CMS-EXO-23-013

CMS-EXO-23-013 ; CERN-EP-2024-225
Search for light long-lived particles decaying to displaced jets in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13.6 TeV
CMS Collaboration
17 September 2024
Rep. Prog. Phys. 88 (2025) 037801
Abstract: A search for light long-lived particles decaying to displaced jets is presented, using a data sample of proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13.6 TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 34.7 fb $^{-1}$ , collected with the CMS detector at the CERN LHC in 2022. Novel trigger, reconstruction, and machine-learning techniques were developed for and employed in this search. After all selections, the observations are consistent with the background predictions. Limits are presented on the branching fraction of the Higgs boson to long-lived particles that subsequently decay to quark pairs or tau lepton pairs. An improvement by up to a factor of 10 is achieved over previous limits for models with long-lived particle masses smaller than 60 GeV and proper decay lengths smaller than 1 m. The first constraints are placed on the fraternal twin Higgs and folded supersymmetry models, where the lower bounds on the top quark partner mass reach up to 350 GeV for the fraternal twin Higgs model and 250 GeV for the folded supersymmetry model.
Links: e-print arXiv:2409.10806 [hep-ex] (PDF) ; CDS record ; inSPIRE record ; HepData record ; Physics Briefing ; CADI line (restricted) ;

Figures & Tables	Summary	References	CMS Publications

Figures
png pdf	Figure 1: The Feynman diagram for the benchmark signal model, in which the SM-like Higgs boson with a mass of 125 GeV decays to two long-lived neutral scalars $\text{S}$ , and each of them decays to a pair of SM fermions.
png pdf	Figure 2: The architectures of the displaced (left) and prompt-veto (right) taggers. The displaced tagger takes as input the dijet global features, displaced tracks, and DVs. The prompt-veto tagger takes as input the tracks with $d_{xy} <$ 0.3 mm.
png pdf	Figure 2-a: The architectures of the displaced (left) and prompt-veto (right) taggers. The displaced tagger takes as input the dijet global features, displaced tracks, and DVs. The prompt-veto tagger takes as input the tracks with $d_{xy} <$ 0.3 mm.
png pdf	Figure 2-b: The architectures of the displaced (left) and prompt-veto (right) taggers. The displaced tagger takes as input the dijet global features, displaced tracks, and DVs. The prompt-veto tagger takes as input the tracks with $d_{xy} <$ 0.3 mm.
png pdf	Figure 3: The predicted background yields and the number of observed events for the data with $g_{\text{prompt-veto}} >$ 0.985, shown for different bins of the displaced-dijet GNN score $g_{\text{displaced}}$ . Expected signal yields for the $\mathrm{H}\to\text{S}\text{S}$ , $\text{S}\to\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}$ signature are also shown for models with $m_{\text{S}}=$ 40 GeV and $c\tau_{0}=$ 1, 10, or 100 mm, assuming a branching fraction of 1% for the $\mathrm{H}\to\text{S}\text{S}$ decay.
png pdf	Figure 4: The 95% CL upper limits on the branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{H}\to\text{S}\text{S})$ for $\text{S}\to\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}$ (upper left), $\text{S}\to\mathrm{d}\overline{\mathrm{d}}$ (upper right), and $\text{S}\to\tau\tau$ (lower), for different LLP masses $m_{\text{S}}$ and proper decay lengths $c\tau_{0}$ . The solid (dashed) lines represent the observed (median expected) limits.
png pdf	Figure 4-a: The 95% CL upper limits on the branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{H}\to\text{S}\text{S})$ for $\text{S}\to\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}$ (upper left), $\text{S}\to\mathrm{d}\overline{\mathrm{d}}$ (upper right), and $\text{S}\to\tau\tau$ (lower), for different LLP masses $m_{\text{S}}$ and proper decay lengths $c\tau_{0}$ . The solid (dashed) lines represent the observed (median expected) limits.
