CMSPASSUS24004  
Phenomenological MSSM interpretation of CMS searches in pp collisions at 13 TeV  
CMS Collaboration  
9 August 2024  
Abstract: A number of searches for new physics performed by the CMS experiment during years 20162018 of the CERN LHC data taking are interpreted in terms of a 19parameter scan of the phenomenological minimal supersymmetric standard model (pMSSM). The data sets are of protonproton collisions collected at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV and correspond to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$ ^{1} $. The pMSSM is a generic realization of the MSSM with Lagrangian parameters defined at the supersymmetry (SUSY) scale (order 1 TeV), which captures most of the observable features of the general Rparity conserving weak scale MSSM and allows more general conclusions to be drawn about SUSY compared with simplified models. A global Bayesian analysis incorporates data from CMS as well as indirect probes, estimating the marginalized posterior probability densities of model parameters, masses, and observables based on the CMS results. The CMS data highly suppress the phase space with colored superpartner masses below 1 TeV, considerably constrain natural SUSY and the electroweak sector, and weakly constrain SUSY dark matter.  
Links: CDS record (PDF) ; CADI line (restricted) ; 
Figures  
png pdf 
Figure 1:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for the masses of the lowestmass electroweakino states (top three) and the stau (lower). The posterior density is obtained assuming the nominal cross section (black) as well as the up (purple) and down (red) cross section variations. 
png pdf 
Figure 1a:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for the masses of the lowestmass electroweakino states (top three) and the stau (lower). The posterior density is obtained assuming the nominal cross section (black) as well as the up (purple) and down (red) cross section variations. 
png pdf 
Figure 1b:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for the masses of the lowestmass electroweakino states (top three) and the stau (lower). The posterior density is obtained assuming the nominal cross section (black) as well as the up (purple) and down (red) cross section variations. 
png pdf 
Figure 1c:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for the masses of the lowestmass electroweakino states (top three) and the stau (lower). The posterior density is obtained assuming the nominal cross section (black) as well as the up (purple) and down (red) cross section variations. 
png pdf 
Figure 1d:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for the masses of the lowestmass electroweakino states (top three) and the stau (lower). The posterior density is obtained assuming the nominal cross section (black) as well as the up (purple) and down (red) cross section variations. 
png pdf 
Figure 1e:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for the masses of the lowestmass electroweakino states (top three) and the stau (lower). The posterior density is obtained assuming the nominal cross section (black) as well as the up (purple) and down (red) cross section variations. 
png pdf 
Figure 1f:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for the masses of the lowestmass electroweakino states (top three) and the stau (lower). The posterior density is obtained assuming the nominal cross section (black) as well as the up (purple) and down (red) cross section variations. 
png pdf 
Figure 1g:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for the masses of the lowestmass electroweakino states (top three) and the stau (lower). The posterior density is obtained assuming the nominal cross section (black) as well as the up (purple) and down (red) cross section variations. 
png pdf 
Figure 1h:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for the masses of the lowestmass electroweakino states (top three) and the stau (lower). The posterior density is obtained assuming the nominal cross section (black) as well as the up (purple) and down (red) cross section variations. 
png pdf 
Figure 1i:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for the masses of the lowestmass electroweakino states (top three) and the stau (lower). The posterior density is obtained assuming the nominal cross section (black) as well as the up (purple) and down (red) cross section variations. 
png pdf 
Figure 1j:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for the masses of the lowestmass electroweakino states (top three) and the stau (lower). The posterior density is obtained assuming the nominal cross section (black) as well as the up (purple) and down (red) cross section variations. 
png pdf 
Figure 1k:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for the masses of the lowestmass electroweakino states (top three) and the stau (lower). The posterior density is obtained assuming the nominal cross section (black) as well as the up (purple) and down (red) cross section variations. 
png pdf 
Figure 1l:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for the masses of the lowestmass electroweakino states (top three) and the stau (lower). The posterior density is obtained assuming the nominal cross section (black) as well as the up (purple) and down (red) cross section variations. 
png pdf 
Figure 2:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for the third generation squarks (top two), gluino (third row), and lightest colored superpartner (lower) masses. The posterior density is obtained assuming the nominal cross section (black) as well as the up (purple) and down (red) cross section variations. 
png pdf 
Figure 2a:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for the third generation squarks (top two), gluino (third row), and lightest colored superpartner (lower) masses. The posterior density is obtained assuming the nominal cross section (black) as well as the up (purple) and down (red) cross section variations. 
