CMSPASSUS16036  
Search for new physics in the allhadronic final state with the $M_{\mathrm{T2}}$ variable  
CMS Collaboration  
March 2017  
Abstract: A search for new physics is performed using events with jets and a large transverse momentum imbalance, as measured through the $M_{\mathrm{T2}}$ variable. The results are based on a sample of protonproton collisions collected in 2016 at a centerofmass energy of 13 TeV with the CMS detector and corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{1}$. No excess above the standard model background is observed. The results are interpreted as limits on the masses of potential new particles in a variety of simplified models of Rparity conserving supersymmetry. Depending on the details of the model, 95% CL lower limits on the gluino and squark mass are placed up to 2025 and 1550 GeV, respectively. In the case of top (bottom) squarks, the mass limits are as high as 1070 (1175) GeV.  
Links:
CDS record (PDF) ;
CADI line (restricted) ;
These preliminary results are superseded in this paper, EPJC 77 (2017) 710. The superseded preliminary plots can be found here. 
Figures & Tables  Summary  Additional Figures & Tables  References  CMS Publications 

Additional information on efficiencies needed for reinterpretation of these results are available here. Additional technical material for CMS speakers can be found here. 
Figures  
png pdf 
Figure 1:
Distributions of data and MC predictions for the single lepton control region selection, after MC is normalized to data in the control region bins of $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $, $ {N_{\mathrm {j}}} $, and $ {N_{\mathrm {b}}} $, and $ {M_{\mathrm {T2}}} $ shapes are used, for events with no btags (left), and events with at least one btag (right). The hashed bands on the lost lepton histogram show the MC statistical uncertainty, while the solid gray band on the ratio plot shows the systematic uncertainty on the $ {M_{\mathrm {T2}}} $ shape. 
png pdf 
Figure 1a:
Distributions of data and MC predictions for the single lepton control region selection, after MC is normalized to data in the control region bins of $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $, $ {N_{\mathrm {j}}} $, and $ {N_{\mathrm {b}}} $, and $ {M_{\mathrm {T2}}} $ shapes are used, for events with no btags. The hashed bands on the lost lepton histogram show the MC statistical uncertainty, while the solid gray band on the ratio plot shows the systematic uncertainty on the $ {M_{\mathrm {T2}}} $ shape. 
png pdf 
Figure 1b:
Distributions of data and MC predictions for the single lepton control region selection, after MC is normalized to data in the control region bins of $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $, $ {N_{\mathrm {j}}} $, and $ {N_{\mathrm {b}}} $, and $ {M_{\mathrm {T2}}} $ shapes are used, for events with at least one btag. The hashed bands on the lost lepton histogram show the MC statistical uncertainty, while the solid gray band on the ratio plot shows the systematic uncertainty on the $ {M_{\mathrm {T2}}} $ shape. 
png pdf 
Figure 2:
(Left) Ratio $R^{\mathrm {SF}/\mathrm {OF}}$ in data as a function of $ {N_{\mathrm {j}}} $. The solid black line enclosed by the red band corresponds to a value of 1.13$\pm $0.15 that is observed to be stable with respect to event kinematics, while the two dashed black lines denote the statistical uncertainty on the $R^{\mathrm {SF}/\mathrm {OF}}$ value. (Right) The shape of the $ {M_{\mathrm {T2}}} $distribution from ${Z\rightarrow \nu \overline {\nu }}$ simulation compared to shapes from $\gamma $, W, and Z data control samples in a region with 1000 $ < {H_{\mathrm {T}}} < $ 1500 GeV and $ {N_{\mathrm {j}}} \ge $ 2, and inclusive in $ {N_{\mathrm {b}}} $. The solid gray band on the ratio plot shows the systematic uncertainty on the $ {M_{\mathrm {T2}}} $ shape. 
png pdf 
Figure 2a:
Ratio $R^{\mathrm {SF}/\mathrm {OF}}$ in data as a function of $ {N_{\mathrm {j}}} $. The solid black line enclosed by the red band corresponds to a value of 1.13$\pm $0.15 that is observed to be stable with respect to event kinematics, while the two dashed black lines denote the statistical uncertainty on the $R^{\mathrm {SF}/\mathrm {OF}}$ value. 
png pdf 
Figure 2b:
The shape of the $ {M_{\mathrm {T2}}} $distribution from ${Z\rightarrow \nu \overline {\nu }}$ simulation compared to shapes from $\gamma $, W, and Z data control samples in a region with 1000 $ < {H_{\mathrm {T}}} < $ 1500 GeV and $ {N_{\mathrm {j}}} \ge $ 2, and inclusive in $ {N_{\mathrm {b}}} $. The solid gray band on the ratio plot shows the systematic uncertainty on the $ {M_{\mathrm {T2}}} $ shape. 