png pdf	Figure 4-b: The 95% CL upper limits on the branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{H}\to\text{S}\text{S})$ for $\text{S}\to\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}$ (upper left), $\text{S}\to\mathrm{d}\overline{\mathrm{d}}$ (upper right), and $\text{S}\to\tau\tau$ (lower), for different LLP masses $m_{\text{S}}$ and proper decay lengths $c\tau_{0}$ . The solid (dashed) lines represent the observed (median expected) limits.
png pdf	Figure 4-c: The 95% CL upper limits on the branching fraction $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{H}\to\text{S}\text{S})$ for $\text{S}\to\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}$ (upper left), $\text{S}\to\mathrm{d}\overline{\mathrm{d}}$ (upper right), and $\text{S}\to\tau\tau$ (lower), for different LLP masses $m_{\text{S}}$ and proper decay lengths $c\tau_{0}$ . The solid (dashed) lines represent the observed (median expected) limits.
png pdf	Figure 5: Comparisons of the observed limits from this search and other results, for $\text{S}\to\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}$ , $m_{\text{S}}=$ 40 GeV (upper left); $\text{S}\to\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}$ , $m_{\text{S}}=$ 15 GeV (upper right); and $\text{S}\to\mathrm{d}\overline{\mathrm{d}}$ , $m_{\text{S}}=$ 15 GeV (lower). The other results include the previous CMS displaced-jets search [44] (red dashed lines) and the CMS Z + displaced-jets search [45] (green dotted lines), where the observed limits agree with the median expected limits within 15% and are within the regions containing 68% of the distributions of the limits expected under the background-only hypothesis.
png pdf	Figure 5-a: Comparisons of the observed limits from this search and other results, for $\text{S}\to\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}$ , $m_{\text{S}}=$ 40 GeV (upper left); $\text{S}\to\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}$ , $m_{\text{S}}=$ 15 GeV (upper right); and $\text{S}\to\mathrm{d}\overline{\mathrm{d}}$ , $m_{\text{S}}=$ 15 GeV (lower). The other results include the previous CMS displaced-jets search [44] (red dashed lines) and the CMS Z + displaced-jets search [45] (green dotted lines), where the observed limits agree with the median expected limits within 15% and are within the regions containing 68% of the distributions of the limits expected under the background-only hypothesis.
png pdf	Figure 5-b: Comparisons of the observed limits from this search and other results, for $\text{S}\to\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}$ , $m_{\text{S}}=$ 40 GeV (upper left); $\text{S}\to\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}$ , $m_{\text{S}}=$ 15 GeV (upper right); and $\text{S}\to\mathrm{d}\overline{\mathrm{d}}$ , $m_{\text{S}}=$ 15 GeV (lower). The other results include the previous CMS displaced-jets search [44] (red dashed lines) and the CMS Z + displaced-jets search [45] (green dotted lines), where the observed limits agree with the median expected limits within 15% and are within the regions containing 68% of the distributions of the limits expected under the background-only hypothesis.
png pdf	Figure 5-c: Comparisons of the observed limits from this search and other results, for $\text{S}\to\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}$ , $m_{\text{S}}=$ 40 GeV (upper left); $\text{S}\to\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}$ , $m_{\text{S}}=$ 15 GeV (upper right); and $\text{S}\to\mathrm{d}\overline{\mathrm{d}}$ , $m_{\text{S}}=$ 15 GeV (lower). The other results include the previous CMS displaced-jets search [44] (red dashed lines) and the CMS Z + displaced-jets search [45] (green dotted lines), where the observed limits agree with the median expected limits within 15% and are within the regions containing 68% of the distributions of the limits expected under the background-only hypothesis.
png pdf	Figure 6: The 95% CL limits on the LLP mass $m_{\text{S}}$ for different proper decay lengths $c\tau_{0}$ assuming a branching fraction of 1% for the $\mathrm{H}\to\text{S}\text{S}$ decay, and with subsequent $\text{S}\to\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}$ (left) or $\text{S}\to\mathrm{d}\overline{\mathrm{d}}$ (right) decays. The solid (dashed) lines represent the observed (median expected) limits. The hashed areas indicate the direction of the excluded area from the observed limits.