png pdf 
Figure 2b:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for the third generation squarks (top two), gluino (third row), and lightest colored superpartner (lower) masses. The posterior density is obtained assuming the nominal cross section (black) as well as the up (purple) and down (red) cross section variations. 
png pdf 
Figure 2c:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for the third generation squarks (top two), gluino (third row), and lightest colored superpartner (lower) masses. The posterior density is obtained assuming the nominal cross section (black) as well as the up (purple) and down (red) cross section variations. 
png pdf 
Figure 2d:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for the third generation squarks (top two), gluino (third row), and lightest colored superpartner (lower) masses. The posterior density is obtained assuming the nominal cross section (black) as well as the up (purple) and down (red) cross section variations. 
png pdf 
Figure 2e:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for the third generation squarks (top two), gluino (third row), and lightest colored superpartner (lower) masses. The posterior density is obtained assuming the nominal cross section (black) as well as the up (purple) and down (red) cross section variations. 
png pdf 
Figure 2f:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for the third generation squarks (top two), gluino (third row), and lightest colored superpartner (lower) masses. The posterior density is obtained assuming the nominal cross section (black) as well as the up (purple) and down (red) cross section variations. 
png pdf 
Figure 2g:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for the third generation squarks (top two), gluino (third row), and lightest colored superpartner (lower) masses. The posterior density is obtained assuming the nominal cross section (black) as well as the up (purple) and down (red) cross section variations. 
png pdf 
Figure 2h:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for the third generation squarks (top two), gluino (third row), and lightest colored superpartner (lower) masses. The posterior density is obtained assuming the nominal cross section (black) as well as the up (purple) and down (red) cross section variations. 
png pdf 
Figure 2i:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for the third generation squarks (top two), gluino (third row), and lightest colored superpartner (lower) masses. The posterior density is obtained assuming the nominal cross section (black) as well as the up (purple) and down (red) cross section variations. 
png pdf 
Figure 2j:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for the third generation squarks (top two), gluino (third row), and lightest colored superpartner (lower) masses. The posterior density is obtained assuming the nominal cross section (black) as well as the up (purple) and down (red) cross section variations. 
png pdf 
Figure 2k:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for the third generation squarks (top two), gluino (third row), and lightest colored superpartner (lower) masses. The posterior density is obtained assuming the nominal cross section (black) as well as the up (purple) and down (red) cross section variations. 
png pdf 
Figure 2l:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for the third generation squarks (top two), gluino (third row), and lightest colored superpartner (lower) masses. The posterior density is obtained assuming the nominal cross section (black) as well as the up (purple) and down (red) cross section variations. 
png pdf 
Figure 3:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for DM relic density (top), spindependent and spinindependent (middle), and finetuning criterion (lower). The posterior density is obtained assuming the nominal cross section (black) as well as the up (purple) and down (red) cross section variations. 
png pdf 
Figure 3a:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for DM relic density (top), spindependent and spinindependent (middle), and finetuning criterion (lower). The posterior density is obtained assuming the nominal cross section (black) as well as the up (purple) and down (red) cross section variations. 
png pdf 
Figure 3b:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for DM relic density (top), spindependent and spinindependent (middle), and finetuning criterion (lower). The posterior density is obtained assuming the nominal cross section (black) as well as the up (purple) and down (red) cross section variations. 
png pdf 
Figure 3c:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for DM relic density (top), spindependent and spinindependent (middle), and finetuning criterion (lower). The posterior density is obtained assuming the nominal cross section (black) as well as the up (purple) and down (red) cross section variations. 
png pdf 
Figure 3d:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for DM relic density (top), spindependent and spinindependent (middle), and finetuning criterion (lower). The posterior density is obtained assuming the nominal cross section (black) as well as the up (purple) and down (red) cross section variations. 
png pdf 
Figure 3e:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for DM relic density (top), spindependent and spinindependent (middle), and finetuning criterion (lower). The posterior density is obtained assuming the nominal cross section (black) as well as the up (purple) and down (red) cross section variations. 
png pdf 
Figure 3f:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for DM relic density (top), spindependent and spinindependent (middle), and finetuning criterion (lower). The posterior density is obtained assuming the nominal cross section (black) as well as the up (purple) and down (red) cross section variations. 
png pdf 
Figure 3g:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for DM relic density (top), spindependent and spinindependent (middle), and finetuning criterion (lower). The posterior density is obtained assuming the nominal cross section (black) as well as the up (purple) and down (red) cross section variations. 