png pdf 
Figure 3:
Distribution of the ratio $r_{\phi }$ as a function of $ {M_{\mathrm {T2}}} $ for the region 1000 $< {H_{\mathrm {T}}} <$ 1500 GeV (left). The fit is performed to the hollow, backgroundsubtracted data points. The full points represent the data before subtracting nonQCD backgrounds using simulation. Data point uncertainties are statistical only. The red line and the band around it show the result of the fit to a powerlaw function perfomed in the window 70 $ < {M_{\mathrm {T2}}} < $ 100 GeV and the associated fit uncertainty. Values of $f_j$, the fraction of events in bin $ {N_{\mathrm {j}}} $, (center) and $r_b$, the fraction of events that fall in bin $ {N_{\mathrm {b}}} $, (right) are measured in data after requiring ${\Delta \phi _{\mathrm {min}}} < $ 0.3 radians and 100 $ < {M_{\mathrm {T2}}} < $ 200 GeV. The bands represent both statistical and systematic uncertainties. 
png pdf 
Figure 3a:
Distribution of the ratio $r_{\phi }$ as a function of $ {M_{\mathrm {T2}}} $ for the region 1000 $< {H_{\mathrm {T}}} <$ 1500 GeV. The fit is performed to the hollow, backgroundsubtracted data points. The full points represent the data before subtracting nonQCD backgrounds using simulation. Data point uncertainties are statistical only. The red line and the band around it show the result of the fit to a powerlaw function perfomed in the window 70 $ < {M_{\mathrm {T2}}} < $ 100 GeV and the associated fit uncertainty. 
png pdf 
Figure 3b:
Values of $f_j$, the fraction of events in bin $ {N_{\mathrm {j}}} $, is measured in data after requiring ${\Delta \phi _{\mathrm {min}}} < $ 0.3 radians and 100 $ < {M_{\mathrm {T2}}} < $ 200 GeV. The bands represent both statistical and systematic uncertainties. 
png pdf 
Figure 3c:
Values of $r_b$, the fraction of events that fall in bin $ {N_{\mathrm {b}}} $, is measured in data after requiring ${\Delta \phi _{\mathrm {min}}} < $ 0.3 radians and 100 $ < {M_{\mathrm {T2}}} < $ 200 GeV. The bands represent both statistical and systematic uncertainties. 
png pdf 
Figure 4:
(Above) Comparison of estimated (prefit) background and observed data events in each topological region. Hatched bands represent the full uncertainty on the background estimate. The results shown for $ {N_{\mathrm {j}}} = $ 1 correspond to the monojet search regions binned in jet ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} $, whereas for the multijet signal regions, the notations j, b indicate $ {N_{\mathrm {j}}} $, $ {N_{\mathrm {b}}} $ labeling. (Below) Same for individual $ {M_{\mathrm {T2}}} $ signal bins in the medium $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $ region. On the $x$axis, the $ {M_{\mathrm {T2}}} $ binning is shown (in GeV). Bins with no entry for data have an observed count of 0. 
png pdf 
Figure 4a:
Comparison of estimated (prefit) background and observed data events in each topological region. Hatched bands represent the full uncertainty on the background estimate. The results shown for $ {N_{\mathrm {j}}} = $ 1 correspond to the monojet search regions binned in jet ${p_{\mathrm {T}}} $, whereas for the multijet signal regions, the notations j, b indicate $ {N_{\mathrm {j}}} $, $ {N_{\mathrm {b}}} $ labeling. On the $x$axis, the $ {M_{\mathrm {T2}}} $ binning is shown (in GeV). Bins with no entry for data have an observed count of 0. 
png pdf 
Figure 4b:
Same as Fig. 4a for individual $ {M_{\mathrm {T2}}} $ signal bins in the medium $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $ region. 
png pdf 
Figure 5:
(Top) Diagrams for the three scenarios of gluino mediated bottom squark, top squark and light flavor squark production considered. (Middle) Similar diagrams for the direct production of bottom, top and light flavor squark pairs. (Bottom) Similar diagrams for three alternate scenarios of direct top squark production with different decay modes. For mixed decay scenarios, a 50% branching fraction for each decay is assumed. 
png pdf 
Figure 5a:
Diagram for the scenario of gluino mediated bottom squark production considered. 
png pdf 
Figure 5b:
Diagram for the scenario of gluino mediated top squark production considered. 
png pdf 
Figure 5c:
Diagram for the scenario of gluino mediated light flavor squark production considered. 
png pdf 
Figure 5d:
Diagram for the direct production of bottom squark pairs. 
png pdf 
Figure 5e:
Diagram for the direct production of top squark pairs. 
png pdf 
Figure 5f:
Diagram for the direct production of light flavor squark pairs. 
png pdf 
Figure 5g:
Diagram for an alternate scenario of direct top squark production with identical decay modes. 
png pdf 
Figure 5h:
Diagram for an alternate scenario of direct top squark production with identical decay modes. 
png pdf 
Figure 5i:
Diagram for an alternate scenario of direct top squark production with mixed decay modes. A 50% branching fraction for each decay is assumed. 
png pdf 
Figure 6:
Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the cross sections for gluinomediated bottom squark production (above left), gluinomediated top squark production (above right), and gluinomediated lightflavor squark production (below). The area to the left of and below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm $1$\sigma _{\mathrm {experiment}}$ standard deviation uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties $\sigma _{\mathrm {theory}}$ on the signal cross section. 
png pdf root 
Figure 6a:
Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the cross sections for gluinomediated bottom squark production. The area to the left of and below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm $1$\sigma _{\mathrm {experiment}}$ standard deviation uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties $\sigma _{\mathrm {theory}}$ on the signal cross section. 
