a star. The simulated background score distributions are shown for illustration purposes only; they are not used to predict the SM background in the statistical interpretation. The signal jets are corrected for substructure-related mismodeling using their Lund jet plane density, as described in Section 7. The background simulation has no substructure correction applied. The statistical uncertainty in the background simulation from the limited number of simulated events is included but is generally small.

png pdf
Figure 3-a:
The PARTICLENET score distribution for data, background simulation, and a selection of signal models (left), and the performance discriminating between the simulated QCD background and signal models with varying $ m_{\Phi} $ and $ r_{\mathrm{inv}} $ values with $ m_{\mathrm{dark}} = $ 20 GeV, $ \lambda = $ 1 (right). The signal models used for training PARTICLENET are marked with a star. The simulated background score distributions are shown for illustration purposes only; they are not used to predict the SM background in the statistical interpretation. The signal jets are corrected for substructure-related mismodeling using their Lund jet plane density, as described in Section 7. The background simulation has no substructure correction applied. The statistical uncertainty in the background simulation from the limited number of simulated events is included but is generally small.

png pdf
Figure 3-b:
The PARTICLENET score distribution for data, background simulation, and a selection of signal models (left), and the performance discriminating between the simulated QCD background and signal models with varying $ m_{\Phi} $ and $ r_{\mathrm{inv}} $ values with $ m_{\mathrm{dark}} = $ 20 GeV, $ \lambda = $ 1 (right). The signal models used for training PARTICLENET are marked with a star. The simulated background score distributions are shown for illustration purposes only; they are not used to predict the SM background in the statistical interpretation. The signal jets are corrected for substructure-related mismodeling using their Lund jet plane density, as described in Section 7. The background simulation has no substructure correction applied. The statistical uncertainty in the background simulation from the limited number of simulated events is included but is generally small.

png pdf
Figure 4:
For the WNAE model trained on jets with 200 $ < p_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 300 GeV, the score distribution for data, background simulation, and a selection of signal models (left), and the performance discriminating between the simulated QCD background and signal models with varying $ m_{\Phi} $ and $ r_{\mathrm{inv}} $ values with $ m_{\mathrm{dark}} = $ 20 GeV, $ \lambda = $ 1 (right). The fluctuations of the WNAE AUC at low $ r_{\mathrm{inv}} $ and $ m_{\Phi} $ arise from the limited number of events in this region. The simulated background score distributions are shown for illustration purposes only; they are not used to predict the SM background in the statistical interpretation. The signal jets are corrected for substructure-related mismodeling using their Lund jet plane density, as described in Section 7. The background simulation has no substructure correction applied. The statistical uncertainty in the background simulation from the limited number of simulated events is included but is generally small.

png pdf
Figure 4-a:
For the WNAE model trained on jets with 200 $ < p_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 300 GeV, the score distribution for data, background simulation, and a selection of signal models (left), and the performance discriminating between the simulated QCD background and signal models with varying $ m_{\Phi} $ and $ r_{\mathrm{inv}} $ values with $ m_{\mathrm{dark}} = $ 20 GeV, $ \lambda = $ 1 (right). The fluctuations of the WNAE AUC at low $ r_{\mathrm{inv}} $ and $ m_{\Phi} $ arise from the limited number of events in this region. The simulated background score distributions are shown for illustration purposes only; they are not used to predict the SM background in the statistical interpretation. The signal jets are corrected for substructure-related mismodeling using their Lund jet plane density, as described in Section 7. The background simulation has no substructure correction applied. The statistical uncertainty in the background simulation from the limited number of simulated events is included but is generally small.

