CMS-PAS-SUS-18-006

CMS-PAS-SUS-18-006
Search for direct $\tau$ slepton pair production in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV
CMS Collaboration
March 2019

Abstract: A search for $\tau$ slepton pair production in proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV is presented. The data correspond to an integrated luminosity of 77.2 fb $^{-1}$ collected with the CMS detector in 2016 and 2017. The search is carried out in events with a pair of $\tau$ leptons in the final state, expected from each $\tau$ slepton decaying into a $\tau$ lepton and a neutralino. We consider events in which both $\tau$ leptons decay hadronically, as well as events in which one of the $\tau$ leptons decays hadronically while the other decays to an electron or a muon. The observed data are consistent with the standard model background expectation, and the results are interpreted as upper limits on the cross section for $\tau$ slepton pair production in different scenarios. In the scenario of a purely left-handed $\tau$ slepton decaying to a nearly massless neutralino, the strongest limits are obtained for a $\tau$ slepton mass of 125 GeV, corresponding to 1.14 times the theoretical cross section.
Links: CDS record (PDF) ; CADI line (restricted) ; These preliminary results are superseded in this paper, EPJC 80 (2020) 189. The superseded preliminary plots can be found here.

Figures & Tables	Summary	References	CMS Publications

Figures
png pdf	Figure 1: Diagram for direct ${\tilde{\tau}}$ pair production followed by each ${\tilde{\tau}}$ decaying to a ${\tau}$ lepton and a ${\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ .
png pdf	Figure 2: Distributions of ${\Sigma {m_{\mathrm {T}}}}$ (left) and ${m_{\mathrm {T2}}}$ (right) for events in the 2016 and 2017 datasets passing the baseline selection in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h} {\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state, along with the corresponding prediction for the SM background and three benchmark signal models of ${{\tilde{\tau}} _{\mathrm {L}}}$ pair production. The numbers within parentheses in the legend correspond to the masses of the ${{\tilde{\tau}} _{\mathrm {L}}}$ and ${\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ in GeV. The shaded uncertainty band represents the statistical and systematic uncertainty in the background prediction.
png pdf	Figure 2-a: Distribution of ${\Sigma {m_{\mathrm {T}}}}$ for events in the 2016 and 2017 datasets passing the baseline selection in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h} {\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state, along with the corresponding prediction for the SM background and three benchmark signal models of ${{\tilde{\tau}} _{\mathrm {L}}}$ pair production. The numbers within parentheses in the legend correspond to the masses of the ${{\tilde{\tau}} _{\mathrm {L}}}$ and ${\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ in GeV. The shaded uncertainty band represents the statistical and systematic uncertainty in the background prediction.
png pdf	Figure 2-b: Distribution of ${m_{\mathrm {T2}}}$ for events in the 2016 and 2017 datasets passing the baseline selection in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h} {\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ final state, along with the corresponding prediction for the SM background and three benchmark signal models of ${{\tilde{\tau}} _{\mathrm {L}}}$ pair production. The numbers within parentheses in the legend correspond to the masses of the ${{\tilde{\tau}} _{\mathrm {L}}}$ and ${\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ in GeV. The shaded uncertainty band represents the statistical and systematic uncertainty in the background prediction.
png pdf	Figure 3: Distributions of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^\text {miss}}$ (left) and ${m_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\textrm {tot}}$ (right) for events in the 2016 and 2017 datasets passing the baseline selection in the ${\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}}$ final state, along with the corresponding prediction for the SM background and three benchmark signal models of ${{\tilde{\tau}} _{\mathrm {L}}}$ pair production. The numbers within parentheses in the legend correspond to the masses of the ${{\tilde{\tau}} _{\mathrm {L}}}$ and ${\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ in GeV. The shaded uncertainty band represents the statistical and average systematic uncertainty in the background prediction.