png pdf root 
Figure 6b:
Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the cross sections for gluinomediated top squark production. The area to the left of and below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm $1$\sigma _{\mathrm {experiment}}$ standard deviation uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties $\sigma _{\mathrm {theory}}$ on the signal cross section. 
png pdf root 
Figure 6c:
Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the cross sections for gluinomediated lightflavor squark production. The area to the left of and below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm $1$\sigma _{\mathrm {experiment}}$ standard deviation uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties $\sigma _{\mathrm {theory}}$ on the signal cross section. 
png pdf 
Figure 7:
Exclusion limit at 95% CL on the cross sections for bottom squark pair production (above left), top squark pair production (above right), and lightflavor squark pair production (below). The area to the left of and below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm $1$\sigma _{\mathrm {experiment}}$ standard deviation uncertainties. For the top squarkpair production plot, the $\pm $2 standard deviation uncertainties are also shown. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties $\sigma _{\mathrm {theory}}$ on the signal cross section. The white diagonal band in the upper right plot corresponds to the region $ { m_{\tilde{\mathrm {t}}}m_{\mathrm {t}}m_{\mathrm {LSP}}  } < $ 25 GeV, and small $m_{\mathrm {LSP}}$. Here the efficiency of the selection is a strong function of $m_{\tilde{\mathrm {t}}}m_{\mathrm {LSP}}$, and as a result the precise determination of the cross section upper limit is uncertain because of the finite granularity of the available MC samples in this region of the ($m_{\tilde{\mathrm {t}}}$, $m_{\mathrm {LSP}}$) plane. 
png pdf root 
Figure 7a:
Exclusion limit at 95% CL on the cross sections for bottom squark pair production. The area to the left of and below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm $1$\sigma _{\mathrm {experiment}}$ standard deviation uncertainties. For the top squarkpair production plot, the $\pm $2 standard deviation uncertainties are also shown. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties $\sigma _{\mathrm {theory}}$ on the signal cross section. The white diagonal band in the upper right plot corresponds to the region $ { m_{\tilde{\mathrm {t}}}m_{\mathrm {t}}m_{\mathrm {LSP}}  } < $ 25 GeV, and small $m_{\mathrm {LSP}}$. Here the efficiency of the selection is a strong function of $m_{\tilde{\mathrm {t}}}m_{\mathrm {LSP}}$, and as a result the precise determination of the cross section upper limit is uncertain because of the finite granularity of the available MC samples in this region of the ($m_{\tilde{\mathrm {t}}}$, $m_{\mathrm {LSP}}$) plane. 
png pdf root 
Figure 7b:
Exclusion limit at 95% CL on the cross sections for top squark pair production. The area to the left of and below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm $1$\sigma _{\mathrm {experiment}}$ standard deviation uncertainties. For the top squarkpair production plot, the $\pm $2 standard deviation uncertainties are also shown. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties $\sigma _{\mathrm {theory}}$ on the signal cross section. The white diagonal band in the upper right plot corresponds to the region $ { m_{\tilde{\mathrm {t}}}m_{\mathrm {t}}m_{\mathrm {LSP}}  } < $ 25 GeV, and small $m_{\mathrm {LSP}}$. Here the efficiency of the selection is a strong function of $m_{\tilde{\mathrm {t}}}m_{\mathrm {LSP}}$, and as a result the precise determination of the cross section upper limit is uncertain because of the finite granularity of the available MC samples in this region of the ($m_{\tilde{\mathrm {t}}}$, $m_{\mathrm {LSP}}$) plane. 
png pdf root 
Figure 7c:
Exclusion limit at 95% CL on the cross sections for lightflavor squark pair production. The area to the left of and below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm $1$\sigma _{\mathrm {experiment}}$ standard deviation uncertainties. For the top squarkpair production plot, the $\pm $2 standard deviation uncertainties are also shown. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties $\sigma _{\mathrm {theory}}$ on the signal cross section. The white diagonal band in the upper right plot corresponds to the region $ { m_{\tilde{\mathrm {t}}}m_{\mathrm {t}}m_{\mathrm {LSP}}  } < $ 25 GeV, and small $m_{\mathrm {LSP}}$. Here the efficiency of the selection is a strong function of $m_{\tilde{\mathrm {t}}}m_{\mathrm {LSP}}$, and as a result the precise determination of the cross section upper limit is uncertain because of the finite granularity of the available MC samples in this region of the ($m_{\tilde{\mathrm {t}}}$, $m_{\mathrm {LSP}}$) plane. 
png pdf 
Figure 8:
Exclusion limit at 95% CL on the cross sections for top squark pair production for different decay modes of the top squark. For the scenario where $\mathrm{ p } \mathrm{ p } \to \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } }_1\tilde{ \mathrm{ t } }_1^*\to \mathrm{ b \bar{b} } \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 $, $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 \to \mathrm{ W } \tilde{\chi}^0_1 $ (above left), the mass of the chargino is chosen to be half way in between the masses of the top squark and the neutralino. A mixed decay scenario (above right), $\mathrm{ p } \mathrm{ p } \to \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } }_1 \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } }_1 ^*$ with equal branching fractions for the top squark decays $\tilde{ \mathrm{ t } }_1 \to \mathrm{ t } \tilde{\chi}^0_1 $ and $\tilde{ \mathrm{ t } }_1 \to \mathrm{ b } \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 $, $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 \to \mathrm{ W } ^{*}\tilde{\chi}^0_1 $, is also considered with the chargino mass chosen such that $\Delta m\left (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1,\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \right ) = $ 5 GeV. A compressed scenario (below) is also considered where $\mathrm{ p } \mathrm{ p } \to \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } }_1 \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } }_1 ^*\to \mathrm{ c \bar{c} } \tilde{\chi}^0_1 \tilde{\chi}^0_1 $. The area to the left of and below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm $1 $\sigma _{\mathrm {experiment}}$ standard deviation uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties $\sigma _{\mathrm {theory}}$ on the signal cross section. 