png pdf
Figure 4-b:
For the WNAE model trained on jets with 200 $ < p_{\mathrm{T}} < $ 300 GeV, the score distribution for data, background simulation, and a selection of signal models (left), and the performance discriminating between the simulated QCD background and signal models with varying $ m_{\Phi} $ and $ r_{\mathrm{inv}} $ values with $ m_{\mathrm{dark}} = $ 20 GeV, $ \lambda = $ 1 (right). The fluctuations of the WNAE AUC at low $ r_{\mathrm{inv}} $ and $ m_{\Phi} $ arise from the limited number of events in this region. The simulated background score distributions are shown for illustration purposes only; they are not used to predict the SM background in the statistical interpretation. The signal jets are corrected for substructure-related mismodeling using their Lund jet plane density, as described in Section 7. The background simulation has no substructure correction applied. The statistical uncertainty in the background simulation from the limited number of simulated events is included but is generally small.

png pdf
Figure 5:
The event classifier output scores for data, background simulation, and a selection of signal models (left) and the event classifier performance evaluated on a range of signal hypotheses with $ m_{\mathrm{dark}}= $ 20 GeV, $ \lambda= $ 1, and varying $ r_{\mathrm{inv}} $ and $ m_{\Phi} $, against the total background (right). The signal models used for training the event classifier are marked with a star. The simulated background score distributions are shown for illustration purposes only; they are not used to predict the SM background in the statistical interpretation. The signal jets are corrected for substructure-related mismodeling using their Lund jet plane density, as described in Section 7. The background simulation has no substructure correction applied. The statistical uncertainty in the background simulation from the limited number of simulated events is included but is generally small.

png pdf
Figure 5-a:
The event classifier output scores for data, background simulation, and a selection of signal models (left) and the event classifier performance evaluated on a range of signal hypotheses with $ m_{\mathrm{dark}}= $ 20 GeV, $ \lambda= $ 1, and varying $ r_{\mathrm{inv}} $ and $ m_{\Phi} $, against the total background (right). The signal models used for training the event classifier are marked with a star. The simulated background score distributions are shown for illustration purposes only; they are not used to predict the SM background in the statistical interpretation. The signal jets are corrected for substructure-related mismodeling using their Lund jet plane density, as described in Section 7. The background simulation has no substructure correction applied. The statistical uncertainty in the background simulation from the limited number of simulated events is included but is generally small.

png pdf
Figure 5-b:
The event classifier output scores for data, background simulation, and a selection of signal models (left) and the event classifier performance evaluated on a range of signal hypotheses with $ m_{\mathrm{dark}}= $ 20 GeV, $ \lambda= $ 1, and varying $ r_{\mathrm{inv}} $ and $ m_{\Phi} $, against the total background (right). The signal models used for training the event classifier are marked with a star. The simulated background score distributions are shown for illustration purposes only; they are not used to predict the SM background in the statistical interpretation. The signal jets are corrected for substructure-related mismodeling using their Lund jet plane density, as described in Section 7. The background simulation has no substructure correction applied. The statistical uncertainty in the background simulation from the limited number of simulated events is included but is generally small.

png pdf
Figure 6:
The observed data, the postfit estimated background, and a representative signal model for the PARTICLENET supervised tagger strategy (upper) and for the WNAE unsupervised tagger strategy (lower). The plots display all three years of data taking combined, while the actual fits consider each year independently.

png pdf
Figure 6-a:
The observed data, the postfit estimated background, and a representative signal model for the PARTICLENET supervised tagger strategy (upper) and for the WNAE unsupervised tagger strategy (lower). The plots display all three years of data taking combined, while the actual fits consider each year independently.

png pdf
Figure 6-b:
The observed data, the postfit estimated background, and a representative signal model for the PARTICLENET supervised tagger strategy (upper) and for the WNAE unsupervised tagger strategy (lower). The plots display all three years of data taking combined, while the actual fits consider each year independently.

png pdf
Figure 7:
The exclusion limits as a function of $ m_{\Phi} $ and $ m_{\mathrm{dark}} $ (upper left), $ m_{\Phi} $ and $ r_{\mathrm{inv}} $ (upper right), and $ m_{\Phi} $ and $ \lambda $ (lower), combining all three data-taking years and all $ n_{\text{SVJ}}^{\text{PN}} $ categories, for the PARTICLENET supervised tagger strategy.