png pdf	Figure 3-a: Distribution of ${{p_{\mathrm {T}}} ^\text {miss}}$ for events in the 2016 and 2017 datasets passing the baseline selection in the ${\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}}$ final state, along with the corresponding prediction for the SM background and three benchmark signal models of ${{\tilde{\tau}} _{\mathrm {L}}}$ pair production. The numbers within parentheses in the legend correspond to the masses of the ${{\tilde{\tau}} _{\mathrm {L}}}$ and ${\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ in GeV. The shaded uncertainty band represents the statistical and average systematic uncertainty in the background prediction.
png pdf	Figure 3-b: Distribution of ${m_{\mathrm {T}}} ^{\textrm {tot}}$ for events in the 2016 and 2017 datasets passing the baseline selection in the ${\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}}$ final state, along with the corresponding prediction for the SM background and three benchmark signal models of ${{\tilde{\tau}} _{\mathrm {L}}}$ pair production. The numbers within parentheses in the legend correspond to the masses of the ${{\tilde{\tau}} _{\mathrm {L}}}$ and ${\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ in GeV. The shaded uncertainty band represents the statistical and average systematic uncertainty in the background prediction.
png pdf	Figure 4: Visible mass spectrum of the ${\tau}$ lepton pair system in data and the corresponding prediction for the SM background for the combined 2016 and 2017 datasets for the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h} {\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ (left) and ${\ell {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}}$ (right) DY+jets validation samples. The shaded uncertainty band represents the statistical and systematic uncertainty in the background prediction. In the ${\ell {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}}$ case, the systematic uncertainty included in the band for each bin corresponds to a single average value. Agreement is observed within uncertainties in both cases.
png pdf	Figure 4-a: Visible mass spectrum of the ${\tau}$ lepton pair system in data and the corresponding prediction for the SM background for the combined 2016 and 2017 datasets for the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h} {\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ DY+jets validation sample. The shaded uncertainty band represents the statistical and systematic uncertainty in the background prediction. In the ${\ell {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}}$ case, the systematic uncertainty included in the band for each bin corresponds to a single average value. Agreement is observed within uncertainties.
png pdf	Figure 4-b: Visible mass spectrum of the ${\tau}$ lepton pair system in data and the corresponding prediction for the SM background for the combined 2016 and 2017 datasets for the ${\ell {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}}$ DY+jets validation sample. The shaded uncertainty band represents the statistical and systematic uncertainty in the background prediction. In the ${\ell {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}}$ case, the systematic uncertainty included in the band for each bin corresponds to a single average value. Agreement is observed within uncertainties.
png pdf	Figure 5: Observed event counts and predicted yields for the SM background in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h} {\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ analysis for the 2016 (left) and 2017 (right) datasets, before (top) and after (bottom) the maximum likelihood fit to the data. Predicted signal yields are also shown for benchmark signal models with $m({\tilde{\tau}})=$ 100, 125, and 200 GeV, $m({\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}) =$ 1 GeV.
png pdf	Figure 5-a: Observed event counts and predicted yields for the SM background in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h} {\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ analysis for the 2016 dataset, before the maximum likelihood fit to the data. Predicted signal yields are also shown for benchmark signal models with $m({\tilde{\tau}})=$ 100, 125, and 200 GeV, $m({\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}) =$ 1 GeV.
png pdf	Figure 5-b: Observed event counts and predicted yields for the SM background in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h} {\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ analysis for the 2017 dataset, before the maximum likelihood fit to the data. Predicted signal yields are also shown for benchmark signal models with $m({\tilde{\tau}})=$ 100, 125, and 200 GeV, $m({\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}) =$ 1 GeV.
png pdf	Figure 5-c: Observed event counts and predicted yields for the SM background in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h} {\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ analysis for the 2016 dataset, after the maximum likelihood fit to the data. Predicted signal yields are also shown for benchmark signal models with $m({\tilde{\tau}})=$ 100, 125, and 200 GeV, $m({\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}) =$ 1 GeV.
png pdf	Figure 5-d: Observed event counts and predicted yields for the SM background in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h} {\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ analysis for the 2017 dataset, after the maximum likelihood fit to the data. Predicted signal yields are also shown for benchmark signal models with $m({\tilde{\tau}})=$ 100, 125, and 200 GeV, $m({\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}) =$ 1 GeV.