png pdf root 
Figure 8a:
Exclusion limit at 95% CL on the cross sections for top squark pair production for the scenario where $\mathrm{ p } \mathrm{ p } \to \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } }_1\tilde{ \mathrm{ t } }_1^*\to \mathrm{ b \bar{b} } \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 $, $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 \to \mathrm{ W } \tilde{\chi}^0_1 $. The mass of the chargino is chosen to be half way in between the masses of the top squark and the neutralino. The area to the left of and below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm $1 $\sigma _{\mathrm {experiment}}$ standard deviation uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties $\sigma _{\mathrm {theory}}$ on the signal cross section. 
png pdf root 
Figure 8b:
Exclusion limit at 95% CL on the cross sections for top squark pair production for a mixed decay scenario, $\mathrm{ p } \mathrm{ p } \to \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } }_1 \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } }_1 ^*$ with equal branching fractions for the top squark decays $\tilde{ \mathrm{ t } }_1 \to \mathrm{ t } \tilde{\chi}^0_1 $ and $\tilde{ \mathrm{ t } }_1 \to \mathrm{ b } \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 $, $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 \to \mathrm{ W } ^{*}\tilde{\chi}^0_1 $, with the chargino mass chosen such that $\Delta m\left (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1,\tilde{\chi}^0_1 \right ) = $ 5 GeV. The area to the left of and below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm $1 $\sigma _{\mathrm {experiment}}$ standard deviation uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties $\sigma _{\mathrm {theory}}$ on the signal cross section. 
png pdf root 
Figure 8c:
Exclusion limit at 95% CL on the cross sections for top squark pair production for a compressed scenario, where $\mathrm{ p } \mathrm{ p } \to \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } }_1 \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } }_1 ^*\to \mathrm{ c \bar{c} } \tilde{\chi}^0_1 \tilde{\chi}^0_1 $. The area to the left of and below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm $1 $\sigma _{\mathrm {experiment}}$ standard deviation uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties $\sigma _{\mathrm {theory}}$ on the signal cross section. 
png pdf 
Figure 9:
(Above) Comparison of the estimated background and observed data events in each signal bin in the monojet region. On the $x$axis, the ${ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm {jet1}}}$ binning is shown (in GeV). Hatched bands represent the full uncertainty on the background estimate. (Below) Same for the very low $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $ region. On the $x$axis, the $ {M_{\mathrm {T2}}} $ binning is shown (in GeV). Bins with no entry for data have an observed count of 0. 
png pdf 
Figure 9a:
Comparison of the estimated background and observed data events in each signal bin in the monojet region. On the $x$axis, the ${ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm {jet1}}}$ binning is shown (in GeV). Hatched bands represent the full uncertainty on the background estimate. On the $x$axis, the $ {M_{\mathrm {T2}}} $ binning is shown (in GeV). Bins with no entry for data have an observed count of 0. 
png pdf 
Figure 9b:
Same as Fig.9a for the very low $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $ region. 
png pdf 
Figure 10:
(Top) Comparison of the estimated background and observed data events in each signal bin in the low $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $ region. Hatched bands represent the full uncertainty on the background estimate. Same for the high (middle) and extreme (bottom) $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $ regions. On the $x$axis, the $ {M_{\mathrm {T2}}} $ binning is shown (in GeV). Bins with no entry for data have an observed count of 0. For the extreme $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $ region, the last bin is left empty for visualization purposes. 
png pdf 
Figure 10a:
Comparison of the estimated background and observed data events in each signal bin in the low $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $ region. Hatched bands represent the full uncertainty on the background estimate. On the $x$axis, the $ {M_{\mathrm {T2}}} $ binning is shown (in GeV). Bins with no entry for data have an observed count of 0. 
png pdf 
Figure 10b:
Same as Fig. 10a for the high $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $ region. 
png pdf 
Figure 10c:
Same as Fig. 10a for the extreme $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $ region. The last bin is left empty for visualization purposes. 
png pdf 
Figure 11:
Comparison of postfit background prediction and observed data events in each topological region. Hatched bands represent the postfit uncertainty on the background prediction. For the monojet, on the $x$axis the ${ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm {jet1}}}$ binning is shown (in GeV), whereas for the multijet signal regions, the notations j, b indicate $ {N_{\mathrm {j}}} $, $ {N_{\mathrm {b}}} $ labeling. 