png pdf
Figure 7-a:
The exclusion limits as a function of $ m_{\Phi} $ and $ m_{\mathrm{dark}} $ (upper left), $ m_{\Phi} $ and $ r_{\mathrm{inv}} $ (upper right), and $ m_{\Phi} $ and $ \lambda $ (lower), combining all three data-taking years and all $ n_{\text{SVJ}}^{\text{PN}} $ categories, for the PARTICLENET supervised tagger strategy.

png pdf
Figure 7-b:
The exclusion limits as a function of $ m_{\Phi} $ and $ m_{\mathrm{dark}} $ (upper left), $ m_{\Phi} $ and $ r_{\mathrm{inv}} $ (upper right), and $ m_{\Phi} $ and $ \lambda $ (lower), combining all three data-taking years and all $ n_{\text{SVJ}}^{\text{PN}} $ categories, for the PARTICLENET supervised tagger strategy.

png pdf
Figure 7-c:
The exclusion limits as a function of $ m_{\Phi} $ and $ m_{\mathrm{dark}} $ (upper left), $ m_{\Phi} $ and $ r_{\mathrm{inv}} $ (upper right), and $ m_{\Phi} $ and $ \lambda $ (lower), combining all three data-taking years and all $ n_{\text{SVJ}}^{\text{PN}} $ categories, for the PARTICLENET supervised tagger strategy.

png pdf
Figure 8:
The exclusion limits as a function of $ m_{\Phi} $ and $ m_{\mathrm{dark}} $ (upper left), $ m_{\Phi} $ and $ r_{\mathrm{inv}} $ (upper right), and $ m_{\Phi} $ and $ \lambda $ (lower), combining all three data-taking years and all $ n_{\text{SVJ}}^{\text{WNAE}} $ categories, for the WNAE unsupervised tagger strategy.

png pdf
Figure 8-a:
The exclusion limits as a function of $ m_{\Phi} $ and $ m_{\mathrm{dark}} $ (upper left), $ m_{\Phi} $ and $ r_{\mathrm{inv}} $ (upper right), and $ m_{\Phi} $ and $ \lambda $ (lower), combining all three data-taking years and all $ n_{\text{SVJ}}^{\text{WNAE}} $ categories, for the WNAE unsupervised tagger strategy.

png pdf
Figure 8-b:
The exclusion limits as a function of $ m_{\Phi} $ and $ m_{\mathrm{dark}} $ (upper left), $ m_{\Phi} $ and $ r_{\mathrm{inv}} $ (upper right), and $ m_{\Phi} $ and $ \lambda $ (lower), combining all three data-taking years and all $ n_{\text{SVJ}}^{\text{WNAE}} $ categories, for the WNAE unsupervised tagger strategy.

png pdf
Figure 8-c:
The exclusion limits as a function of $ m_{\Phi} $ and $ m_{\mathrm{dark}} $ (upper left), $ m_{\Phi} $ and $ r_{\mathrm{inv}} $ (upper right), and $ m_{\Phi} $ and $ \lambda $ (lower), combining all three data-taking years and all $ n_{\text{SVJ}}^{\text{WNAE}} $ categories, for the WNAE unsupervised tagger strategy.
Tables

png pdf
Table 1:
The background fractions in % after applying the preselection criteria in the different $ n_{\text{SVJ}} $ categories for the PARTICLENET and WNAE SVJ taggers.