png pdf 
Figure 3h:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for DM relic density (top), spindependent and spinindependent (middle), and finetuning criterion (lower). The posterior density is obtained assuming the nominal cross section (black) as well as the up (purple) and down (red) cross section variations. 
png pdf 
Figure 3i:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for DM relic density (top), spindependent and spinindependent (middle), and finetuning criterion (lower). The posterior density is obtained assuming the nominal cross section (black) as well as the up (purple) and down (red) cross section variations. 
png pdf 
Figure 3j:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for DM relic density (top), spindependent and spinindependent (middle), and finetuning criterion (lower). The posterior density is obtained assuming the nominal cross section (black) as well as the up (purple) and down (red) cross section variations. 
png pdf 
Figure 3k:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for DM relic density (top), spindependent and spinindependent (middle), and finetuning criterion (lower). The posterior density is obtained assuming the nominal cross section (black) as well as the up (purple) and down (red) cross section variations. 
png pdf 
Figure 3l:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for DM relic density (top), spindependent and spinindependent (middle), and finetuning criterion (lower). The posterior density is obtained assuming the nominal cross section (black) as well as the up (purple) and down (red) cross section variations. 
png pdf 
Figure 4:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lightest neutralino states or the stau mass. Black bins indicate where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicate where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 4a:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lightest neutralino states or the stau mass. Black bins indicate where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicate where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 4b:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lightest neutralino states or the stau mass. Black bins indicate where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicate where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 4c:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lightest neutralino states or the stau mass. Black bins indicate where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicate where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 4d:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lightest neutralino states or the stau mass. Black bins indicate where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicate where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 4e:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lightest neutralino states or the stau mass. Black bins indicate where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicate where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 4f:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lightest neutralino states or the stau mass. Black bins indicate where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicate where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 4g:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lightest neutralino states or the stau mass. Black bins indicate where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicate where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 4h:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lightest neutralino states or the stau mass. Black bins indicate where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicate where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 4i:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lightest neutralino states or the stau mass. Black bins indicate where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicate where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 4j:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lightest neutralino states or the stau mass. Black bins indicate where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicate where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 4k:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lightest neutralino states or the stau mass. Black bins indicate where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicate where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 4l:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lightest neutralino states or the stau mass. Black bins indicate where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicate where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 4m:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lightest neutralino states or the stau mass. Black bins indicate where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicate where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 5:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lighter top and bottom squark, gluino, and LCSP masses. Black bins indicate where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicate where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 5a:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lighter top and bottom squark, gluino, and LCSP masses. Black bins indicate where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicate where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 5b:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lighter top and bottom squark, gluino, and LCSP masses. Black bins indicate where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicate where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 5c:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lighter top and bottom squark, gluino, and LCSP masses. Black bins indicate where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicate where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 5d:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lighter top and bottom squark, gluino, and LCSP masses. Black bins indicate where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicate where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 5e:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lighter top and bottom squark, gluino, and LCSP masses. Black bins indicate where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicate where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 5f:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lighter top and bottom squark, gluino, and LCSP masses. Black bins indicate where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicate where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 5g:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lighter top and bottom squark, gluino, and LCSP masses. Black bins indicate where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicate where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 5h:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lighter top and bottom squark, gluino, and LCSP masses. Black bins indicate where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicate where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 5i:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lighter top and bottom squark, gluino, and LCSP masses. Black bins indicate where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicate where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 5j:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lighter top and bottom squark, gluino, and LCSP masses. Black bins indicate where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicate where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 5k:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lighter top and bottom squark, gluino, and LCSP masses. Black bins indicate where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicate where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 5l:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lighter top and bottom squark, gluino, and LCSP masses. Black bins indicate where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicate where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 5m:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lighter top and bottom squark, gluino, and LCSP masses. Black bins indicate where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicate where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 6:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lighter top and bottom squark, gluino, and LCSP masses. Black indicates bins where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicates bins where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 6a:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lighter top and bottom squark, gluino, and LCSP masses. Black indicates bins where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicates bins where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 6b:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lighter top and bottom squark, gluino, and LCSP masses. Black indicates bins where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicates bins where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 6c:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lighter top and bottom squark, gluino, and LCSP masses. Black indicates bins where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicates bins where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 6d:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lighter top and bottom squark, gluino, and LCSP masses. Black indicates bins where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicates bins where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 6e:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lighter top and bottom squark, gluino, and LCSP masses. Black indicates bins where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicates bins where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 6f:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lighter top and bottom squark, gluino, and LCSP masses. Black indicates bins where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicates bins where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 6g:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lighter top and bottom squark, gluino, and LCSP masses. Black indicates bins where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicates bins where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 6h:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lighter top and bottom squark, gluino, and LCSP masses. Black indicates bins where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicates bins where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 6i:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lighter top and bottom squark, gluino, and LCSP masses. Black indicates bins where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicates bins where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 6j:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lighter top and bottom squark, gluino, and LCSP masses. Black indicates bins where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicates bins where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 6k:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lighter top and bottom squark, gluino, and LCSP masses. Black indicates bins where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicates bins where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 6l:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lighter top and bottom squark, gluino, and LCSP masses. Black indicates bins where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicates bins where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 6m:
Survival probability based on the full scan (left), based on the subset of the scan respecting DM constraints (center), and based on the natural DM subset (right), as a function of LSP mass and mass differences between the LSP and the lighter top and bottom squark, gluino, and LCSP masses. Black indicates bins where no pMSSM points survived the CMS analyses, and white indicates bins where no pMSSM points are present in the prior. Also shown are the prior (solid) and posterior (dashed) density contours corresponding to the respective constraints. 