png pdf 
Figure 12:
(Top) Comparison of the postfit background prediction and observed data events in each signal bin in the monojet region. On the $x$axis, the ${ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm {jet1}}}$ binning is shown (in GeV). (Medium) and (bottom): Same for the very low and low $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $ region. On the $x$axis, the $ {M_{\mathrm {T2}}} $ binning is shown (in GeV). Bins with no entry for data have an observed count of 0. In these Figures, the hatched bands represent the postfit uncertainty on the background prediction. 
png pdf 
Figure 12a:
Comparison of the postfit background prediction and observed data events in each signal bin in the monojet region. On the $x$axis, the ${ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm {jet1}}}$ binning is shown (in GeV). Bins with no entry for data have an observed count of 0. The hatched bands represent the postfit uncertainty on the background prediction. 
png pdf 
Figure 12b:
Same as Fig. 12a for the very low $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $ region. On the $x$axis, the $ {M_{\mathrm {T2}}} $ binning is shown (in GeV). 
png pdf 
Figure 12c:
Same as Fig. 12b for the low $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $ region. 
png pdf 
Figure 13:
(Top) Comparison of the postfit background prediction and observed data events in each signal bin in the medium $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $ region. Same for the high (middle) and extreme (bottom) $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $ regions. On the $x$axis, the $ {M_{\mathrm {T2}}} $ binning is shown (in GeV). Bins with no entry for data have an observed count of 0. In these Figures, the hatched bands represent the postfit uncertainty on the background prediction. For the extreme $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $ region, the last bin is left empty for visualization purposes. 
png pdf 
Figure 13a:
Comparison of the postfit background prediction and observed data events in each signal bin in the medium $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $ region. On the $x$axis, the $ {M_{\mathrm {T2}}} $ binning is shown (in GeV). Bins with no entry for data have an observed count of 0. In these Figures, the hatched bands represent the postfit uncertainty on the background prediction. 
png pdf 
Figure 13b:
Same as Fig. 13a for the high $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $ region. 
png pdf 
Figure 13c:
Same as Fig. 13a for the high extreme $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $ region. The last bin is left empty for visualization purposes. 
png pdf 
Figure 14:
(Above) The postfit background prediction and observed data events in the analysis binning, for all topological regions with the expected yield for the signal model of gluino mediated bottomsquark production ($m_{\tilde{ \mathrm{g} } }=$ 1000 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 }=$ 800 GeV ) stacked on top of the expected background. For the monojet regions, on the $x$axis is shown the ${ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm {jet1}}}$ binning (in GeV). (Below) Same for the extreme $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $ region for the same signal with ($m_{\tilde{ \mathrm{g} } }=$ 1900 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 }=$ 100 GeV). In these Figures, the hatched bands represent the postfit uncertainty on the background prediction. For the extreme $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $ region, the last bin is left empty for visualization purposes. 
png pdf 
Figure 14a:
The postfit background prediction and observed data events in the analysis binning, for all topological regions with the expected yield for the signal model of gluino mediated bottomsquark production ($m_{\tilde{ \mathrm{g} } }=$ 1000 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 }=$ 800 GeV ) stacked on top of the expected background. For the monojet regions, on the $x$axis is shown the ${ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm {jet1}}}$ binning (in GeV). The hatched bands represent the postfit uncertainty on the background prediction. 
png pdf 
Figure 14b:
Same for the extreme $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $ region for the same signal with ($m_{\tilde{ \mathrm{g} } }=$ 1900 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1 }=$ 100 GeV). The last bin is left empty for visualization purposes. 
Tables  
png pdf 
Table 1:
Summary of objects and preselection. For veto leptons and tracks, the ${M_{\mathrm {T}}}$ is determined using the veto object and the ${ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^\text {miss}} $, while $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\mathrm {sum}}$ denotes the sum of the transverse momenta of all the particle candidates around the lepton or track. Details of the lepton selection are described in Ref. [5]. The i$^{th}$ highest $ {p_{\mathrm {T}}} $ jet is denoted as $j_{\mathrm {i}}$. 
png pdf 
Table 2:
Definitions of super signal regions, along with predictions, observed data, and the observed 95% CL limit on the number of signal events contributing to each region ($N_{95}^{obs}$). No uncertainty on the signal acceptance is assumed in calculating these limits. A dash in the selections means that no cut is applied. 
png pdf 
Table 3:
Typical values of the signal systematic uncertainties as evaluated for the simplified signal model of gluino mediated bottom squark production, $\mathrm{ p } \mathrm{ p } \to \tilde{ \mathrm{g} } \tilde{ \mathrm{g} },\, \tilde{ \mathrm{g} } \to {\mathrm{ b \bar{b} } } \tilde{\chi}^0_1 $. Uncertainties evaluated on other signal models are consistent with these ranges of values. 
png pdf 
Table 4:
Summary of 95% CL observed exclusion limits for different SUSY simplified model scenarios. The limit on the mass of the produced sparticle is quoted for a massless LSP, while for the lightest neutralino the best limit on its mass is quoted. 
png pdf 
Table 5:
Summary of signal regions for the monojet selection. 
png pdf 
Table 6:
Adopted $ {M_{\mathrm {T2}}} $ binning in each topological region of the multijet search regions, for the very low, low and medium $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $regions. 
png pdf 
Table 7:
Adopted $ {M_{\mathrm {T2}}} $ binning in each topological region of the multijet search regions, for the high and extreme $ {H_{\mathrm {T}}} $regions. 