png pdf	Figure 6-a: The 95% CL limits on the LLP mass $m_{\text{S}}$ for different proper decay lengths $c\tau_{0}$ assuming a branching fraction of 1% for the $\mathrm{H}\to\text{S}\text{S}$ decay, and with subsequent $\text{S}\to\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}$ (left) or $\text{S}\to\mathrm{d}\overline{\mathrm{d}}$ (right) decays. The solid (dashed) lines represent the observed (median expected) limits. The hashed areas indicate the direction of the excluded area from the observed limits.
png pdf	Figure 6-b: The 95% CL limits on the LLP mass $m_{\text{S}}$ for different proper decay lengths $c\tau_{0}$ assuming a branching fraction of 1% for the $\mathrm{H}\to\text{S}\text{S}$ decay, and with subsequent $\text{S}\to\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}$ (left) or $\text{S}\to\mathrm{d}\overline{\mathrm{d}}$ (right) decays. The solid (dashed) lines represent the observed (median expected) limits. The hashed areas indicate the direction of the excluded area from the observed limits.
png pdf	Figure 7: The 95% CL limits on the dark-sector top quark partner mass $m_{{\mathrm{T}} }$ for different hidden glueball masses $m_{0}$ , in the fraternal twin Higgs model [29] (left) and the folded SUSY model [49] (right). The solid (dashed) lines represent the observed (median expected) limits. The hashed areas indicate the direction of the excluded area from the observed limits.
png pdf	Figure 7-a: The 95% CL limits on the dark-sector top quark partner mass $m_{{\mathrm{T}} }$ for different hidden glueball masses $m_{0}$ , in the fraternal twin Higgs model [29] (left) and the folded SUSY model [49] (right). The solid (dashed) lines represent the observed (median expected) limits. The hashed areas indicate the direction of the excluded area from the observed limits.
png pdf	Figure 7-b: The 95% CL limits on the dark-sector top quark partner mass $m_{{\mathrm{T}} }$ for different hidden glueball masses $m_{0}$ , in the fraternal twin Higgs model [29] (left) and the folded SUSY model [49] (right). The solid (dashed) lines represent the observed (median expected) limits. The hashed areas indicate the direction of the excluded area from the observed limits.

Tables
png pdf	Table 1: The predicted background yields and observations in the region with $g_{\text{prompt-veto}} >$ 0.985 for different $g_{\text{displaced}}$ ranges. The background predictions are shown with their statistical uncertainties. The significance of any deviation between the observation and prediction for each $g_{\text{displaced}}$ range is shown as a $Z$ -value.
png pdf	Table 2: Summary of the systematic uncertainties in the signal yields.
png pdf	Table 3: Signal efficiencies scaled by a factor of 10 $^{4}$ for the $\mathrm{H}\to\text{S}\text{S}$ signature with $\text{S}\to\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}$ , $\text{S}\to\mathrm{d}\overline{\mathrm{d}}$ , and $\text{S}\to\tau\tau$ decays in the signal region D, shown for representative signal points with different $m_{\text{S}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$ values. Only statistical uncertainties are listed.

Summary

A search for light long-lived particles decaying into jets has been performed using proton-proton collision data corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 34.7 fb

$^{-1}$ , collected with the CMS experiment at a center-of-mass energy of 13.6 TeV in 2022. Novel techniques in trigger, reconstruction, and machine learning were developed for and employed in this search, leading to significant improvements over existing results. The observed yields are consistent with the background predictions. The best limits to date are set for long-lived particles with masses between 15 and 55 GeV and with proper decay lengths smaller than

$\approx$ 1 m. The search provides the first exclusions of hadronically decaying displaced tau leptons arising from LLPs with decay lengths smaller than

$\approx$ 1 m. For the signature where the Higgs boson decays to two long-lived particles that further decay to bottom (down) quark pairs, branching fractions greater than 1% for the exotic Higgs boson decay are excluded for a long-lived particle mass larger than 40 GeV and mean proper decay lengths between 1.5 (1.3) and 370 (380) mm. For these signatures, the branching fraction limits are better than those obtained previously by a factor of up to 10 (8). Exclusions are also placed on the parameter space of the fraternal twin Higgs and folded supersymmetry models in the neutral naturalness scenario, giving lower limits on top quark partner masses of up to 350 and 250 GeV, respectively. The results are the first constraints placed on these models.