png pdf 
Figure 7:
99% upper percentiles on the BF in bins of various projections of superpartner mass differences and the LSP mass. Also shown as symbols are the projections of four high significance model points with (run number, iteration number): red circle (550, 52206), gray triangle (136, 33723), pink square (132, 73754), and orange triangle (449, 65877). 
png pdf 
Figure 7a:
99% upper percentiles on the BF in bins of various projections of superpartner mass differences and the LSP mass. Also shown as symbols are the projections of four high significance model points with (run number, iteration number): red circle (550, 52206), gray triangle (136, 33723), pink square (132, 73754), and orange triangle (449, 65877). 
png pdf 
Figure 7b:
99% upper percentiles on the BF in bins of various projections of superpartner mass differences and the LSP mass. Also shown as symbols are the projections of four high significance model points with (run number, iteration number): red circle (550, 52206), gray triangle (136, 33723), pink square (132, 73754), and orange triangle (449, 65877). 
png pdf 
Figure 7c:
99% upper percentiles on the BF in bins of various projections of superpartner mass differences and the LSP mass. Also shown as symbols are the projections of four high significance model points with (run number, iteration number): red circle (550, 52206), gray triangle (136, 33723), pink square (132, 73754), and orange triangle (449, 65877). 
png pdf 
Figure 7d:
99% upper percentiles on the BF in bins of various projections of superpartner mass differences and the LSP mass. Also shown as symbols are the projections of four high significance model points with (run number, iteration number): red circle (550, 52206), gray triangle (136, 33723), pink square (132, 73754), and orange triangle (449, 65877). 
png pdf 
Figure 7e:
99% upper percentiles on the BF in bins of various projections of superpartner mass differences and the LSP mass. Also shown as symbols are the projections of four high significance model points with (run number, iteration number): red circle (550, 52206), gray triangle (136, 33723), pink square (132, 73754), and orange triangle (449, 65877). 
png pdf 
Figure 7f:
99% upper percentiles on the BF in bins of various projections of superpartner mass differences and the LSP mass. Also shown as symbols are the projections of four high significance model points with (run number, iteration number): red circle (550, 52206), gray triangle (136, 33723), pink square (132, 73754), and orange triangle (449, 65877). 
png pdf 
Figure 8:
Four pMSSM model points (run number, iteration number) with positive Z significance in reading order with symbols indicated as in: red circle (550, 52206), gray triangle (136, 33723), pink square (132, 73754), and orange triangle (449, 65877). The Z scores vary between 2 and 3. 
png pdf 
Figure 8a:
Four pMSSM model points (run number, iteration number) with positive Z significance in reading order with symbols indicated as in: red circle (550, 52206), gray triangle (136, 33723), pink square (132, 73754), and orange triangle (449, 65877). The Z scores vary between 2 and 3. 
png pdf 
Figure 8b:
Four pMSSM model points (run number, iteration number) with positive Z significance in reading order with symbols indicated as in: red circle (550, 52206), gray triangle (136, 33723), pink square (132, 73754), and orange triangle (449, 65877). The Z scores vary between 2 and 3. 
png pdf 
Figure 8c:
Four pMSSM model points (run number, iteration number) with positive Z significance in reading order with symbols indicated as in: red circle (550, 52206), gray triangle (136, 33723), pink square (132, 73754), and orange triangle (449, 65877). The Z scores vary between 2 and 3. 