Summary 
This paper presents the result of a search for new physics using events with jets and the $M_{\mathrm{T2}}$ variable. Results are based on a 35.9 fb$ {^{1}} $ data sample of protonproton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV collected in 2016 with the CMS detector. No significant deviations from the standard model expectations are observed. The results are interpreted as limits on the production of new, massive colored particles in simplified models of supersymmetry. We probe gluino masses up to 2025 GeV and LSP masses up to 1400 GeV. Additional interpretations in the context of the pair production of light flavor, bottom, and top squarks are performed, probing masses up to 1550, 1175, and 1070 GeV, respectively, and LSP masses up to 775, 590, and 550 GeV in each scenario. 
Additional Figures  
png pdf root 
Additional Figure 1:
Full correlation (a) and covariance (b) matrices. 
png pdf root 
Additional Figure 1a:
Full correlation matrix. 
png pdf root 
Additional Figure 1b:
Full covariance matrix. 
png pdf root 
Additional Figure 2:
Observed significance for gluinomediated bottom squark production model. A linear interpolation is performed across the plane, to account for the limited granularity of the simulated samples. Due to the nonlinear nature of the significance, small fluctuations for single signal points may result into a visible effect on the plane. 
png pdf root 
Additional Figure 3:
Observed significance for gluinomediated top squark production model. A linear interpolation is performed across the plane, to account for the limited granularity of the simulated samples. Due to the nonlinear nature of the significance, small fluctuations for single signal points may result into a visible effect on the plane. 
png pdf root 
Additional Figure 4:
Observed significance for gluinomediated light squark production model. A linear interpolation is performed across the plane, to account for the limited granularity of the simulated samples. Due to the nonlinear nature of the significance, small fluctuations for single signal points may result into a visible effect on the plane. 
png pdf root 
Additional Figure 5:
Observed significance for direct bottom squark production model. A linear interpolation is performed across the plane, to account for the limited granularity of the simulated samples. Due to the nonlinear nature of the significance, small fluctuations for single signal points may result into a visible effect on the plane. 
png pdf root 
Additional Figure 6:
Observed significance for direct top squark production model. A linear interpolation is performed across the plane, to account for the limited granularity of the simulated samples. Due to the nonlinear nature of the significance, small fluctuations for single signal points may result into a visible effect on the plane. 
png pdf root 
Additional Figure 7:
Observed significance for direct light squark production model. A linear interpolation is performed across the plane, to account for the limited granularity of the simulated samples. Due to the nonlinear nature of the significance, small fluctuations for single signal points may result into a visible effect on the plane. 
png pdf root 
Additional Figure 8:
Observed significance for direct top squark pair production model, for the scenario where $\mathrm{ p } \mathrm{ p } \to \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } }_1 \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } }_1 ^*\to \mathrm{ b \bar{b} } \tilde{ \chi }^{\pm}_1 \tilde{ \chi }^{\pm}_1 $, $\tilde{ \chi }^{\pm}_1 \to \mathrm{ W } \tilde{\chi}^0_1 $, with the mass of the chargino chosen to be half way in between the masses of the top squark and the neutralino. A linear interpolation is performed across the plane, to account for the limited granularity of the simulated samples. Due to the nonlinear nature of the significance, small fluctuations for single signal points may result into a visible effect on the plane. 
png pdf root 
Additional Figure 9:
Observed significance for direct top squark pair production model, for the scenario where $\mathrm{ p } \mathrm{ p } \to \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } }_1 \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } }_1 ^*\to \mathrm{ t } \mathrm{ b } \tilde{ \chi }^{\pm}_1 \tilde{\chi}^0_1 $, $\tilde{ \chi }^{\pm}_1 \to \mathrm{ W } ^{*}\tilde{\chi}^0_1 $, with the chargino mass chosen such that $\Delta m (\tilde{ \chi }^{\pm}_1 ,\tilde{\chi}^0_1 ) = $ 5 GeV. A linear interpolation is performed across the plane, to account for the limited granularity of the simulated samples. Due to the nonlinear nature of the significance, small fluctuations for single signal points may result into a visible effect on the plane. 
png pdf root 
Additional Figure 10:
Observed significance for direct top squark pair production model, for a compressed scenario where $\mathrm{ p } \mathrm{ p } \to \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } }_1 \tilde{ \mathrm{ t } }_1 ^*\to \mathrm{ c } \bar{ \mathrm{ c } } \tilde{\chi}^0_1 \tilde{\chi}^0_1 $. A linear interpolation is performed across the plane, to account for the limited granularity of the simulated samples. Due to the nonlinear nature of the significance, small fluctuations for single signal points may result into a visible effect on the plane. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 11:
Summary of exclusion limits for gluino production models. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 12:
Summary of exclusion limits for direct squark production models. 
png pdf 
Additional Figure 13:
Summary of exclusion limits for direct stop production models. 