References
1	N. Arkani-Hamed and S. Dimopoulos	Supersymmetric unification without low energy supersymmetry and signatures for fine-tuning at the LHC	JHEP 06 (2005) 073	hep-th/0405159
2	G. F. Giudice and A. Romanino	Split supersymmetry	NPB 699 (2004) 65	hep-ph/0406088
3	J. L. Hewett, B. Lillie, M. Masip, and T. G. Rizzo	Signatures of long-lived gluinos in split supersymmetry	JHEP 09 (2004) 070	hep-ph/0408248
4	N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, G. F. Giudice, and A. Romanino	Aspects of split supersymmetry	NPB 709 (2005) 3	hep-ph/0409232
5	P. Gambino, G. F. Giudice, and P. Slavich	Gluino decays in split supersymmetry	NPB 726 (2005) 35	hep-ph/0506214
6	A. Arvanitaki, N. Craig, S. Dimopoulos, and G. Villadoro	Mini-split	JHEP 02 (2013) 126	1210.0555
7	N. Arkani-Hamed et al.	Simply unnatural supersymmetry		1212.6971
8	P. Fayet	Supergauge invariant extension of the Higgs mechanism and a model for the electron and its neutrino	NPB 90 (1975) 104
9	G. R. Farrar and P. Fayet	Phenomenology of the production, decay, and detection of new hadronic states associated with supersymmetry	PLB 76 (1978) 575
10	S. Weinberg	Supersymmetry at ordinary energies. 1. Masses and conservation laws	PRD 26 (1982) 287
11	L. J. Hall and M. Suzuki	Explicit $R$ -parity breaking in supersymmetric models	NPB 231 (1984) 419
12	R. Barbier et al.	$R$ -parity violating supersymmetry	Phys. Rept. 420 (2005) 1	hep-ph/0406039
13	G. F. Giudice and R. Rattazzi	Theories with gauge mediated supersymmetry breaking	Phys. Rept. 322 (1999) 419	hep-ph/9801271
14	P. Meade, N. Seiberg, and D. Shih	General gauge mediation	Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 177 (2009) 143	0801.3278
15	M. Buican, P. Meade, N. Seiberg, and D. Shih	Exploring general gauge mediation	JHEP 03 (2009) 016	0812.3668
16	J. Fan, M. Reece, and J. T. Ruderman	Stealth supersymmetry	JHEP 11 (2011) 012	1105.5135
17	J. Fan, M. Reece, and J. T. Ruderman	A stealth supersymmetry sampler	JHEP 07 (2012) 196	1201.4875
18	M. J. Strassler and K. M. Zurek	Echoes of a hidden valley at hadron colliders	PLB 651 (2007) 374	hep-ph/0604261
19	M. J. Strassler and K. M. Zurek	Discovering the Higgs through highly-displaced vertices	PLB 661 (2008) 263	hep-ph/0605193
20	T. Han, Z. Si, K. M. Zurek, and M. J. Strassler	Phenomenology of hidden valleys at hadron colliders	JHEP 07 (2008) 008	0712.2041
21	D. E. Kaplan, M. A. Luty, and K. M. Zurek	Asymmetric dark matter	PRD 79 (2009) 115016	0901.4117
22	L. J. Hall, K. Jedamzik, J. March-Russell, and S. M. West	Freeze-in production of FIMP dark matter	JHEP 03 (2010) 080	0911.1120
23	I.-W. Kim and K. M. Zurek	Flavor and collider signatures of asymmetric dark matter	PRD 89 (2014) 035008	1310.2617
24	R. T. Co, F. D'Eramo, L. J. Hall, and D. Pappadopulo	Freeze-in dark matter with displaced signatures at colliders	JCAP 12 (2015) 024	1506.07532
25	L. Calibbi, L. Lopez-Honorez, S. Lowette, and A. Mariotti	Singlet-doublet dark matter freeze-in: LHC displaced signatures versus cosmology	JHEP 09 (2018) 037	1805.04423
26	Z. Chacko, H.-S. Goh, and R. Harnik	The twin Higgs: Natural electroweak breaking from mirror symmetry	PRL 96 (2006) 231802	hep-ph/0506256
27	H. Cai, H.-C. Cheng, and J. Terning	A quirky little Higgs model	JHEP 05 (2009) 045	0812.0843
28	N. Craig, S. Knapen, and P. Longhi	Neutral naturalness from orbifold Higgs models	PRL 114 (2015) 061803	1410.6808
29	N. Craig, A. Katz, M. Strassler, and R. Sundrum	Naturalness in the dark at the LHC	JHEP 07 (2015) 105	1501.05310