png pdf 
Figure 8d:
Four pMSSM model points (run number, iteration number) with positive Z significance in reading order with symbols indicated as in: red circle (550, 52206), gray triangle (136, 33723), pink square (132, 73754), and orange triangle (449, 65877). The Z scores vary between 2 and 3. 
png pdf 
Figure 9:
Progressive impact of individual searches on the pMSSM as a function of the LSP and mass differences between the LSP and lightest chargino (top two rows), the secondlightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS18004 [44], SUS20001 [47], SUS21007 [49], SUS21006 [48], SUS19006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200. 
png pdf 
Figure 9a:
Progressive impact of individual searches on the pMSSM as a function of the LSP and mass differences between the LSP and lightest chargino (top two rows), the secondlightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS18004 [44], SUS20001 [47], SUS21007 [49], SUS21006 [48], SUS19006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200. 
png pdf 
Figure 9b:
Progressive impact of individual searches on the pMSSM as a function of the LSP and mass differences between the LSP and lightest chargino (top two rows), the secondlightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS18004 [44], SUS20001 [47], SUS21007 [49], SUS21006 [48], SUS19006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200. 
png pdf 
Figure 9c:
Progressive impact of individual searches on the pMSSM as a function of the LSP and mass differences between the LSP and lightest chargino (top two rows), the secondlightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS18004 [44], SUS20001 [47], SUS21007 [49], SUS21006 [48], SUS19006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200. 
png pdf 
Figure 9d:
Progressive impact of individual searches on the pMSSM as a function of the LSP and mass differences between the LSP and lightest chargino (top two rows), the secondlightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS18004 [44], SUS20001 [47], SUS21007 [49], SUS21006 [48], SUS19006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200. 
png pdf 
Figure 9e:
Progressive impact of individual searches on the pMSSM as a function of the LSP and mass differences between the LSP and lightest chargino (top two rows), the secondlightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS18004 [44], SUS20001 [47], SUS21007 [49], SUS21006 [48], SUS19006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200. 
png pdf 
Figure 9f:
Progressive impact of individual searches on the pMSSM as a function of the LSP and mass differences between the LSP and lightest chargino (top two rows), the secondlightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS18004 [44], SUS20001 [47], SUS21007 [49], SUS21006 [48], SUS19006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200. 
png pdf 
Figure 9g:
Progressive impact of individual searches on the pMSSM as a function of the LSP and mass differences between the LSP and lightest chargino (top two rows), the secondlightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS18004 [44], SUS20001 [47], SUS21007 [49], SUS21006 [48], SUS19006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200. 
png pdf 
Figure 9h:
Progressive impact of individual searches on the pMSSM as a function of the LSP and mass differences between the LSP and lightest chargino (top two rows), the secondlightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS18004 [44], SUS20001 [47], SUS21007 [49], SUS21006 [48], SUS19006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200. 
png pdf 
Figure 9i:
Progressive impact of individual searches on the pMSSM as a function of the LSP and mass differences between the LSP and lightest chargino (top two rows), the secondlightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS18004 [44], SUS20001 [47], SUS21007 [49], SUS21006 [48], SUS19006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200. 
png pdf 
Figure 9j:
Progressive impact of individual searches on the pMSSM as a function of the LSP and mass differences between the LSP and lightest chargino (top two rows), the secondlightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS18004 [44], SUS20001 [47], SUS21007 [49], SUS21006 [48], SUS19006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200. 
png pdf 
Figure 9k:
Progressive impact of individual searches on the pMSSM as a function of the LSP and mass differences between the LSP and lightest chargino (top two rows), the secondlightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS18004 [44], SUS20001 [47], SUS21007 [49], SUS21006 [48], SUS19006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200. 
png pdf 
Figure 9l:
Progressive impact of individual searches on the pMSSM as a function of the LSP and mass differences between the LSP and lightest chargino (top two rows), the secondlightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS18004 [44], SUS20001 [47], SUS21007 [49], SUS21006 [48], SUS19006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200. 
png pdf 
Figure 9m:
Progressive impact of individual searches on the pMSSM as a function of the LSP and mass differences between the LSP and lightest chargino (top two rows), the secondlightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS18004 [44], SUS20001 [47], SUS21007 [49], SUS21006 [48], SUS19006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200. 
png pdf 
Figure 9n:
Progressive impact of individual searches on the pMSSM as a function of the LSP and mass differences between the LSP and lightest chargino (top two rows), the secondlightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS18004 [44], SUS20001 [47], SUS21007 [49], SUS21006 [48], SUS19006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200. 