Additional Tables  
png pdf 
Additional Table 1:
Cut flow table for baseline selection and several sample additional kinematic selections for a signal model of gluinomediated bottom squark production with the mass of the gluino and the LSP equal to 2100 and 1 GeV, respectively. Theory cross section for this signal is 0.59 fb. 
png pdf 
Additional Table 2:
Cut flow table for baseline selection and several sample additional kinematic selections for a signal model of gluinomediated bottom squark production with the mass of the gluino and the LSP equal to 1800 and 1300 GeV, respectively. Theory cross section for this signal is 2.76 fb. 
png pdf 
Additional Table 3:
Cut flow table for baseline selection and several sample additional kinematic selections for a signal model of gluinomediated top squark production with the mass of the gluino and the LSP equal to 1900 and 1 GeV, respectively. Theory cross section for this signal is 1.64 fb. 
png pdf 
Additional Table 4:
Cut flow table for baseline selection and several sample additional kinematic selections for a signal model of gluinomediated top squark production with the mass of the gluino and the LSP equal to 1800 and 900 GeV, respectively. Theory cross section for this signal is 2.76 fb. 
png pdf 
Additional Table 5:
Cut flow table for baseline selection and several sample additional kinematic selections for a signal model of gluinomediated light squark production with the mass of the gluino and the LSP equal to 1900 and 1 GeV, respectively. Theory cross section for this signal is 1.64 fb. 
png pdf 
Additional Table 6:
Cut flow table for baseline selection and several sample additional kinematic selections for a signal model of gluinomediated light squark production with the mass of the gluino and the LSP equal to 1600 and 1000 GeV, respectively. Theory cross section for this signal is 8.10 fb. 
png pdf 
Additional Table 7:
Cut flow table for baseline selection and several sample additional kinematic selections for a signal model of direct bottom squark production with the mass of the squark and the LSP equal to 1200 and 1 GeV, respectively. Theory cross section for this signal is 1.60 fb. 
png pdf 
Additional Table 8:
Cut flow table for baseline selection and several sample additional kinematic selections for a signal model of direct bottom squark production with the mass of the squark and the LSP equal to 900 and 600 GeV, respectively. Theory cross section for this signal is 12.9 fb. 
png pdf 
Additional Table 9:
Cut flow table for baseline selection and several sample additional kinematic selections for a signal model of direct top squark production with the mass of the squark and the LSP equal to 1100 and 1 GeV, respectively. Theory cross section for this signal is 3.07 fb. 
png pdf 
Additional Table 10:
Cut flow table for baseline selection and several sample additional kinematic selections for a signal model of direct top squark production with the mass of the squark and the LSP equal to 500 and 400 GeV, respectively. Theory cross section for this signal is 518 fb. 
png pdf 
Additional Table 11:
Cut flow table for baseline selection and several sample additional kinematic selections for a signal model of direct light squark production with the mass of the squark and the LSP equal to 1500 and 1 GeV, respectively. Theory cross section for this signal is 2.09 fb. 
png pdf 
Additional Table 12:
Cut flow table for baseline selection and several sample additional kinematic selections for a signal model of direct light squark production with the mass of the squark and the LSP equal to 800 and 400 GeV, respectively. Theory cross section for this signal is 231 fb. 
png pdf 
Additional Table 13:
Cut flow table for baseline selection and several sample additional kinematic selections for a signal model of direct top squark production, where one top squark decays via a bottom quark while the other decays via a top quark, with the mass of the squark and the LSP equal to 900 and 1 GeV, respectively. Theory cross section for this signal is 12.9 fb. 
png pdf 
Additional Table 14:
Cut flow table for baseline selection and several sample additional kinematic selections for a signal model of direct top squark production, where one top squark decays via a bottom quark while the other decays via a top quark, with the mass of the squark and the LSP equal to 800 and 400 GeV, respectively. Theory cross section for this signal is 28.3 fb. 
png pdf 
Additional Table 15:
Cut flow table for baseline selection and several sample additional kinematic selections for a signal model of direct top squark production, where the top squark decays via a bottom quark, with the mass of the squark and the LSP equal to 900 and 1 GeV, respectively. Theory cross section for this signal is 12.9 fb. 
png pdf 
Additional Table 16:
Cut flow table for baseline selection and several sample additional kinematic selections for a signal model of direct top squark production, where the top squark decays via a bottom quark, with the mass of the squark and the LSP equal to 800 and 400 GeV, respectively. Theory cross section for this signal is 28.3 fb. 
png pdf 
Additional Table 17:
Cut flow table for baseline selection and several sample additional kinematic selections for a signal model of direct top squark production, where the top squark decays via a charm quark, with the mass of the squark and the LSP equal to 450 and 370 GeV, respectively. Theory cross section for this signal is 948 fb. 
png pdf 
Additional Table 18:
Cut flow table for baseline selection and several sample additional kinematic selections for a signal model of direct top squark production, where the top squark decays via a charm quark, with the mass of the squark and the LSP equal to 450 and 440 GeV, respectively. Theory cross section for this signal is 948 fb. 
png pdf 
Additional Table 19:
Background estimate and observation in bins of jet $p_{\mathrm {T}}$ for the monojet regions. The yields correspond to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{1}$. 
png pdf 
Additional Table 20:
Background estimate and observation in bins of $M_{\mathrm {T2}}$ for 250 $ < H_{\mathrm {T}} < $ 450 GeV. The yields correspond to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{1}$. 
png pdf 
Additional Table 21:
Background estimate and observation in bins of $M_{\mathrm {T2}}$ for 450 $ < H_{\mathrm {T}} < $ 575 GeV. The yields correspond to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{1}$. 
png pdf 
Additional Table 22:
Background estimate and observation in bins of $M_{\mathrm {T2}}$ for 575 $ < H_{\mathrm {T}} < $ 1000 GeV. The yields correspond to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{1}$. 
png pdf 
Additional Table 23:
Background estimate and observation in bins of $M_{\mathrm {T2}}$ for 1000 $ < H_{\mathrm {T}} < $ 1500 GeV. The yields correspond to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{1}$. 
png pdf 
Additional Table 24:
Background estimate and observation in bins of $M_{\mathrm {T2}}$ for $ H_{\mathrm {T}} > $ 1500 GeV. The yields correspond to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{1}$. 
