CMS logoCMS event Hgg
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN

CMS-PAS-SUS-24-004
Phenomenological MSSM interpretation of CMS searches in pp collisions at 13 TeV
Abstract: A number of searches for new physics performed by the CMS experiment during years 2016-2018 of the CERN LHC data taking are interpreted in terms of a 19-parameter scan of the phenomenological minimal supersymmetric standard model (pMSSM). The data sets are of proton-proton 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 R-parity 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.
Figures Summary References CMS Publications
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 lowest-mass 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 1-a:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for the masses of the lowest-mass 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 1-b:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for the masses of the lowest-mass 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 1-c:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for the masses of the lowest-mass 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 1-d:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for the masses of the lowest-mass 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 1-e:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for the masses of the lowest-mass 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 1-f:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for the masses of the lowest-mass 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 1-g:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for the masses of the lowest-mass 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 1-h:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for the masses of the lowest-mass 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 1-i:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for the masses of the lowest-mass 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 1-j:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for the masses of the lowest-mass 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 1-k:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for the masses of the lowest-mass 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 1-l:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for the masses of the lowest-mass 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 2-a:
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 2-b:
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 2-c:
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 2-d:
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 2-e:
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 2-f:
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 2-g:
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 2-h:
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 2-i:
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 2-j:
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 2-k:
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 2-l:
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), spin-dependent and spin-independent (middle), and fine-tuning 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 3-a:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for DM relic density (top), spin-dependent and spin-independent (middle), and fine-tuning 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 3-b:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for DM relic density (top), spin-dependent and spin-independent (middle), and fine-tuning 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 3-c:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for DM relic density (top), spin-dependent and spin-independent (middle), and fine-tuning 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 3-d:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for DM relic density (top), spin-dependent and spin-independent (middle), and fine-tuning 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 3-e:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for DM relic density (top), spin-dependent and spin-independent (middle), and fine-tuning 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 3-f:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for DM relic density (top), spin-dependent and spin-independent (middle), and fine-tuning 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 3-g:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for DM relic density (top), spin-dependent and spin-independent (middle), and fine-tuning 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 3-h:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for DM relic density (top), spin-dependent and spin-independent (middle), and fine-tuning 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 3-i:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for DM relic density (top), spin-dependent and spin-independent (middle), and fine-tuning 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 3-j:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for DM relic density (top), spin-dependent and spin-independent (middle), and fine-tuning 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 3-k:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for DM relic density (top), spin-dependent and spin-independent (middle), and fine-tuning 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 3-l:
Marginalized prior and posterior density (left), survival probability (center), and upper quantiles of the BF (right) for DM relic density (top), spin-dependent and spin-independent (middle), and fine-tuning 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 4-a:
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 4-b:
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 4-c:
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 4-d:
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 4-e:
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 4-f:
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 4-g:
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 4-h:
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 4-i:
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 4-j:
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 4-k:
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 4-l:
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 4-m:
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 5-a:
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 5-b:
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 5-c:
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 5-d:
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 5-e:
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 5-f:
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 5-g:
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 5-h:
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 5-i:
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 5-j:
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 5-k:
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 5-l:
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 5-m:
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 6-a:
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 6-b:
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 6-c:
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 6-d:
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 6-e:
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 6-f:
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 6-g:
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 6-h:
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 6-i:
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 6-j:
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 6-k:
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 6-l:
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 6-m:
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 7-a:
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 7-b:
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 7-c:
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 7-d:
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 7-e:
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 7-f:
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 8-a:
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 8-b:
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 8-c:
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 8-d:
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 second-lightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS-18-004 [44], SUS-20-001 [47], SUS-21-007 [49], SUS-21-006 [48], SUS-19-006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200.

png pdf
Figure 9-a:
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 second-lightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS-18-004 [44], SUS-20-001 [47], SUS-21-007 [49], SUS-21-006 [48], SUS-19-006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200.