png pdf 
Figure 9o:
Progressive impact of individual searches on the pMSSM as a function of the LSP and mass differences between the LSP and lightest chargino (top two rows), the secondlightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS18004 [44], SUS20001 [47], SUS21007 [49], SUS21006 [48], SUS19006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200. 
png pdf 
Figure 9p:
Progressive impact of individual searches on the pMSSM as a function of the LSP and mass differences between the LSP and lightest chargino (top two rows), the secondlightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS18004 [44], SUS20001 [47], SUS21007 [49], SUS21006 [48], SUS19006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200. 
png pdf 
Figure 9q:
Progressive impact of individual searches on the pMSSM as a function of the LSP and mass differences between the LSP and lightest chargino (top two rows), the secondlightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS18004 [44], SUS20001 [47], SUS21007 [49], SUS21006 [48], SUS19006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200. 
png pdf 
Figure 9r:
Progressive impact of individual searches on the pMSSM as a function of the LSP and mass differences between the LSP and lightest chargino (top two rows), the secondlightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS18004 [44], SUS20001 [47], SUS21007 [49], SUS21006 [48], SUS19006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200. 
png pdf 
Figure 9s:
Progressive impact of individual searches on the pMSSM as a function of the LSP and mass differences between the LSP and lightest chargino (top two rows), the secondlightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS18004 [44], SUS20001 [47], SUS21007 [49], SUS21006 [48], SUS19006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200. 
png pdf 
Figure 9t:
Progressive impact of individual searches on the pMSSM as a function of the LSP and mass differences between the LSP and lightest chargino (top two rows), the secondlightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS18004 [44], SUS20001 [47], SUS21007 [49], SUS21006 [48], SUS19006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200. 
png pdf 
Figure 9u:
Progressive impact of individual searches on the pMSSM as a function of the LSP and mass differences between the LSP and lightest chargino (top two rows), the secondlightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS18004 [44], SUS20001 [47], SUS21007 [49], SUS21006 [48], SUS19006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200. 
png pdf 
Figure 9v:
Progressive impact of individual searches on the pMSSM as a function of the LSP and mass differences between the LSP and lightest chargino (top two rows), the secondlightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS18004 [44], SUS20001 [47], SUS21007 [49], SUS21006 [48], SUS19006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200. 
png pdf 
Figure 9w:
Progressive impact of individual searches on the pMSSM as a function of the LSP and mass differences between the LSP and lightest chargino (top two rows), the secondlightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS18004 [44], SUS20001 [47], SUS21007 [49], SUS21006 [48], SUS19006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200. 
png pdf 
Figure 9x:
Progressive impact of individual searches on the pMSSM as a function of the LSP and mass differences between the LSP and lightest chargino (top two rows), the secondlightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS18004 [44], SUS20001 [47], SUS21007 [49], SUS21006 [48], SUS19006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200. 
png pdf 
Figure 9y:
Progressive impact of individual searches on the pMSSM as a function of the LSP and mass differences between the LSP and lightest chargino (top two rows), the secondlightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS18004 [44], SUS20001 [47], SUS21007 [49], SUS21006 [48], SUS19006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200. 
Summary 
The CMS experiment has conducted various searches for BSM physics during the 20162018 data taking period at the CERN LHC, which have been interpreted using a 19parameter scan of the phenomenological minimal supersymmetric standard model (pMSSM). Using previously published results from search analyses data from pp collisions at 13 TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$ ^{1} $, the study has provided a comprehensive analysis of the pMSSM. This model, a general realization of the MSSM with parameters defined at the supersymmetry scale, captures most observable features of the Rparity conserving weak scale MSSM. A global Bayesian analysis has been performed, incorporating CMS data along with preCMS measurements and indirect probes of supersymmetry. As a result of the CMS analyses, the posterior probability density generally shifts towards higher masses compared to the prior, consistent with the reduced experimental sensitivity at higher masses. A peak in the posterior density around an LSP mass of 400 GeV suggests that significant phase space remains consistent with experimental data even at low LSP mass. Lightest chargino, secondlightest neutralino, gluino, and top squark masses are heavily disfavored below approximately 200, 200, 700, and 1100 GeV, respectively, but certain phase space regions remain allowed. The survival probability indicates the likelihood of phase space exclusion by the data, highlighting the allowed regions. Additionally, the upper quantiles of the Bayes Factor reveal phase space regions that align most consistently with observed data, indicating regions of interest for further study. A small number of pMSSM points have a high Bayes Factor where the model phase space is consistent with bins within the studied analyses that have the observed data above the background predictions; examples of these points were discussed to illustrate such compatible pMSSM scenarios. The lightest chargino, secondlightest neutralino, gluino, and top squark are heavily disfavored for masses less than around 200, 200, 700, and 1100 GeV, respectively. Considerable MSSM phase space capable of solving the small hierarchy problem or explaining the known DM relic density remain nonexcluded by the CMS searches. However, only a very small number of models that are consistent with lowfine tuning and the relic density remain viable. Most such models correspond to a roughly pure Higgsinolike dark matter candidate. 