30	D. Curtin and C. B. Verhaaren	Discovering uncolored naturalness in exotic Higgs decays	JHEP 12 (2015) 072	1506.06141
31	C. Csaki, E. Kuflik, S. Lombardo, and O. Slone	Searching for displaced Higgs boson decays	PRD 92 (2015) 073008	1508.01522
32	S. Alipour-Fard et al.	The second Higgs at the lifetime frontier	JHEP 07 (2020) 029	1812.09315
33	A. Atre, T. Han, S. Pascoli, and B. Zhang	The search for heavy Majorana neutrinos	JHEP 05 (2009) 030	0901.3589
34	M. Drewes	The phenomenology of right handed neutrinos	Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 22 (2013) 1330019	1303.6912
35	F. F. Deppisch, P. S. Bhupal Dev, and A. Pilaftsis	Neutrinos and collider physics	New J. Phys. 17 (2015) 075019	1502.06541
36	Y. Cai, T. Han, T. Li, and R. Ruiz	Lepton number violation: Seesaw models and their collider tests	Front. Phys. 6 (2018) 40	1711.02180
37	Y. Cui, L. Randall, and B. Shuve	A WIMPy baryogenesis miracle	JHEP 04 (2012) 075	1112.2704
38	Y. Cui and R. Sundrum	Baryogenesis for weakly interacting massive particles	PRD 87 (2013) 116013	1212.2973
39	Y. Cui and B. Shuve	Probing baryogenesis with displaced vertices at the LHC	JHEP 02 (2015) 049	1409.6729
40	M. Kamionkowski and J. March-Russell	Planck scale physics and the Peccei-Quinn mechanism	PLB 282 (1992) 137	hep-th/9202003
41	A. Hook, S. Kumar, Z. Liu, and R. Sundrum	High quality QCD axion and the LHC	PRL 124 (2020) 221801	1911.12364
42	CMS Collaboration	The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC	JINST 3 (2008) S08004
43	CMS Collaboration	Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC Run 3	JINST 19 (2024) P05064	CMS-PRF-21-001 2309.05466
44	CMS Collaboration	Search for long-lived particles using displaced jets in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV	PRD 104 (2021) 012015	CMS-EXO-19-021 2012.01581
45	CMS Collaboration	Search for long-lived particles produced in association with a Z boson in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV	JHEP 03 (2022) 160	CMS-EXO-20-003 2110.13218
46	ATLAS Collaboration	Search for exotic decays of the Higgs boson into long-lived particles in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV using displaced vertices in the ATLAS inner detector	JHEP 11 (2021) 229	2107.06092
47	ATLAS Collaboration	Search for light long-lived particles in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV using displaced vertices in the ATLAS inner detector	Submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett, 2024	2403.15332
48	B. Patt and F. Wilczek	Higgs-field portal into hidden sectors		hep-ph/0605188
49	G. Burdman, Z. Chacko, H.-S. Goh, and R. Harnik	Folded supersymmetry and the LEP paradox	JHEP 02 (2007) 009	hep-ph/0609152
50	I. Garcia Garcia, R. Lasenby, and J. March-Russell	Twin Higgs WIMP dark matter	PRD 92 (2015) 055034	1505.07109
51	N. Craig and A. Katz	The fraternal WIMP miracle	JCAP 10 (2015) 054	1505.07113
52	D. Curtin et al.	Resurrecting the fraternal twin WIMP miracle	PRD 105 (2022) 035033	2106.12578
53	M. Farina	Asymmetric twin dark matter	JCAP 11 (2015) 017	1506.03520
54	M. Farina, A. Monteux, and C. S. Shin	Twin mechanism for baryon and dark matter asymmetries	PRD 94 (2016) 035017	1604.08211
55	V. Prilepina and Y. Tsai	Reconciling large and small-scale structure in twin Higgs models	JHEP 09 (2017) 033	1611.05879
56	Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, and H. Murayama	Twin Higgs model with strongly interacting massive particle dark matter	PRD 99 (2019) 015005	1805.09345