png pdf
Figure 9-b:
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 second-lightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS-18-004 [44], SUS-20-001 [47], SUS-21-007 [49], SUS-21-006 [48], SUS-19-006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200.

png pdf
Figure 9-c:
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 second-lightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS-18-004 [44], SUS-20-001 [47], SUS-21-007 [49], SUS-21-006 [48], SUS-19-006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200.

png pdf
Figure 9-d:
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 second-lightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS-18-004 [44], SUS-20-001 [47], SUS-21-007 [49], SUS-21-006 [48], SUS-19-006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200.

png pdf
Figure 9-e:
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 second-lightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS-18-004 [44], SUS-20-001 [47], SUS-21-007 [49], SUS-21-006 [48], SUS-19-006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200.

png pdf
Figure 9-f:
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 second-lightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS-18-004 [44], SUS-20-001 [47], SUS-21-007 [49], SUS-21-006 [48], SUS-19-006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200.

png pdf
Figure 9-g:
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 second-lightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS-18-004 [44], SUS-20-001 [47], SUS-21-007 [49], SUS-21-006 [48], SUS-19-006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200.

png pdf
Figure 9-h:
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 second-lightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS-18-004 [44], SUS-20-001 [47], SUS-21-007 [49], SUS-21-006 [48], SUS-19-006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200.

png pdf
Figure 9-i:
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 second-lightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS-18-004 [44], SUS-20-001 [47], SUS-21-007 [49], SUS-21-006 [48], SUS-19-006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200.

png pdf
Figure 9-j:
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 second-lightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS-18-004 [44], SUS-20-001 [47], SUS-21-007 [49], SUS-21-006 [48], SUS-19-006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200.

png pdf
Figure 9-k:
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 second-lightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS-18-004 [44], SUS-20-001 [47], SUS-21-007 [49], SUS-21-006 [48], SUS-19-006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200.

png pdf
Figure 9-l:
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 second-lightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS-18-004 [44], SUS-20-001 [47], SUS-21-007 [49], SUS-21-006 [48], SUS-19-006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200.

png pdf
Figure 9-m:
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 second-lightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS-18-004 [44], SUS-20-001 [47], SUS-21-007 [49], SUS-21-006 [48], SUS-19-006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200.

png pdf
Figure 9-n:
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 second-lightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS-18-004 [44], SUS-20-001 [47], SUS-21-007 [49], SUS-21-006 [48], SUS-19-006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200.

png pdf
Figure 9-o:
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 second-lightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS-18-004 [44], SUS-20-001 [47], SUS-21-007 [49], SUS-21-006 [48], SUS-19-006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200.

png pdf
Figure 9-p:
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 second-lightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS-18-004 [44], SUS-20-001 [47], SUS-21-007 [49], SUS-21-006 [48], SUS-19-006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200.

png pdf
Figure 9-q:
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 second-lightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS-18-004 [44], SUS-20-001 [47], SUS-21-007 [49], SUS-21-006 [48], SUS-19-006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200.

png pdf
Figure 9-r:
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 second-lightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS-18-004 [44], SUS-20-001 [47], SUS-21-007 [49], SUS-21-006 [48], SUS-19-006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200.

png pdf
Figure 9-s:
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 second-lightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS-18-004 [44], SUS-20-001 [47], SUS-21-007 [49], SUS-21-006 [48], SUS-19-006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200.

png pdf
Figure 9-t:
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 second-lightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS-18-004 [44], SUS-20-001 [47], SUS-21-007 [49], SUS-21-006 [48], SUS-19-006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200.

png pdf
Figure 9-u:
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 second-lightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS-18-004 [44], SUS-20-001 [47], SUS-21-007 [49], SUS-21-006 [48], SUS-19-006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200.

png pdf
Figure 9-v:
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 second-lightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS-18-004 [44], SUS-20-001 [47], SUS-21-007 [49], SUS-21-006 [48], SUS-19-006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200.