png pdf	Figure 6: Distributions of the BDT discriminant for the BDT trained for a ${\tilde{\tau}}$ mass of 100 GeV and a ${\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ mass of 1 GeV (BDT (100)) in the ${\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}}$ final state for the 2016 (left) and 2017 (right) datasets, before (top) and after (bottom) the maximum likelihood fit to the data. Predicted signal yields are also shown for benchmark signal models with $m({\tilde{\tau}})=$ 100, 125, and 200 GeV, $m({\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}) =$ 1 GeV.
png pdf	Figure 6-a: Distribution of the BDT discriminant for the BDT trained for a ${\tilde{\tau}}$ mass of 100 GeV and a ${\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ mass of 1 GeV (BDT (100)) in the ${\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}}$ final state for the 2016 dataset, before the maximum likelihood fit to the data. Predicted signal yields are also shown for benchmark signal models with $m({\tilde{\tau}})=$ 100, 125, and 200 GeV, $m({\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}) =$ 1 GeV.
png pdf	Figure 6-b: Distribution of the BDT discriminant for the BDT trained for a ${\tilde{\tau}}$ mass of 100 GeV and a ${\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ mass of 1 GeV (BDT (100)) in the ${\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}}$ final state for the 2017 dataset, before the maximum likelihood fit to the data. Predicted signal yields are also shown for benchmark signal models with $m({\tilde{\tau}})=$ 100, 125, and 200 GeV, $m({\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}) =$ 1 GeV.
png pdf	Figure 6-c: Distribution of the BDT discriminant for the BDT trained for a ${\tilde{\tau}}$ mass of 100 GeV and a ${\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ mass of 1 GeV (BDT (100)) in the ${\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}}$ final state for the 2016 dataset, after the maximum likelihood fit to the data. Predicted signal yields are also shown for benchmark signal models with $m({\tilde{\tau}})=$ 100, 125, and 200 GeV, $m({\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}) =$ 1 GeV.
png pdf	Figure 6-d: Distribution of the BDT discriminant for the BDT trained for a ${\tilde{\tau}}$ mass of 100 GeV and a ${\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ mass of 1 GeV (BDT (100)) in the ${\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}}$ final state for the 2017 dataset, after the maximum likelihood fit to the data. Predicted signal yields are also shown for benchmark signal models with $m({\tilde{\tau}})=$ 100, 125, and 200 GeV, $m({\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}) =$ 1 GeV.
png pdf	Figure 7: Cross section of ${\tilde{\tau}}$ pair production excluded at 95% CL as a function of the ${\tilde{\tau}}$ mass in the purely left-handed ${\tilde{\tau}}$ scenario for a ${\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ mass of 1 (top left), 10 (top right) and 20 (bottom) GeV. The results shown are for the statistical combination of the 2016 and 2017 datasets for the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h} {\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ and ${\ell {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}}$ analyses. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The red line indicates the NLO+NLL prediction for the signal production cross section calculated with Resummino [35], while the red dashed lines represent the uncertainty in the prediction.
png pdf	Figure 7-a: Cross section of ${\tilde{\tau}}$ pair production excluded at 95% CL as a function of the ${\tilde{\tau}}$ mass in the purely left-handed ${\tilde{\tau}}$ scenario for a ${\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ mass of 1 GeV. The results shown are for the statistical combination of the 2016 and 2017 datasets for the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h} {\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ and ${\ell {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}}$ analyses. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The red line indicates the NLO+NLL prediction for the signal production cross section calculated with Resummino [35], while the red dashed lines represent the uncertainty in the prediction.
png pdf	Figure 7-b: Cross section of ${\tilde{\tau}}$ pair production excluded at 95% CL as a function of the ${\tilde{\tau}}$ mass in the purely left-handed ${\tilde{\tau}}$ scenario for a ${\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ mass of 10 GeV. The results shown are for the statistical combination of the 2016 and 2017 datasets for the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h} {\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ and ${\ell {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}}$ analyses. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The red line indicates the NLO+NLL prediction for the signal production cross section calculated with Resummino [35], while the red dashed lines represent the uncertainty in the prediction.