57	P. Schwaller	Gravitational waves from a dark phase transition	PRL 115 (2015) 181101	1504.07263
58	R. Barbieri, L. J. Hall, and K. Harigaya	Minimal mirror twin Higgs	JHEP 11 (2016) 172	1609.05589
59	K. Fujikura, K. Kamada, Y. Nakai, and M. Yamaguchi	Phase transitions in twin Higgs models	JHEP 12 (2018) 018	1810.00574
60	O. Matsedonskyi	High-temperature electroweak symmetry breaking by SM twins	JHEP 04 (2021) 036	2008.13725
61	L. Zu et al.	Mirror QCD phase transition as the origin of the nanohertz stochastic gravitational-wave background	Sci. Bull. 69 (2024) 741	2306.16769
62	B. Batell and M. McCullough	Neutrino masses from neutral top partners	PRD 92 (2015) 073018	1504.04016
63	C. Csaki, E. Kuflik, and S. Lombardo	Viable twin cosmology from neutrino mixing	PRD 96 (2017) 055013	1703.06884
64	S. Bansal et al.	Mirror twin Higgs cosmology: constraints and a possible resolution to the H $_{0}$ and S $_{8}$ tensions	JHEP 05 (2022) 050	2110.04317
65	J. E. Juknevich, D. Melnikov, and M. J. Strassler	A pure-glue hidden valley I. states and decays	JHEP 07 (2009) 055	0903.0883
66	J. E. Juknevich	Pure-glue hidden valleys through the Higgs portal	JHEP 08 (2010) 121	0911.5616
67	LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group	Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 4. Deciphering the nature of the Higgs sector	CERN Report CERN-2017-002-M, 2016 link	1610.07922
68	A. Batz et al.	Dark sector glueballs at the LHC	JHEP 04 (2024) 070	2310.13731
69	CMS Collaboration	HEPData record for this analysis	link
70	The Tracker Group of the CMS Collaboration	The CMS phase-1 pixel detector upgrade	JINST 16 (2021) P02027	2012.14304
71	CMS Collaboration	Track impact parameter resolution for the full pseudo rapidity coverage in the 2017 dataset with the CMS phase-1 pixel detector	CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2020-049, 2020 CDS
72	CMS Collaboration	Performance of the CMS Level-1 trigger in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV	JINST 15 (2020) P10017	CMS-TRG-17-001 2006.10165
73	CMS Collaboration	The CMS trigger system	JINST 12 (2017) P01020	CMS-TRG-12-001 1609.02366
74	C. Bierlich et al.	A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3	SciPost Phys. Codeb. 2022 (2022) 8	2203.11601
75	CMS Collaboration	Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements	EPJC 80 (2020) 4	CMS-GEN-17-001 1903.12179
76	P. Nason	A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms	JHEP 11 (2004) 040	hep-ph/0409146
77	S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari	Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: The POWHEG method	JHEP 11 (2007) 070	0709.2092
78	S. Alioli, P. Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re	A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: The POWHEG BOX	JHEP 06 (2010) 043	1002.2581
79	E. Bagnaschi, G. Degrassi, P. Slavich, and A. Vicini	Higgs production via gluon fusion in the POWHEG approach in the SM and in the MSSM	JHEP 02 (2012) 088	1111.2854
80	A. Karlberg et al.	Ad interim recommendations for the Higgs boson production cross sections at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13.6 TeV		2402.09955
81	NNPDF Collaboration	Parton distributions from high-precision collider data	EPJC 77 (2017) 663	1706.00428
82	GEANT4 Collaboration	GEANT 4---a simulation toolkit	NIM A 506 (2003) 250
83	M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez	The anti- $k_{\mathrm{T}}$ jet clustering algorithm	JHEP 04 (2008) 063	0802.1189