png pdf
Table 2:
The range of effects on the signal or background yield at the preselection level for each systematic uncertainty. Values smaller than 0.01% are rounded to 0.0%. These values are given for the baseline signal hypothesis with $ m_{\Phi} = $ 2 TeV, $ m_{\mathrm{dark}} = $ 20 GeV, $ r_{\mathrm{inv}} = $ 0.3, and $ \lambda = $ 1. The 10--90% quantile range for all signal models are also provided.
Summary
This note presents the first CMS search for nonresonant production of strongly coupled dark matter. The search uses data from proton-proton collisions recorded by the CMS detector during the 2016--2018 data-taking period, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$ ^{-1} $ at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. The signal model consists of a strongly-coupled dark sector with several flavors of dark quarks that shower and hadronize to form stable and unstable bound states called dark hadrons. The stable dark hadrons are dark matter candidates, while the unstable dark hadrons decay promptly to standard model (SM) quarks, showering and hadronizing in the visible sector to produce semivisible jets (SVJs) composed of both visible and invisible particles. This note focuses on nonresonant production via a massive scalar bifundamental mediator $ \Phi $ with a Yukawa-like coupling between the dark and the SM sectors. The search probes variations of the mediator mass $ m_{\Phi} $, the dark hadron mass $ m_{\mathrm{dark}} $, the fraction of stable, invisible dark hadrons $ r_{\mathrm{inv}} $, and the bifundamental Yukawa coupling $ \lambda $. Two complementary strategies are employed to identify SVJs, yielding two sets of results. The first uses a supervised tagger, PARTICLENET, which is model-dependent and utilizes jet constituents to identify SVJs. The second uses an unsupervised tagger, the Wasserstein normalized autoencoder, to learn the substructure of SM jets in order to identify SVJs as anomalous. The response of these taggers is sensitive to potential mismodeling of the jet substructure in the signal simulation, which is corrected using a procedure designed for jets with high subjet multiplicity. This procedure compares the Lund jet plane of the signal subjets, each of which corresponds to one SM quark, to that of subjets from the hadronic decay of a W boson in observed data. For both the supervised and unsupervised tagger strategies, the SM background is estimated from data using a deep neural network discriminator that is trained on event-level kinematic features to be decorrelated from the $ p_{\mathrm{T}}^\text{miss} $ in order to partition events into four regions, separating signal from background. The supervised tagger strategy places 95% confidence level (CL) exclusion limits on the production cross sections for different signal models, which can be interpreted to exclude ranges of signal model parameters. These exclusions include 0.5 $ \leq m_{\Phi} \leq $ 2.4 TeV, depending on the other signal model parameters. All considered values of $ m_{\mathrm{dark}} $ are excluded for mediator masses below 1.7 TeV, depending on other signal parameters. For mediator masses less than 1.5 TeV, all variations of $ \lambda $ are excluded; for the full range of mediator masses considered, $ \lambda > $ 2 is excluded. Similarly, the unsupervised tagger strategy excludes 0.5 $ \leq m_{\Phi} \leq $ 2.0 TeV, depending on the other signal model parameters. Depending on other signal model parameters, the unsupervised tagger strategy excludes all considered $ m_{\mathrm{dark}} $ masses for mediator masses up to 1.6 TeV. For the full range of mediator masses, $ \lambda > $ 3.0 is excluded. These results complement existing searches for composite dark matter originating from strongly coupled dark sectors. A set of new signal hypotheses are are excluded by placing limits on the production cross section of the massive scalar bifundamental mediator $ \Phi $. The use of machine learning to exploit both jet- and event-level information increases the sensitivity of the search and enables the exclusion of a wide range of models in the targeted parameter space.
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 G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, and K. Griest Supersymmetric dark matter Phys. Rept. 267 (1996) 195 hep-ph/9506380
7 CMS Collaboration Search for new physics in final states with a single photon and missing transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV JHEP 02 (2019) 074 CMS-EXO-16-053
1810.00196