png pdf	Figure 7-c: Cross section of ${\tilde{\tau}}$ pair production excluded at 95% CL as a function of the ${\tilde{\tau}}$ mass in the purely left-handed ${\tilde{\tau}}$ scenario for a ${\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ mass of 20 GeV. The results shown are for the statistical combination of the 2016 and 2017 datasets for the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h} {\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ and ${\ell {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}}$ analyses. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The red line indicates the NLO+NLL prediction for the signal production cross section calculated with Resummino [35], while the red dashed lines represent the uncertainty in the prediction.
png pdf	Figure 8: Cross section of ${\tilde{\tau}}$ pair production excluded at 95% CL as a function of the ${\tilde{\tau}}$ mass in the degenerate ${\tilde{\tau}}$ scenario for a ${\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ mass of 1 (top left), 10 (top right) and 20 (bottom) GeV. The results shown are for the statistical combination of the 2016 and 2017 datasets for the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h} {\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ and ${\ell {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}}$ analyses. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The red line indicates the NLO+NLL prediction for the signal production cross section calculated with Resummino [35], while the red dashed lines represent the uncertainty in the prediction.
png pdf	Figure 8-a: Cross section of ${\tilde{\tau}}$ pair production excluded at 95% CL as a function of the ${\tilde{\tau}}$ mass in the degenerate ${\tilde{\tau}}$ scenario for a ${\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ mass of 1 GeV. The results shown are for the statistical combination of the 2016 and 2017 datasets for the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h} {\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ and ${\ell {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}}$ analyses. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The red line indicates the NLO+NLL prediction for the signal production cross section calculated with Resummino [35], while the red dashed lines represent the uncertainty in the prediction.
png pdf	Figure 8-b: Cross section of ${\tilde{\tau}}$ pair production excluded at 95% CL as a function of the ${\tilde{\tau}}$ mass in the degenerate ${\tilde{\tau}}$ scenario for a ${\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ mass of 10 GeV. The results shown are for the statistical combination of the 2016 and 2017 datasets for the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h} {\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ and ${\ell {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}}$ analyses. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The red line indicates the NLO+NLL prediction for the signal production cross section calculated with Resummino [35], while the red dashed lines represent the uncertainty in the prediction.
png pdf	Figure 8-c: Cross section of ${\tilde{\tau}}$ pair production excluded at 95% CL as a function of the ${\tilde{\tau}}$ mass in the degenerate ${\tilde{\tau}}$ scenario for a ${\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ mass of 20 GeV. The results shown are for the statistical combination of the 2016 and 2017 datasets for the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h} {\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ and ${\ell {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}}$ analyses. The inner (green) band and the outer (yellow) band indicate the regions containing 68 and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis. The red line indicates the NLO+NLL prediction for the signal production cross section calculated with Resummino [35], while the red dashed lines represent the uncertainty in the prediction.

Tables
png pdf	Table 1: Ranges of ${m_{\mathrm {T2}}}$ , ${\Sigma {m_{\mathrm {T}}}}$ , and ${N_{\text {j}}}$ used to define the search regions used in the ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h} {\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ analysis.
png pdf	Table 2: Systematic uncertainties in the analysis for the different SM background predictions and for a representative signal model, corresponding to a left-handed ${\tilde{\tau}}$ , with $m({\tilde{\tau}}) =$ 100 GeV, $m({\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}) =$ 1 GeV. The uncertainty values are relative to the corresponding event yields in different search regions and are listed as percentages.
png pdf	Table 3: Predicted background yields and observed event counts in all ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h} {\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ SRs, corresponding to 35.9 fb $^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016. For the background estimates with no events in the sideband or the simulated sample, the 68% statistical upper limit is taken. The uncertainties listed in quadrature are statistical and systematic respectively. We also list the predicted signal yields corresponding to the purely left-handed scenario for a ${\tilde{\tau}}$ mass of 100 GeV and a ${\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ mass of 1 GeV.