84	M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez	FastJet user manual	EPJC 72 (2012) 1896	1111.6097
85	CMS Collaboration	Technical proposal for the Phase-II upgrade of the Compact Muon Solenoid	CMS Technical Proposal CERN-LHCC-2015-010, CMS-TDR-15-02, 2015 CDS
86	CMS Collaboration	Performance of long lived particle triggers in Run 3	CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2023-043, 2023 CDS
87	CMS Collaboration	Description and performance of track and primary-vertex reconstruction with the CMS tracker	JINST 9 (2014) P10009	CMS-TRK-11-001 1405.6569
88	W. Waltenberger	Adaptive vertex reconstruction	CMS Note CMS-NOTE-2008-033, 2008
89	A. Strandlie and R. Frühwirth	Track and vertex reconstruction: From classical to adaptive methods	Rev. Mod. Phys. 82 (2010) 1419
90	R. Frühwirth, W. Waltenberger, and P. Vanlaer	Adaptive vertex fitting	JPG 34 (2007) N343
91	P. Battaglia et al.	Interaction networks for learning about objects, relations and physics	in Proc. \it 30th Int. Conf. on Neural Information Processing Systems\/, NIPS'16, . Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY, USA, 2016	1612.00222
92	J. Gilmer et al.	Neural message passing for quantum chemistry	in Proc. 34th Int. Conf. on Machine Learning, D. Precup and Y.W. Teh, eds., PMLR, 2017 link	1704.01212
93	S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber	Long short-term memory	Neural Comput. 9 (1997) 1735
94	M. Abadi et al.	TensorFlow: A system for large-scale machine learning	in Proc. 12th USENIX Conf. on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, OSDI'16, USENIX Association, USA, 2016	1605.08695
95	I. J. Good	Rational decisions	J. R. Stat. Soc. 14 (1952) 107
96	G. Punzi	Sensitivity of searches for new signals and its optimization	in Proc. PHYSTAT 2023 Statistical Problems in Particle Physics, Astrophysics and Cosmology, 2023 link	physics/0308063
97	S. Choi and H. Oh	Improved extrapolation methods of data-driven background estimations in high energy physics	EPJC 81 (2021) 643	1906.10831
98	L. Demortier	P values and nuisance parameters	in Statistical issues for LHC physics. Proceedings, Workshop, PHYSTAT-LHC, Geneva, Switzerland, 2007 link
99	CMS Collaboration	Luminosity measurement in proton-proton collisions at 13.6 TeV in 2022 at CMS	CMS Physics Analysis Summary, 2024 CMS-PAS-LUM-22-001	CMS-PAS-LUM-22-001
100	CMS Collaboration	Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV	JHEP 07 (2018) 161	CMS-FSQ-15-005 1802.02613
101	T. Junk	Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics	NIM A 434 (1999) 435	hep-ex/9902006
102	A. L. Read	Presentation of search results: The $\text{CL}_\text{s}$ technique	JPG 28 (2002) 2693
103	ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, The LHC Higgs Combination group	Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011	Technical Report CMS-NOTE-2011-005, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2011-11, 2011
104	G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells	Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics	EPJC 71 (2011) 1554	1007.1727
105	CMS Collaboration	The CMS statistical analysis and combination tool: Combine	Accepted for publication by Comput. Softw. Big Sci, 2024	CMS-CAT-23-001 2404.06614
106	CMS Collaboration	Enriching the physics program of the CMS experiment via data scouting and data parking	Accepted for publication by Phys. Rept, 2024	CMS-EXO-23-007 2403.16134