png pdf
Figure 9-w:
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 second-lightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS-18-004 [44], SUS-20-001 [47], SUS-21-007 [49], SUS-21-006 [48], SUS-19-006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200.

png pdf
Figure 9-x:
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 second-lightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS-18-004 [44], SUS-20-001 [47], SUS-21-007 [49], SUS-21-006 [48], SUS-19-006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200.

png pdf
Figure 9-y:
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 second-lightest neutralino (next two rows), and LCSP (bottom two rows). The order of the applied sequence of constraints is: SUS-18-004 [44], SUS-20-001 [47], SUS-21-007 [49], SUS-21-006 [48], SUS-19-006 [46], DM relic density, DM direct detection, $ \Delta_{\text{EW}} < $ 200.
Summary
The CMS experiment has conducted various searches for BSM physics during the 2016-2018 data taking period at the CERN LHC, which have been interpreted using a 19-parameter 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 R-parity conserving weak scale MSSM. A global Bayesian analysis has been performed, incorporating CMS data along with pre-CMS 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, second-lightest 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, second-lightest 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 non-excluded by the CMS searches. However, only a very small number of models that are consistent with low-fine tuning and the relic density remain viable. Most such models correspond to a roughly pure Higgsino-like 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 four-dimensions 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 hep-ph/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 hep-ph/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 hep-ph/0301101
13 W. Porod and F. Staub Spheno 3.1: Extensions including flavour, cp-phases and models beyond the mssm Comput. Phys. Commun. 183 (2012) 2458 1104.1573
14 H. Bahl et al. Precision calculations in the mssm higgs-boson 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 higgs-boson mass EPJC 78 (2018)
16 H. Bahl and W. Hollik Precise prediction for the light MSSM higgs-boson mass combining effective field theory and fixed-order calculations EPJC 76 (2016)
17 T. Hahn et al. High-precision predictions for the light cp-even 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 feynman-diagrammatic approach JHEP 047 (2007)
19 G. Degrassi et al. Towards high-precision predictions for the MSSM higgs sector EPJC 28 (2003)
20 S. Heinemeyer et al. The masses of the neutral cp-even higgs bosons in the MSSM: Accurate analysis at the two-loop level EPJC 9 (1999) 343
21 S. Heinemeyer et al. FeynHiggs: a program for the calculation of the masses of the neutral cp-even 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 CMS-HIG-22-001
2207.00043
24 G. Bélanger et al. Recasting direct detection limits within micrOMEGAs and implication for non-standard 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 CMS-BPH-13-004
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 hep-ex/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 form-factor-independent observables in the decay $ B^{0} \to K^{*0} \mu^+ \mu^- $ PRL 111 (2013) 191801 1308.1707
33 HFLAV Collaboration Averages of B-Hadron, C-Hadron, and tau-lepton 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 hep-ex/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 hep-ph/0311123
40 H. Baer et al. Electroweak versus high scale finetuning in the 19-parameter 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 proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV JHEP 2204 (2022) 91 CMS-SUS-18-004
2111.06296
45 CMS Collaboration Search for electroweak production of charginos and neutralinos in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV JHEP 04 (2022) 147 CMS-SUS-19-012
2106.14246
46 CMS Collaboration Search for supersymmetry in proton-proton 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 same-flavor leptons and missing transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV JHEP 04 (2021) 123 CMS-SUS-20-001
2012.08600
48 CMS Collaboration Search for supersymmetry in final states with disappearing tracks in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV CMS-SUS-21-006
2309.16823
49 CMS Collaboration Search for supersymmetry in final states with a single electron or muon using angular correlations and heavy-object identification in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV JHEP 09 (2023) 149 CMS-SUS-21-007
2211.08476
50 S. S. Wilks The large-sample 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 Lux-Zeplin (LZ) experiment PRL 131 (2023) 041002 2207.03764
Compact Muon Solenoid
LHC, CERN