Additional code to compute hemispheres and MT2 and an example of usage is available here.
The code available here also include python scripts to facilitate the access to the full covariance (correlation) matrix. One script allows to retrive the bin number on the covariance matrix axes for a given kinematic selection: python getBinNumber_CMSSUS16036.py Nj Nb HT (jet pT) [MT2] with HT, jet pT, and/or MT2 expressed in GeV will return the bin number corresponding to the kinematic selection, together with the corresponding background predictions and observation. A second script allows to retrieve the kinematic selection corresponding to one bin number on the covariance matrix axes: python getRegionFromBinNumber_CMSSUS16036.py binNumber (1..213) will return the kinematic selection corresponding to the input bin number, together with the corresponding background predictions and observation. 
References  
1  ATLAS Collaboration  Search for new phenomena in final states with large jet multiplicities and missing transverse momentum with ATLAS using $ \sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV protonproton collisions  PLB757 (2016) 334355  1602.06194 
2  ATLAS Collaboration  Search for new phenomena in final states with an energetic jet and large missing transverse momentum in $ pp $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV using the ATLAS detector  1604.07773  
3  ATLAS Collaboration  Search for squarks and gluinos in final states with jets and missing transverse momentum at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector  1605.03814  
4  ATLAS Collaboration  Search for pair production of gluinos decaying via stop and sbottom in events with $ b $jets and large missing transverse momentum in $ pp $ collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector  1605.09318  
5  CMS Collaboration  Search for new physics with the MT2 variable in alljets final states produced in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  CMSSUS15003 1603.04053 

6  CMS Collaboration  Search for supersymmetry in the multijet and missing transverse momentum final state in pp collisions at 13 TeV  PLB758 (2016) 152180  CMSSUS15002 1602.06581 
7  CMS Collaboration  Inclusive search for supersymmetry using razor variables in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV  PRD95 (2017), no. 1, 012003  CMSSUS15004 1609.07658 
8  CMS Collaboration  A search for new phenomena in pp collisions at $ \sqrt{s}= $ 13 TeV in final states with missing transverse momentum and at least one jet using the $ {\alpha_{\mathrm{T}}} $ variable  Submitted to: EPJC (2016)  CMSSUS15005 1611.00338 
9  C. G. Lester and D. J. Summers  Measuring masses of semiinvisibly decaying particles pair produced at hadron colliders  PLB 463 (1999) 99  hepph/9906349 
10  CMS Collaboration  The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC  JINST 3 (2008) S08004  CMS00001 
11  M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez  The anti$ k_t $ jet clustering algorithm  JHEP 04 (2008) 063  0802.1189 
12  M. Cacciari and G. P. Salam  Pileup subtraction using jet areas  PLB 659 (2008) 119  0707.1378 
13  CMS Collaboration  Identification of bquark jets with the CMS experiment  JINST 8 (2013) P04013  CMSBTV12001 1211.4462 
14  CMS Collaboration  Missing transverse energy performance of the CMS detector  JINST 6 (2011) P09001  CMSJME10009 1106.5048 
15  J. Alwall et al.  MadGraph 5: going beyond  JHEP 06 (2011) 128  1106.0522 
16  A. L. Read  Presentation of search results: The $ CL_{s} $ technique  JPG 28 (2002) 2693  
17  A. L. Read  Modified frequentist analysis of search results (The $ CL_{s} $ method)  CERNOPEN 205(2000)  
18  G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells  Asymptotic formulae for likelihoodbased tests of new physics  EPJC 71 (2011) 1554  1007.1727 
19  ATLAS and CMS Collaborations  Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in summer 2011  CMSNOTE2011005  
20  W. Beenakker, R. Hopker, M. Spira, and P. M. Zerwas  Squark and gluino production at hadron colliders  Nucl. Phys. B 492 (1997) 51  hepph/9610490 
21  A. Kulesza and L. Motyka  Threshold resummation for squarkantisquark and gluinopair production at the LHC  PRL 102 (2009) 111802  0807.2405 
22  A. Kulesza and L. Motyka  Soft gluon resummation for the production of gluinogluino and squarkantisquark pairs at the LHC  PRD 80 (2009) 095004  0905.4749 
23  W. Beenakker et al.  Softgluon resummation for squark and gluino hadroproduction  JHEP 12 (2009) 041  0909.4418 
24  W. Beenakker et al.  Squark and gluino hadroproduction  Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 26 (2011) 2637  1105.1110 
Compact Muon Solenoid LHC, CERN 