8 CMS Collaboration Search for dark matter produced in association with a leptonically decaying Z boson in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV EPJC 81 (2021) 13 CMS-EXO-19-003
2008.04735
9 CMS Collaboration Search for new particles in events with energetic jets and large missing transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV JHEP 11 (2021) 153 CMS-EXO-20-004
2107.13021
10 CMS Collaboration Search for invisible decays of a Higgs boson produced through vector boson fusion in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV PLB 793 (2019) 520 CMS-HIG-17-023
1809.05937
11 CMS Collaboration Search for dark matter particles in W$ ^{+} $W$ ^{-} $ events with transverse momentum imbalance in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV JHEP 03 (2024) 134 CMS-EXO-21-012
2310.12229
12 ATLAS Collaboration Search for new particles in events with a hadronically decaying W or Z boson and large missing transverse momentum at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV using the ATLAS detector JHEP 11 (2024) 126 2406.01272
13 ATLAS Collaboration Search for invisible Higgs boson decays in vector boson fusion at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector PLB 793 (2019) 499 1809.06682
14 ATLAS Collaboration Constraints on mediator-based dark matter and scalar dark energy models using $ \sqrt s = $ 13 TeV $ pp $ collision data collected by the ATLAS detector JHEP 05 (2019) 142 1903.01400
15 ATLAS Collaboration Search for new phenomena in events with two opposite-charge leptons, jets and missing transverse momentum in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{\mathrm{s}} = $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector JHEP 04 (2021) 165 2102.01444
16 ATLAS Collaboration Search for new phenomena with top quark pairs in final states with one lepton, jets, and missing transverse momentum in $ pp $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector JHEP 04 (2021) 174 2012.03799
17 ATLAS Collaboration Search for new phenomena in events with an energetic jet and missing transverse momentum in $ pp $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector PRD 103 (2021) 112006 2102.10874
18 ATLAS Collaboration Constraints on simplified dark matter models involving an s-channel mediator with the ATLAS detector in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV EPJC 84 (2024) 1102 2404.15930
19 CMS Collaboration Search for dark matter produced in association with a Higgs boson decaying to a pair of bottom quarks in proton--proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV EPJC 79 (2019) 280 CMS-EXO-16-050
1811.06562
20 CMS Collaboration Search for dark matter particles produced in association with a Higgs boson in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{\text{s}} = $ 13 TeV JHEP 03 (2020) 025 CMS-EXO-18-011
1908.01713
21 CMS Collaboration Search for dark matter produced in association with a single top quark or a top quark pair in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV JHEP 03 (2019) 141 CMS-EXO-18-010
1901.01553
22 ATLAS Collaboration Search for dark matter produced in association with a single top quark and an energetic $ W $ boson in $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV $ pp $ collisions with the ATLAS detector EPJC 83 (2023) 603 2211.13138
23 CMS Collaboration Search for dark matter produced in association with one or two top quarks in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{\text{s}} = $ 13 TeV JHEP 08 (2025) 085 CMS-EXO-22-014
2505.05300
24 M. J. Strassler and K. M. Zurek Echoes of a hidden valley at hadron colliders PLB 651 (2007) 374 hep-ph/0604261
25 T. Cohen, M. Lisanti, H. K. Lou, and S. Mishra-Sharma LHC searches for dark sector showers JHEP 11 (2017) 196 1707.05326
26 P. Schwaller, D. Stolarski, and A. Weiler Emerging jets JHEP 05 (2015) 059 1502.05409
27 CMS Collaboration Search for new particles decaying to a jet and an emerging jet JHEP 02 (2019) 179 CMS-EXO-18-001
1810.10069
28 CMS Collaboration Search for dark QCD with emerging jets in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV JHEP 07 (2024) 142 CMS-EXO-22-015
2403.01556
29 ATLAS Collaboration Search for emerging jets in $ pp $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13.6 TeV with the ATLAS experiment Rept. Prog. Phys. 88 (2025) 097801 2505.02429
30 ATLAS Collaboration Search for emerging jets in $ pp $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS experiment Submitted to Eur. Phys. J. C, 2025 2510.12347