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 poincare group generators and violation of p invariance  JETP Lett. 13 (1971) 323  
3  D. V. Volkov and V. P. Akulov  Possible universal neutrino interaction  JETP Lett. 16 (1972) 438  
4  J. Wess and B. Zumino  Supergauge transformations in fourdimensions  NPB 70 (1974) 39  
5  P. Fayet  Supergauge invariant extension of the higgs mechanism and a model for the electron and its neutrino  NPB 90 (1975) 104  
6  D. J. H. Chung et al.  The soft supersymmetry breaking lagrangian: Theory and applications  Phys. Rept. 407 (2005) 1  hepph/0312378 
7  CMS Collaboration  Phenomenological MSSM interpretation of CMS searches in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 and and 8 tev  JHEP 201 (2016) 6  
8  ATLAS Collaboration  Atlas run 2 searches for electroweak production of supersymmetric particles interpreted within the pmssm  JHEP 05 (2024) 106  2402.01392 
9  M. Donadoni et al.  Scalable atlas pmssm computational workflows using containerised reana reusable analysis platform  EPJ Web Conf. 295 (2024) 04035  2403.03494 
10  A. Djouadi et al.  The minimal supersymmetric standard model: Group summary report  MSSM Working Group, in GDR (Groupement de recherche), 1998  hepph/9901246 
11  W. K. Hastings  Monte carlo sampling methods using markov chains and their applications  Biometrika 57 (1970) 97  
12  W. Porod  Spheno, a program for calculating supersymmetric spectra, susy particle decays and susy particle production at e+ e colliders  Comput. Phys. Commun. 153 (2003) 275  hepph/0301101 
13  W. Porod and F. Staub  Spheno 3.1: Extensions including flavour, cpphases and models beyond the mssm  Comput. Phys. Commun. 183 (2012) 2458  1104.1573 
14  H. Bahl et al.  Precision calculations in the mssm higgsboson sector with feynhiggs 2.14  Comput. Phys. Commun. 249 (2020) 107099  1811.09073 
15  H. Bahl et al.  Reconciling EFT and hybrid calculations of the light MSSM higgsboson mass  EPJC 78 (2018)  
16  H. Bahl and W. Hollik  Precise prediction for the light MSSM higgsboson mass combining effective field theory and fixedorder calculations  EPJC 76 (2016)  
17  T. Hahn et al.  Highprecision predictions for the light cpeven higgs boson mass of the minimal supersymmetric standard model  PRL 112 (2014)  
18  M. Frank et al.  The higgs boson masses and mixings of the complex MSSM in the feynmandiagrammatic approach  JHEP 047 (2007)  
19  G. Degrassi et al.  Towards highprecision predictions for the MSSM higgs sector  EPJC 28 (2003)  
20  S. Heinemeyer et al.  The masses of the neutral cpeven higgs bosons in the MSSM: Accurate analysis at the twoloop level  EPJC 9 (1999) 343  
21  S. Heinemeyer et al.  FeynHiggs: a program for the calculation of the masses of the neutral cpeven higgs bosons in the MSSM  Computer Physics Communications 124 (2000) 76  
22  H. Bahl et al.  Theoretical uncertainties in the MSSM higgs boson mass calculation  EPJC 80 (2020)  
23  CMS Collaboration  A portrait of the higgs boson by the cms experiment ten years after the discovery.  Nature 607 (2022) 60  CMSHIG22001 2207.00043 
24  G. Bélanger et al.  Recasting direct detection limits within micrOMEGAs and implication for nonstandard dark matter scenarios  EPJC 81 (2021)  
25  F. Mahmoudi  Superiso v2.3: A program for calculating flavor physics observables in supersymmetry  Comput. Phys. Commun. 180 (2009) 1579  0808.3144 
26  HFLAV Collaboration, E. Barberio et al.  Averages of $ b $hadron and $ c $hadron Properties at the End of 2007  0808.1297  
27  CMS Collaboration  Measurement of the $ B^0_s \to \mu^+ \mu^ $ branching fraction and search for $ B^0 \to \mu^+ \mu^ $ with the CMS experiment  PRL 111 (2013) 101804  CMSBPH13004 1307.5025 
28  LHCb Collaboration  Measurement of the $ B^0_s \to \mu^+ \mu^ $ branching fraction and search for $ B^0 \to \mu^+ \mu^ $ decays at the LHCb experiment  PRL 111 (2013) 101805  1307.5024 