png pdf	Table 4: Predicted background yields and observed event counts in all ${{\tau} _\mathrm {h} {\tau} _\mathrm {h}}$ SRs, corresponding to 41.3 fb $^{-1}$ of data collected in 2017. For the background estimates with no events in the sideband or the simulated sample, the 68% statistical upper limit is taken. The uncertainties listed in quadrature are statistical and systematic respectively. We also list the predicted signal yields corresponding to the purely left-handed scenario for a ${\tilde{\tau}}$ mass of 100 GeV and a ${\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ mass of 1 GeV.
png pdf	Table 5: Predicted background yields and observed event counts in the most sensitive last bins of the BDT distributions for each training, for the {\mathrm {e} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}} and ${\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}}$ final states, corresponding to 36.9 fb $^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016. The numbers in parentheses in the first row indicate the ${\tilde{\tau}}$ and ${\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ masses corresponding to the signal model of left-handed ${\tilde{\tau}}$ pair production used to train each BDT. In the last row, we list the predicted signal yields in the last bin of the BDT distribution for the same model.
png pdf	Table 6: Predicted background yields and observed event counts in the most sensitive last bins of the BDT distributions for each training, for the ${\mathrm {e} {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}}$ and ${\mu {{\tau} _\mathrm {h}}}$ final states, corresponding to 41.3 fb $^{-1}$ of data collected in 2017. The numbers in parentheses in the first row indicate the ${\tilde{\tau}}$ and ${\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ masses corresponding to the signal model of left-handed ${\tilde{\tau}}$ pair production used to train each BDT. In the last row, we list the predicted signal yields in the last bin of the BDT distribution for the same model.

Summary

References
1	P. Ramond	Dual theory for free fermions	PRD 3 (1971) 2415
2	Y. A. Gol'fand and E. P. Likhtman	Extension of the algebra of Poincar $\'e$ group generators and violation of P invariance	JEPTL 13 (1971)323
3	A. Neveu and J. H. Schwarz	Factorizable dual model of pions	NPB 31 (1971) 86
4	D. V. Volkov and V. P. Akulov	Possible universal neutrino interaction	JEPTL 16 (1972)438
5	J. Wess and B. Zumino	A Lagrangian model invariant under supergauge transformations	PLB 49 (1974) 52
6	J. Wess and B. Zumino	Supergauge transformations in four dimensions	NPB 70 (1974) 39
7	P. Fayet	Supergauge invariant extension of the Higgs mechanism and a model for the electron and its neutrino	NPB 90 (1975) 104
8	H. P. Nilles	Supersymmetry, supergravity and particle physics	Phys. Rep. 110 (1984) 1
9	G. 't Hooft	Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking	NATO Sci. Ser. B 59 (1980)135
10	E. Witten	Dynamical breaking of supersymmetry	NPB 188 (1981) 513
11	M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki	Supersymmetric technicolor	NPB 189 (1981) 575
12	S. Dimopoulos and S. Raby	Supercolor	NPB 192 (1981) 353
13	S. Dimopoulos and H. Georgi	Softly broken supersymmetry and SU(5)	NPB 193 (1981) 150
14	R. K. Kaul and P. Majumdar	Cancellation of quadratically divergent mass corrections in globally supersymmetric spontaneously broken gauge theories	NPB 199 (1982) 36
15	C. Boehm, A. Djouadi, and M. Drees	Light scalar top quarks and supersymmetric dark matter	PRD 62 (2000) 035012	hep-ph/9911496
16	C. Bal\'azs, M. Carena, and C. E. M. Wagner	Dark matter, light stops and electroweak baryogenesis	PRD 70 (2004) 015007	hep-ph/403224
17	G. R. Farrar and P. Fayet	Phenomenology of the production, decay, and detection of new hadronic states associated with supersymmetry	PLB 76 (1978) 575
18	G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, and K. Griest	Supersymmetric dark matter	PR 267 (1996) 195	hep-ph/9506380
19	G. Hinshaw et al.	Nine-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: cosmological parameter results	Astrophys. J. Suppl. 208 (2013) 19	1212.5226
20	K. Griest and D. Seckel	Three exceptions in the calculation of relic abundances	PRD 43 (1991) 3191
21	D. A. Vasquez, G. Belanger, and C. Boehm	Revisiting light neutralino scenarios in the MSSM	PRD 84 (2011) 095015	1108.1338
22	S. F. King, J. P. Roberts, and D. P. Roy	Natural dark matter in SUSY GUTs with non-universal gaugino masses	JHEP 10 (2007) 106	0705.4219
23	M. Battaglia et al.	Proposed post-LEP benchmarks for supersymmetry	EPJC 22 (2001) 535	hep-ph/0106204
24	R. L. Arnowitt et al.	Determining the dark matter relic density in the minimal supergravity stau-neutralino coannihilation region at the Large Hadron Collider	PRL 100 (2008) 231802	0802.2968
25	G. Belanger, S. Biswas, C. Boehm, and B. Mukhopadhyaya	Light Neutralino Dark Matter in the MSSM and Its Implication for LHC Searches for Staus	JHEP 12 (2012) 076	1206.5404
26	E. Arganda, V. Martin-Lozano, A. D. Medina, and N. Mileo	Potential discovery of staus through heavy Higgs boson decays at the LHC	JHEP 09 (2018) 056	1804.10698
27	J. Alwall, P. Schuster, and N. Toro	Simplified models for a first characterization of new physics at the LHC	PRD 79 (2009) 075020
28	J. Alwall, M.-P. Le, M. Lisanti, and J. Wacker	Model-independent jets plus missing energy searches	PRD 79 (2009) 015005
29	LHC New Physics Working Group	Simplified models for LHC new physics searches	JPG 39 (2012) 105005	1105.2838
30	LEP SUSY Working Group (ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL)	Combined LEP selectron/smuon/stau results, 183-208 GeV	LEPSUSYWG/04-01.1
31	ATLAS Collaboration	Search for the direct production of charginos, neutralinos and staus in final states with at least two hadronically decaying taus and missing transverse momentum in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector	JHEP 10 (2014) 96	1407.0350
32	ATLAS Collaboration	Search for the electroweak production of supersymmetric particles in $\sqrt{s} =$ 8 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector	PRD 93 (2016) 052002	1509.07152
33	CMS Collaboration	Search for electroweak production of charginos in final states with two tau leptons in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 8 TeV	JHEP 04 (2017) 018	CMS-SUS-14-022 1610.04870
34	CMS Collaboration	Search for supersymmetry in events with a $\tau$ lepton pair and missing transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV	JHEP 11 (2018) 151	CMS-SUS-17-003 1807.02048
35	B. Fuks, M. Klasen, D. R. Lamprea, and M. Rothering	Revisiting slepton pair production at the Large Hadron Collider	JHEP 01 (2014) 168	1310.2621
36	CMS Collaboration	Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector	JINST 12 (2017) P10003	CMS-PRF-14-001 1706.04965
37	CMS Collaboration	Performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV using the CMS detector		CMS-JME-17-001 1903.06078
38	M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez	The anti- ${k_{\mathrm{T}}}$ jet clustering algorithm	JHEP 04 (2008) 063	0802.1189
39	M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez	FastJet user manual	EPJC 72 (2012) 1896	1111.6097
40	CMS Collaboration	Study of pileup removal algorithms for jets	CMS-PAS-JME-14-001	CMS-PAS-JME-14-001
41	CMS Collaboration	Identification of b-quark jets with the CMS experiment	JINST 8 (2013) P04013	CMS-BTV-12-001 1211.4462
42	CMS Collaboration	Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV	JINST 13 (2018) P05011	CMS-BTV-16-002 1712.07158
43	CMS Collaboration	Performance of electron reconstruction and selection with the CMS detector in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 8 TeV	JINST 10 (2015) P06005	CMS-EGM-13-001 1502.02701
44	CMS Collaboration	Performance of the CMS muon detector and muon reconstruction with proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV	JINST 13 (2018) P06015	CMS-MUO-16-001 1804.04528
45	CMS Collaboration	Performance of reconstruction and identification of $\tau$ leptons decaying to hadrons and $\nu_\tau$ in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV	JINST 13 (2018), no. 10, P10005	CMS-TAU-16-003 1809.02816
46	J. Alwall et al.	The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations	JHEP 07 (2014) 079	1405.0301
47	P. Nason	A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms	JHEP 11 (2004) 040	hep-ph/0409146
48	S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari	Matching NLO QCD computations with Parton Shower simulations: the POWHEG method	JHEP 11 (2007) 070	0709.2092
49	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
50	E. Re	Single-top $Wt$ -channel production matched with parton showers using the POWHEG method	EPJC 71 (2011) 1547	1009.2450
51	T. Sjostrand et al.	An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2	CPC 191 (2015) 159	1410.3012
52	GEANT4 Collaboration	GEANT4 --- a simulation toolkit	NIMA 506 (2003) 250
53	A. Kalogeropoulos and J. Alwall	The SysCalc code: A tool to derive theoretical systematic uncertainties		1801.08401
54	NNPDF Collaboration	Parton distributions for the LHC Run II	JHEP 04 (2015) 040	1410.8849
55	CMS Collaboration	Search for top-squark pair production in the single-lepton final state in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 8 TeV	EPJC 73 (2013) 2677	CMS-SUS-13-011 1308.1586
56	C. G. Lester and D. J. Summers	Measuring masses of semiinvisibly decaying particles pair produced at hadron colliders	PLB 463 (1999) 99	hep-ph/9906349
57	A. Barr, C. Lester, and P. Stephens	$m_{\mathrm{T2}}$ : the truth behind the glamour	JPG 29 (2003) 2343	hep-ph/0304226
58	C. G. Lester and B. Nachman	Bisection-based asymmetric M $_{T2}$ computation: a higher precision calculator than existing symmetric methods	JHEP 03 (2015) 100	1411.4312
59	D. Tovey	On measuring the masses of pair-produced semi-invisibly decaying particles at hadron colliders	JHEP 04 (2008) 034	0802.2879
60	G. Polesello and D. Tovey	Supersymmetric particle mass measurement with boost-corrected contransverse mass	JHEP 03 (2010) 030	0910.0174
61	C. Cuenca Almenar	Search for the neutral MSSM Higgs bosons in the ditau decay channels at CDF Run II	PhD thesis, Valencia U., IFIC
62	CMS Collaboration	Search for neutral MSSM Higgs bosons decaying to a pair of tau leptons in pp collisions	JHEP 10 (2014) 160	CMS-HIG-13-021 1408.3316
63	CMS Collaboration	Measurement of the differential Drell-Yan cross section in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV	Submitted to: JHEP (2018)	CMS-SMP-17-001 1812.10529
64	CMS Collaboration	Measurements of $\mathrm{t\overline{t}}$ differential cross sections in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV using events containing two leptons	Submitted to: JHEP (2018)	CMS-TOP-17-014 1811.06625
65	CMS Collaboration	Measurement of the WW cross section pp collisions at sqrt(s)=13 TeV	CMS-PAS-SMP-16-006	CMS-PAS-SMP-16-006
66	CMS Collaboration	CMS luminosity measurements for the 2016 data taking period	CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001	CMS-PAS-LUM-17-001
67	CMS Collaboration	CMS luminosity measurement for the 2017 data-taking period at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV	CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004	CMS-PAS-LUM-17-004
68	CMS Collaboration	Interpretation of searches for supersymmetry with simplified models	PRD 88 (2013) 052017	CMS-SUS-11-016 1301.2175
69	T. Junk	Confidence level computation for combining searches with small statistics	NIMA 434 (1999) 435	hep-ex/9902006
70	A. L. Read	Presentation of search results: the $\text{CL}_\text{s}$ technique	JPG 28 (2002) 2693
71	The ATLAS Collaboration, The CMS Collaboration, The LHC Higgs Combination Group	Procedure for the LHC Higgs boson search combination in Summer 2011	CMS-NOTE-2011-005
72	G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells	Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics	EPJC 71 (2011) 1554	1007.1727