31 M. J. Strassler Why unparticle models with mass gaps are examples of hidden valleys 0801.0629
32 S. Knapen, S. Pagan Griso, M. Papucci, and D. J. Robinson Triggering soft bombs at the LHC JHEP 08 (2017) 076 1612.00850
33 CMS Collaboration Search for soft unclustered energy patterns in proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV PRL 133 (2024) 191902 CMS-EXO-23-002
2403.05311
34 CMS Collaboration Search for soft unclustered energy patterns produced in association with a W or Z boson in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV Submitted to Phys. Lett. B, 2026 CMS-EXO-25-007
2604.05996
35 ATLAS Collaboration Search for soft unclustered energy patterns containing muons in the final state in $ pp $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector Submitted to JHEP, 2026 2605.20015
36 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
37 ATLAS Collaboration Search for new physics in final states with semivisible jets or anomalous signatures using the ATLAS detector PRD 112 (2025) 012021 2505.01634
38 ATLAS Collaboration Search for non-resonant production of semi-visible jets using Run 2 data in ATLAS PLB 848 (2024) 138324 2305.18037
39 T. Cohen, M. Lisanti, and H. K. Lou Semi-visible jets: Dark matter undercover at the LHC PRL 115 (2015) 171804 1503.00009
40 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
41 H. Qu and L. Gouskos ParticleNet: Jet tagging via particle clouds PRD 101 (2020) 056019 1902.08570
42 CMS Collaboration Wasserstein normalized autoencoder for anomaly detection Mach. Learn. Sci. Tech. 7 (2025) 035030 CMS-MLG-24-002
2510.02168
43 CMS Collaboration The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC JINST 3 (2008) S08004
44 CMS Collaboration Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC Run 3 JINST 19 (2024) P05064 CMS-PRF-21-001
2309.05466
45 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
46 CMS Collaboration The CMS trigger system JINST 12 (2017) P01020 CMS-TRG-12-001
1609.02366
47 CMS Collaboration Performance of the CMS high-level trigger during LHC Run 2 JINST 19 (2024) P11021 CMS-TRG-19-001
2410.17038
48 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
49 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
50 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
51 J. Rosiek General mass insertion expansion in flavor physics in 5th Large Hadron Collider Physics Conference, 2017 1708.06818
52 A. Dedes et al. Mass insertions vs. mass eigenstates calculations in flavour physics JHEP 06 (2015) 151 1504.00960
53 X. Marcano and R. A. Morales Flavor techniques for LFV processes: Higgs decays in a general seesaw model Front. in Phys. 7 (2020) 228 1909.05888
54 R. Frederix et al. The automation of next-to-leading order electroweak calculations [Erratum: JHEP 11, 085 ()], 2018
JHEP 07 (2018) 185
1804.10017
55 Y. Afik et al. DM+$ b\bar b $ simulations with DMSimp: an update in: Experimental and theoretical workshop, 2018
Dark Matter at the LHC 201 (2018) 8
1811.08002
56 T. Sjöstrand et al. An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159 1410.3012
57 G. Albouy et al. Theory, phenomenology, and experimental avenues for dark showers: a Snowmass 2021 report EPJC 82 (2022) 1132 2203.09503
58 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
59 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
60 M. Beneke, P. Falgari, S. Klein, and C. Schwinn Hadronic top-quark pair production with NNLL threshold resummation NPB 855 (2012) 695 1109.1536
61 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
62 P. B ä rnreuther, 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
63 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
64 M. Czakon and A. Mitov NNLO corrections to top pair production at hadron colliders: the quark-gluon reaction JHEP 01 (2013) 080 1210.6832
65 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
66 Y. Li and F. Petriello Combining QCD and electroweak corrections to dilepton production in FEWZ PRD 86 (2012) 094034 1208.5967
67 NNPDF Collaboration Parton distributions from high-precision collider data EPJC 77 (2017) 663 1706.00428
68 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
69 \GEANTfour Collaboration $ GEANT $ 4 --- a simulation toolkit NIM A 506 (2003) 250
70 CMS Collaboration Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector JINST 12 (2017) P10003 CMS-PRF-14-001
1706.04965
71 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez The anti-$ k_{\mathrm{T}} $ jet clustering algorithm JHEP 04 (2008) 063 0802.1189