29  CMS and LHCb Collaboration  Combination of results on the rare decays $ B^0_{(s)} \to \mu^+\mu^ $ from the CMS and LHCb experiments  Technical report, CERN, Geneva, 2013  
30  Belle Collaboration  Improved measurement of the electroweak penguin process $ B \to X_s \ell^+ \ell^ $  PRD 72 (2005) 092005  hepex/0503044 
31  BaBar Collaboration  Measurement of the $ B \to X_s \ell^+ \ell^ $ branching fraction and search for direct cp violation from a sum of exclusive final states  PRL 112 (2014) 211802  1312.5364 
32  LHCb Collaboration  Measurement of formfactorindependent observables in the decay $ B^{0} \to K^{*0} \mu^+ \mu^ $  PRL 111 (2013) 191801  1308.1707 
33  HFLAV Collaboration  Averages of BHadron, CHadron, and taulepton properties as of early 2012  1207.1158  
34  B. Aubert et al.  Measurement of branching fractions and cp and isospin asymmetries in $ B \to K^{*} \gamma $  BaBar Collaboration, in 34th International Conference on High Energy Physics. 8, 2008  0808.1915 
35  Belle Collaboration  Measurement of the $ B \to K^* \gamma $ branching fractions and asymmetries  PRD 69 (2004) 112001  hepex/0402042 
36  Particle Data Group Collaboration  Review of particle physics  Chinese Physics C 38 (2014) 090001  
37  Y. Amhis et al.  Averages of $ b $hadron, $ c $hadron, and $ \tau $lepton properties as of 2021  We are using the tables from May for this work, 2023 PRD 107 (2023) 052008 
2206.07501 
38  Particle Data Group Collaboration  Review of particle physics  PRD 98 (2018) 030001  
39  P. Z. Skands et al.  Susy les houches accord: Interfacing susy spectrum calculators, decay packages, and event generators  JHEP 07 (2004) 036  hepph/0311123 
40  H. Baer et al.  Electroweak versus high scale finetuning in the 19parameter sugra model  PRD 88 (2013) 055026  1304.6732 
41  Planck Collaboration  Planck 2018 results  vi. cosmological parameters  A&A 641 (2020) A6  
42  T. Sjöstrand et al.  An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2  Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159  1410.3012 
43  CMS Collaboration  The fast simulation of the CMS detector at LHC  Journal of Physics: Conference Series 331 (2011) 032049  
44  CMS Collaboration  Search for supersymmetry in final states with two or three soft leptons and missing transverse momentum in protonproton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV  JHEP 2204 (2022) 91  CMSSUS18004 2111.06296 
45  CMS Collaboration  Search for electroweak production of charginos and neutralinos in protonproton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV  JHEP 04 (2022) 147  CMSSUS19012 2106.14246 
46  CMS Collaboration  Search for supersymmetry in protonproton collisions at 13 TeV in final states with jets and missing transverse momentum  JHEP 10 (2019) 244  
47  CMS Collaboration  Search for supersymmetry in final states with two oppositely charged sameflavor leptons and missing transverse momentum in protonproton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV  JHEP 04 (2021) 123  CMSSUS20001 2012.08600 
48  CMS Collaboration  Search for supersymmetry in final states with disappearing tracks in protonproton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV  CMSSUS21006 2309.16823 

49  CMS Collaboration  Search for supersymmetry in final states with a single electron or muon using angular correlations and heavyobject identification in protonproton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV  JHEP 09 (2023) 149  CMSSUS21007 2211.08476 
50  S. S. Wilks  The largesample distribution of the likelihood ratio for testing composite hypotheses  The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 9 (1938) 60  
51  LZ Collaboration  First dark matter search results from the LuxZeplin (LZ) experiment  PRL 131 (2023) 041002  2207.03764 
Compact Muon Solenoid LHC, CERN 