72 M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez FastJet user manual EPJC 72 (2012) 1896 1111.6097
73 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
74 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
75 CMS Collaboration Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data JINST 15 (2020) P09018 CMS-JME-18-001
2003.00503
76 D. Bertolini, P. Harris, M. Low, and N. Tran Pileup per particle identification JHEP 10 (2014) 059 1407.6013
77 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
78 CMS Collaboration Pileup mitigation at CMS in 13 TeV data JINST 15 (2020) P09018 CMS-JME-18-001
2003.00503
79 E. Bols et al. Jet flavour classification using DeepJet JINST 15 (2020) P12012 2008.10519
80 CMS Collaboration Muon identification using multivariate techniques in the CMS experiment in proton-proton collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV JINST 19 (2024) P02031 CMS-MUO-22-001
2310.03844
81 K. Rehermann and B. Tweedie Efficient identification of boosted semileptonic top quarks at the LHC JHEP 03 (2011) 059 1007.2221
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 S. Yoon, Y.-K. Noh, and F. Park Autoencoding under normalization constraints in the International Conference on Machine Learning, 2087
Proceedings of the 3 (2087) 1
2105.05735
84 CMS Collaboration Performance of quark/gluon discrimination in 8 TeV pp data CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2013
CMS-PAS-JME-13-002
CMS-PAS-JME-13-002
85 A. J. Larkoski, S. Marzani, G. Soyez, and J. Thaler Soft drop JHEP 05 (2014) 146 1402.2657
86 J. Thaler and K. Van Tilburg Identifying boosted objects with $ N $-subjettiness JHEP 03 (2011) 015 1011.2268
87 I. Moult, L. Necib, and J. Thaler New angles on energy correlation functions JHEP 12 (2016) 153 1609.07483
88 CMS Collaboration Machine learning method for enforcing variable independence in background estimation with LHC data: ABCDisCoTEC Submitted to Mach. Learn. Sci. Tech., 2025 CMS-MLG-23-003
2506.08826
89 CDF Collaboration A Measurement of $ \sigma B (W \to e \nu) $ and $ \sigma B (Z^0 \to e^+ e-) $ in $ \bar{p}p $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s} = $ 1800 GeV PRD 44 (1991) 29
90 G. Kasieczka, B. Nachman, M. D. Schwartz, and D. Shih Automating the ABCD method with machine learning PRD 103 (2021) 035021 2007.14400
91 W. Buttinger Background estimation with the ABCD method featuring the TRooFit toolkit https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:235806829
92 O. Behnke, K. Kröninger, G. Schott, and T. Schörner-Sadenius Data analysis in high energy physics: a practical guide to statistical methods eds., Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany, 2013
link
93 A. Paszke et al. PyTorch: an imperative style, high-performance deep learning library in NIPS'19: 33rd International Conference on Neural Information, Curran Associates Inc, 2019
link
1912.01703
94 X. Glorot, A. Bordes, and Y. Bengio Deep sparse rectifier neural networks in the Int. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS), G. Gordon, D. Dunson, and M. Dud\ík, eds., volume 15, 2011
Proc. of the 1 (2011) 315
95 F. A. Dreyer, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez The Lund jet plane JHEP 12 (2018) 064 1807.04758
96 G. J. Sz é kely, M. L. Rizzo, and N. K. Bakirov Measuring and testing dependence by correlation of distances Ann. Stat. 35 (2007) 2769 0803.4101
97 J. Platt and A. Barr Constrained differential optimization in NIPS'87: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1987
link
98 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
99 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
100 CMS Collaboration A method for correcting the substructure of multiprong jets using the Lund jet plane JHEP 11 (2025) 038 CMS-JME-23-001
2507.07775
101 A. Kalogeropoulos and J. Alwall The SysCalc code: A tool to derive theoretical systematic uncertainties 1801.08401
102 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
103 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
104 CMS Collaboration The CMS statistical analysis and combination tool: Combine Comput. Softw. Big Sci. 8 (2024) 19 CMS-CAT-23-001
2404.06614
105 T. Junk Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics NIM A 434 (1999) 435 hep-ex/9902006
106 A. L. Read Presentation of search results: the $ \text{CL}_\text{s} $ technique JPG 28 (2002) 2693
107 G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics EPJC 71 (2011) 1554 1007.1727
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN