Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 106 references

This search excludes long-lived stau masses between 90 and 425 GeV (mass-degenerate scenario) at 95% confidence, using a graph neural network to spot tau leptons decaying far from the proton-proton collision point.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 08:14 UTC pith:2B5W2KYZ

load-bearing objection A clean, internally consistent CMS exclusion that extends long-lived stau limits with a new GNN tagger; the displaced-tau efficiency is the one soft spot, but it is disclosed and not severe enough to sink the central claim. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2601.17576 v2 pith:2B5W2KYZ submitted 2026-01-24 hep-ex

Search for the pair production of long-lived supersymmetric partners of the tau lepton in proton-proton collisions at sqrt{s} = 13 TeV

CMS Collaboration This is my paper
classification hep-ex
keywords long-lived staudisplaced tau leptongraph neural networksupersymmetrygauge-mediated SUSY breakingCMS13 TeV proton-proton collisionsparticle search limits
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper aims to settle whether pair-produced long-lived staus—the supersymmetric partners of the tau lepton—decay into visibly displaced tau leptons inside the CMS tracker. Using 138 fb^-1 of 13 TeV data and, for the first time, a dedicated graph neural network to identify hadronic taus that originate away from the collision vertex, the search observes no excess over the standard-model background. At 95% confidence it excludes stau masses of 126–260 GeV (maximally mixed scenario) and 90–425 GeV (mass-degenerate scenario) for a proper decay length of 50 mm, and for a 200 GeV stau it excludes proper decay lengths of 21–94 mm and 6–333 mm in the two scenarios. A sympathetic reader would take this as strong evidence that long-lived staus in this mass-lifetime window are not produced at the rate predicted by simplified gauge-mediated supersymmetry-breaking models, and as a demonstration that machine-learning identification of displaced hadronic taus can substantially extend LHC sensitivity to long-lived particles.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is an exclusion: using a fully data-driven background estimate, the observed signal region agrees with the standard model, and 95% CL limits rule out stau masses of 126–260 GeV (maximally mixed) and 90–425 GeV (mass-degenerate) at a proper decay length of 50 mm, as well as proper decay lengths of 21–94 and 6–333 mm for a 200 GeV stau. This is achieved with DISTAU, a graph neural network that identifies hadronic tau decays displaced from the primary vertex—the first dedicated displaced-tau tagger used in an LHC search.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is DISTAU, a graph neural network based on a point-cloud architecture that scores jets by how well they match a hadronic tau decay originating away from the primary vertex, using per-particle features such as track impact parameters. The analysis also uses a binomial decomposition of events with zero, one, or two jets passing the tight tag (T0/T1/T2): the per-jet misidentification probability f, measured in W+jets control data as a function of jet pT and |dxy|, predicts the signal-region yield from the T0 and T1 counts via Equations 4–8.

Load-bearing premise

The background prediction assumes that the jet misidentification probability measured in the W+jets control region, corrected by a simulation-based flavor-composition factor of about 10%, also holds for the signal region, and that the DISTAU efficiency measured using prompt taus applies unchanged to displaced taus regardless of decay distance.

What would settle it

A single concrete test: repeat the measurement of f in the Drell-Yan control region after applying the same flavor correction; if the corrected f differs from the W+jets value by more than the 10% systematic envelope, the predicted background changes by more than its quoted uncertainty. The already-reported T1-region closure agrees, so a sharper falsifier is the 2022–2025 dataset: an excess in the signal-region bins with mT2 above 100 GeV would overturn the exclusion.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If correct, this rules out the considered simplified GMSB models in the excluded (m_stau, c_tau0) window, meaning any surviving stau scenario in that region must have a much smaller production cross section or a different decay length.
  • The DISTAU tagger provides a reusable tool for any LHC search with displaced hadronic taus, e.g., from heavy neutral leptons or exotic Higgs decays, and the data-driven background method can be transferred to other di-object displaced searches.
  • The exclusion improves on earlier long-lived stau searches in this lifetime range and is complementary to searches at very short (< 2.5 mm) and very long (> 900 mm) lifetimes, together covering a broader slice of GMSB parameter space.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The tagger was calibrated on prompt taus; if its efficiency falls off with decay distance more steeply than simulated, the deep end of the excluded lifetime range (hundreds of mm) is where the limit would be most susceptible to revision—a dedicated d_xy-dependent efficiency measurement would settle this.
  • The same architecture should transfer to displaced hadronic jets without tau content; retraining on generic displaced jets could extend this style of search to a wide class of long-lived particles that decay hadronically.
  • The result is a bound on a simplified model; a real GMSB spectrum with a heavier gravitino or with stau pair production via chargino/neutralino decays would shift the production rate, so the numerical exclusions should not be read as a universal stau limit.
  • As more Run 3 data accumulate, the event categories with mT2 > 100 GeV should be watched first: a handful of events there would directly test the exclusion and the mT2 endpoint interpretation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents a search for direct pair production of long-lived staus (τ~) decaying to a tau lepton and a nearly massless gravitino in CMS data corresponding to 138 fb^-1 at √s=13 TeV. The final state is two hadronically decaying tau leptons, identified with a new graph-neural-network tagger (DISTAU) designed for displaced topologies. The dominant background from jets misidentified as displaced taus is estimated from data using a misidentification probability measured in W+jets and DY control regions, applied through a T0/T1/T2 decomposition, and validated in a dedicated BRT1 region. No excess is observed; 95% CL exclusion limits are set in the (m_τ~, cτ0) plane for maximally mixed and mass-degenerate scenarios, e.g., excluding m_τ~ in the ranges 126–260 GeV and 90–425 GeV at cτ0=50 mm, and excluding cτ0 in 21–94 mm and 6–333 mm at m_τ~=200 GeV. The results improve previous limits by factors up to about 5.7.

Significance. If correct, the result significantly extends the excluded parameter space for gauge-mediated SUSY-breaking scenarios with long-lived staus, and it is the first LHC search to use a dedicated GNN-based displaced-tau identification algorithm. The analysis is methodologically strong: the background is estimated from data rather than simulation, control-region cross-checks are provided, a full systematic-uncertainty budget is reported, and tabulated results are made available via HEPData. The main caveat is the calibration of the DISTAU efficiency using prompt taus as a proxy for displaced taus; the paper includes a signal systematic of 17–19% from this source, but the extrapolation to the large impact parameters characteristic of the signal is not directly validated in data.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.2 / Table 3] The DISTAU efficiency scale factor is measured with prompt τ_h probes from Z→ττ in the μτ_h control region. The |d_xy| distribution of these probes is set by the short tau decay length (a few mm), whereas signal events with cτ0=50 mm produce hadronic-tau candidates with |d_xy| of order tens of mm. The text states that no d_xy dependence of the SF is observed, but it does not give the d_xy range over which this was tested. Since the SF uncertainty (0.15 per candidate, propagated to 17–19% event-level uncertainty in Table 3) is a dominant signal systematic for several mass hypotheses, an unmodeled efficiency bias at large d_xy would directly shift the quoted exclusion boundaries. Please quantify the d_xy coverage of the tag-and-probe sample, provide a simulation-based closure test of the SF at large d_xy, or add an additional uncertainty covering the extrapolation and show its effect on th
  2. [Section 7] The correction of 0.7±0.3 applied to the SR for the first 19 fb^-1 of 2016 data is derived from a discrepancy observed in the BRT1 validation region and attributed to APV25 saturation. This is an ad hoc, post-hoc correction, and the statement that it has a negligible effect on the final results is not demonstrated quantitatively. Please show the background prediction and the observed/expected limits with and without this correction, and discuss whether the same correction should apply to the signal efficiency or only to the background. If the effect is indeed negligible, a quantitative demonstration would remove concern; if not, the result depends on a correction whose cause is only 'possibly' identified.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2 / Table 3] The text reports a per-candidate DISTAU scale-factor uncertainty of 0.15, while Table 3 quotes an event-level signal uncertainty of 17–19%. Please clarify how the per-candidate uncertainty is propagated to the two-tau event yield, including the assumed correlation between the two candidates.
  2. [Section 3 / Fig. 7] Section 3 states that signal samples are simulated with cτ0 values up to 600 mm, while the introduction and exclusion plots extend to 1000 mm. Please state explicitly how the limits above 600 mm are obtained (interpolation/extrapolation) and whether this affects the large-cτ0 boundary.
  3. [Section 5 / Eq. (3)] The mT2 definition would benefit from a sentence clarifying that 'vis1' and 'vis2' are the two τ_h^dis candidates and that the invisible particles are assumed massless, even though the gravitino mass is 1 GeV in the model.
  4. [General] There are several typographical inconsistencies in the rendering of stau mass (e.g., 'm eτ', 'm eτ' in the abstract and text). These should be corrected to a consistent math-mode notation. In the Fig. 3 caption, 'DY(μτ_h)' is used before being defined in the text; a brief definition in the caption would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: background is predicted from orthogonal control regions and the DISTAU efficiency is calibrated in data; limits are set by profile-likelihood fits to SR counts.

full rationale

The search chain is not circular. The background estimate (Sec. 6) defines f = n_jet(WPT)/n_jet(WPL) in Eq. (4), measures it in the W+jets control region (cross-checked in the DY control region), and predicts N_T1/N_T2 in the baseline regions via Eqs. (6)-(8); no SR event count enters the measurement of f or the predictions, and the N_T21 vs N_T20 difference is propagated as a systematic uncertainty. The DISTAU efficiency correction (Sec. 4.2) is measured in the mu-tauh control region using a simultaneous invariant-mass fit; this is a data scale-factor applied to simulated signal acceptance, not a fit of the model to the observed SR. The paper itself flags the proxy limitation: 'As there are no truly signal-like tau_dis_h candidates in SM processes, the tau_h in the event serves as a proxy to evaluate the identification efficiency.' This is an extrapolation assumption, not a circular definition: it could bias the SF, but it does not make the exclusion reduce to the fitted inputs. The only self-referential input is Ref. [45] (CMS DP note) for the DISTAU tagger itself; the paper independently measures the per-candidate SF and studies its dxy dependence ('no significant dependence is observed'), so that citation is a tool/calibration reference rather than a load-bearing theorem. The 95% CL exclusions are derived from observed SR yields via a CLs profile-likelihood fit, i.e., from counts compared with the predicted background. Therefore no circular step is present; score 1 reflects only the minor self-citation in the tagger reference, which does not make the derivation circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis does not introduce new particles or forces; the stau and gravitino are pre-existing constructs from the cited SUSY literature. The free parameters listed are data-derived calibration/background quantities, not constants fitted to the signal hypothesis. The axioms are the standard simplified-model and background-extrapolation assumptions that the limits depend on.

free parameters (3)
  • 2016 early-data correction factor = 0.7 ± 0.3
    Applied to the first 19 fb^-1 of 2016 data in the signal region because BRT1 data were observed to be lower than the background prediction by this factor; uncertainty is taken as deviation from unity (Section 7).
  • DISTAU efficiency scale factor (per year) = within 10% of unity; uncertainty 0.15
    Measured with the tag-and-probe method in the mu-tau_h control region and applied to simulated signal (Section 4.2). It is a data-derived calibration, not a first-principles quantity.
  • Jet misidentification probability f (pT, |dxy| bins) = approx. 10-20% in pT bins; 5-10% and 30-40% in |dxy| bins depending on period
    Measured in the W+jets control region and cross-checked in the Drell-Yan control region, then used in Eqs. (4)-(8) to predict the misidentified-jet background in the signal region (Section 6).
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption GMSB simplified model: stau is the NLSP and decays as stau -> tau + gravitino with m_gravitino = 1 GeV and 100% branching ratio.
    Defines the signal model (Section 1, Fig. 1). The exclusion limits are only valid within this simplified-model interpretation.
  • domain assumption R-parity is conserved, so the gravitino LSP is stable and escapes the detector.
    Standard SUSY assumption invoked in Section 1; it makes the gravitino the missing-energy source.
  • domain assumption Stau pair production cross sections are taken from NLO+NLL pQCD calculations (Resummino) with NNPDF PDFs.
    Section 3; converting observed event counts into mass exclusions relies on these theoretical cross sections.
  • domain assumption The DISTAU tagger, trained on simulated displaced-tau jets and QCD jets, generalizes to data after per-year scale factors.
    Section 4.2; since no truly displaced hadronic taus exist in SM data, a prompt-tau proxy is used to measure the efficiency. No significant d_xy dependence is observed.
  • domain assumption Background jets in the signal region have misidentification probabilities related to those measured in W+jets/DY control regions by a simulation-based correction of ~10%.
    Section 6 and Section 7; the method assumes f measured in the WCR applies to the search region after a flavor-composition correction. This is the most fragile external extrapolation.
  • domain assumption The two tau-displaced candidates' misidentification probabilities factorize as in Eqs. (5a)-(5c).
    Section 6; the T0/T1/T2 algebra assumes independent f1 and f2 for the two jets.
  • domain assumption Leptons and genuine tau leptons misidentified as displaced taus contribute negligibly (<0.1 events per bin).
    Section 6; the statement is based on simulation and is used to omit those background sources from the data-driven estimate.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 46434 in / 14241 out tokens · 155603 ms · 2026-08-03T08:14:30.872453+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Gauge-mediated supersymmetry-breaking models provide a strong motivation to search for a supersymmetric partner of the tau lepton (stau) with a macroscopic lifetime. Long-lived stau decays produce tau leptons that are displaced from the primary proton-proton interaction vertex, leading to an unconventional signature. This paper presents a search for the direct production of long-lived staus decaying within the CMS tracker volume in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV, performed for the first time with an identification algorithm based on a graph neural network dedicated to displaced tau leptons. The data sample, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$, was recorded with the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC between 2016 and 2018. This search excludes, at 95% confidence level, stau masses, $m_\tilde{\tau}$, in the 126$-$260 (90$-$425) GeV range for a proper decay length of 50 mm in the maximally mixed (mass-degenerate) scenario, while for $m_\tilde{\tau} $ = 200 GeV, stau proper decay lengths are excluded in the range 21$-$94 (6$-$333) mm. These results improve the exclusion limits compared to previous searches, and extend the parameter space explored in the context of supersymmetry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.17576 by CMS Collaboration.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Diagram of stau pair production in pp collisions at the LHC, and the decay that leads [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Distributions of DISTAU score for signal and background jets. The background jets are taken from simulated tt events where both top quarks decay hadronically, while signal jets are sampled from four representative (mτe [GeV], cτ0 [mm]) hypotheses: (200, 5), (200, 100), (400, 5), and (400, 100). Each distribution is normalized such that its integral is unity. The efficiency of the DISTAU identification algo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Distributions of DISTAU score for τ dis h probes in the µτh CR described in Section 4.2, for data and predicted SM processes, corresponding to the 2018 data-taking period. Here DY(µτh ) represents events from the Z/γ ∗ → ττ process, where one of the tau leptons de￾cays to a muon and the other decays hadronically. Events from other decay modes of Z/γ ∗ are denoted as DY(other). Processes denoted as “Top qua… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distributions of the variables used to define the signal region for data and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Observed and predicted event yields in the eight BRT1 bins, as defined in Table 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Observed and predicted event yields in the eight SR bins as defined in Table 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Exclusion limits at 95% CL for the pair production of long-lived staus decaying to a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Cross section upper limits at 95% CL for the pair production of long-lived staus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Cross section upper limits at 95% CL for the pair production of long-lived staus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Dual theory for free fermions

    P . Ramond, “Dual theory for free fermions”,Phys. Rev. D3(1971) 2415, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.3.2415

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.3.2415 1971

  2. [2]

    Extension of the algebra of Poincar´e group generators and violation of p invariance

    Yu. A. Golfand and E. P . Likhtman, “Extension of the algebra of Poincar´e group generators and violation of p invariance”,JETP Lett.13(1971) 323, doi:10.1142/9789814542340_0001

    doi:10.1142/9789814542340_0001 1971

  3. [3]

    Factorizable dual model of pions

    A. Neveu and J. H. Schwarz, “Factorizable dual model of pions”,Nucl. Phys. B31 (1971) 86,doi:10.1016/0550-3213(71)90448-2

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(71)90448-2 1971

  4. [4]

    Possible universal neutrino interaction

    D. V . Volkov and V . P . Akulov, “Possible universal neutrino interaction”,JETP Lett.16 (1972) 438

    1972

  5. [5]

    A Lagrangian model invariant under supergauge transformations

    J. Wess and B. Zumino, “A Lagrangian model invariant under supergauge transformations”,Phys. Lett. B49(1974) 52, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(74)90578-4

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(74)90578-4 1974

  6. [6]

    Supergauge transformations in four dimensions

    J. Wess and B. Zumino, “Supergauge transformations in four dimensions”,Nucl. Phys. B 70(1974) 39,doi:10.1016/0550-3213(74)90355-1. 22

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(74)90355-1 1974

  7. [7]

    Supergauge invariant extension of the Higgs mechanism and a model for the electron and its neutrino

    P . Fayet, “Supergauge invariant extension of the Higgs mechanism and a model for the electron and its neutrino”,Nucl. Phys. B90(1975) 104, doi:10.1016/0550-3213(75)90636-7

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(75)90636-7 1975

  8. [8]

    Supersymmetry, supergravity and particle physics

    H. P . Nilles, “Supersymmetry, supergravity and particle physics”,Phys. Rept.110(1984) 1,doi:10.1016/0370-1573(84)90008-5

    doi:10.1016/0370-1573(84)90008-5 1984

  9. [9]

    Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking

    G. ’t Hooft, “Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking”,NATO Sci. Ser. B59(1980) 135,doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-7571-5_9

    doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-7571-5_9 1980

  10. [10]

    Dynamical breaking of supersymmetry

    E. Witten, “Dynamical breaking of supersymmetry”,Nucl. Phys. B188(1981) 513, doi:10.1016/0550-3213(81)90006-7

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(81)90006-7 1981

  11. [11]

    Supersymmetric technicolor

    M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki, “Supersymmetric technicolor”,Nucl. Phys. B 189(1981) 575,doi:10.1016/0550-3213(81)90582-4

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(81)90582-4 1981

  12. [12]

    Supercolor

    S. Dimopoulos and S. Raby, “Supercolor”,Nucl. Phys. B192(1981) 353, doi:10.1016/0550-3213(81)90430-2

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(81)90430-2 1981

  13. [13]

    Softly broken supersymmetry and SU(5)

    S. Dimopoulos and H. Georgi, “Softly broken supersymmetry and SU(5)”,Nucl. Phys. B 193(1981) 150,doi:10.1016/0550-3213(81)90522-8

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(81)90522-8 1981

  14. [14]

    Cancellation of quadratically divergent mass corrections in globally supersymmetric spontaneously broken gauge theories

    R. K. Kaul and P . Majumdar, “Cancellation of quadratically divergent mass corrections in globally supersymmetric spontaneously broken gauge theories”,Nucl. Phys. B199 (1982) 36,doi:10.1016/0550-3213(82)90565-X

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(82)90565-x 1982

  15. [15]

    Observation of a new particle in the search for the standard model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Observation of a new particle in the search for the standard model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC”,Phys. Lett. B716(2012) 1, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.020,arXiv:1207.7214

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  16. [16]

    Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC

    CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC”,Phys. Lett. B716(2012) 30, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2012.08.021,arXiv:1207.7235

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  17. [17]

    Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in ppcollisions at √s= 7 and 8 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson with mass near 125 GeV in ppcollisions at √s= 7 and 8 TeV”,JHEP06(2013) 081, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2013)081,arXiv:1303.4571

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  18. [18]

    Measurement of the Higgs boson mass from the H→γγand H→ZZ ∗ →4ℓchannels with the ATLAS detector using 25 fb −1 ofppcollision data

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Measurement of the Higgs boson mass from the H→γγand H→ZZ ∗ →4ℓchannels with the ATLAS detector using 25 fb −1 ofppcollision data”, Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 052004,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.052004, arXiv:1406.3827

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  19. [19]

    Precise determination of the mass of the higgs boson and tests of compatibility of its couplings with the standard model predictions using proton collisions at 7 and 8 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Precise determination of the mass of the higgs boson and tests of compatibility of its couplings with the standard model predictions using proton collisions at 7 and 8 TeV”,Eur. Phys. J. C75(2015) 212, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3351-7,arXiv:1412.8662

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  20. [20]

    Combined measurement of the Higgs boson mass in pp collisions at √s=7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS and CMS experiments

    ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, “Combined measurement of the Higgs boson mass in pp collisions at √s=7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS and CMS experiments”,Phys. Rev. Lett.114(2015) 191803,doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.191803, arXiv:1503.07589. References 23

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  21. [21]

    Phenomenology of the production, decay, and detection of new hadronic states associated with supersymmetry

    G. R. Farrar and P . Fayet, “Phenomenology of the production, decay, and detection of new hadronic states associated with supersymmetry”,Phys. Lett. B76(1978) 575, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(78)90858-4

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(78)90858-4 1978

  22. [22]

    Light scalar top quarks and supersymmetric dark matter

    C. Boehm, A. Djouadi, and M. Drees, “Light scalar top quarks and supersymmetric dark matter”,Phys. Rev. D62(2000) 035012,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.035012, arXiv:hep-ph/9911496

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  23. [23]

    Dark matter, light stops and electroweak baryogenesis

    C. Bal ´azs, M. Carena, and C. E. M. Wagner, “Dark matter, light stops and electroweak baryogenesis”,Phys. Rev. D70(2004) 015007,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.015007, arXiv:hep-ph/403224

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.70.015007 2004

  24. [24]

    Supersymmetric dark matter

    G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, and K. Griest, “Supersymmetric dark matter”,Phys. Rept.267(1996) 195,doi:10.1016/0370-1573(95)00058-5, arXiv:hep-ph/9506380

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  25. [25]

    Review of particle physics

    Particle Data Group, S. Navas et al., “Review of particle physics”,Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 030001,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.030001

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.030001 2024

  26. [26]

    Theories with gauge mediated supersymmetry breaking

    G. F. Giudice and R. Rattazzi, “Theories with gauge mediated supersymmetry breaking”,Phys. Rept.322(1999) 419,doi:10.1016/S0370-1573(99)00042-3, arXiv:hep-ph/9801271

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  27. [27]

    General gauge mediation

    P . Meade, N. Seiberg, and D. Shih, “General gauge mediation”,Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 177(2009) 143,doi:10.1143/PTPS.177.143,arXiv:0801.3278

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  28. [28]

    Long-lived staus and displaced leptons at the LHC

    J. A. Evans and J. Shelton, “Long-lived staus and displaced leptons at the LHC”,JHEP 04(2016) 056,doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2016)056,arXiv:1601.01326

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  29. [29]

    Search for scalar leptons ine +e− collisions at center-of-mass energies up to 209 GeV

    ALEPH Collaboration, “Search for scalar leptons ine +e− collisions at center-of-mass energies up to 209 GeV”,Phys. Lett. B526(2002) 206, doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(01)01494-0,arXiv:hep-ex/0112011

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  30. [30]

    Searches for supersymmetric particles ine +e− collisions up to 208 GeV and interpretation of the results within the MSSM

    DELPHI Collaboration, “Searches for supersymmetric particles ine +e− collisions up to 208 GeV and interpretation of the results within the MSSM”,Eur. Phys. J. C31(2003) 421,doi:10.1140/epjc/s2003-01355-5,arXiv:hep-ex/0311019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  31. [31]

    Search for scalar leptons and scalar quarks at LEP

    L3 Collaboration, “Search for scalar leptons and scalar quarks at LEP”,Phys. Lett. B580 (2004) 37,doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2003.10.010,arXiv:hep-ex/0310007

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  32. [32]

    Search for anomalous production of dilepton events with missing transverse momentum in e+ e- collisions at √s=183–209 GeV

    OPAL Collaboration, “Search for anomalous production of dilepton events with missing transverse momentum in e+ e- collisions at √s=183–209 GeV”,Eur. Phys. J. C32 (2004) 453,doi:10.1140/epjc/s2003-01466-y,arXiv:hep-ex/0309014

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  33. [33]

    Search for direct stau production in events with two hadronic τ-leptons in √s=13 TeVppcollisions with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for direct stau production in events with two hadronic τ-leptons in √s=13 TeVppcollisions with the ATLAS detector”,Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) 032009,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.032009,arXiv:1911.06660

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    Search for direct pair production of supersymmetric partners to theτlepton in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for direct pair production of supersymmetric partners to theτlepton in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 189, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7739-7,arXiv:1907.13179

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  35. [35]

    Search for displaced leptons in √s=13 TeVppcollisions with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for displaced leptons in √s=13 TeVppcollisions with the ATLAS detector”,Phys. Rev. Lett.127(2021) 051802, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.051802,arXiv:2011.07812. 24

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for direct pair production of supersymmetric partners ofτ leptons in the final state with two hadronically decayingτleptons and missing transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at √s= 13 TeV”,Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) 012011,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.012011,arXiv:2207.02254

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  37. [37]

    Search for long-lived particles decaying to leptons with large impact parameter in proton–proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for long-lived particles decaying to leptons with large impact parameter in proton–proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022) 153,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10027-3,arXiv:2110.04809

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  38. [38]

    Search for electroweak production of supersymmetric particles in final states with twoτ-leptons in √s= 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for electroweak production of supersymmetric particles in final states with twoτ-leptons in √s= 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector”, JHEP05(2024) 150,doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2024)150,arXiv:2402.00603

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    Search for long-lived charged particles using large specific ionisation loss and time of flight in 140 fb−1 of pp collisions at √s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for long-lived charged particles using large specific ionisation loss and time of flight in 140 fb−1 of pp collisions at √s= 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,JHEP07(2025) 140,doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2025)140, arXiv:2502.06694

    arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    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 inppcollisions at √s= 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector”,JHEP10(2014) 096,doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2014)096,arXiv:1407.0350

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  41. [41]

    Search for the electroweak production of supersymmetric particles in √s=8 TeVppcollisions with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, “Search for the electroweak production of supersymmetric particles in √s=8 TeVppcollisions with the ATLAS detector”,Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 052002,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.052002,arXiv:1509.07152

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  42. [42]

    Search for electroweak production of charginos in final states with twoτleptons in pp collisions at √s=8 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Search for electroweak production of charginos in final states with twoτleptons in pp collisions at √s=8 TeV”,JHEP04(2017) 018, doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2017)018,arXiv:1610.04870

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  43. [43]

    Performance of reconstruction and identification ofτleptons decaying to hadrons and vτ in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of reconstruction and identification ofτleptons decaying to hadrons and vτ in pp collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JINST13(2018) P10005, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/10/p10005,arXiv:1809.02816

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  44. [44]

    Identification of hadronic tau lepton decays using a deep neural network

    CMS Collaboration, “Identification of hadronic tau lepton decays using a deep neural network”,JINST17(2022) P07023,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/17/07/P07023, arXiv:2201.08458

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  45. [45]

    Tau lepton identification in displaced topologies using machine learning at CMS

    CMS Collaboration, “Tau lepton identification in displaced topologies using machine learning at CMS”, CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2024-053, 2024

    2024

  46. [46]

    Simplified models for a first characterization of new physics at the LHC

    J. Alwall, P . Schuster, and N. Toro, “Simplified models for a first characterization of new physics at the LHC”,Phys. Rev. D79(2009) 075020, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.075020,arXiv:0810.3921

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  47. [47]

    Simplified models for LHC new physics searches

    LHC New Physics Working Group, “Simplified models for LHC new physics searches”, J. Phys. G39(2012) 105005,doi:10.1088/0954-3899/39/10/105005, arXiv:1105.2838

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  48. [48]

    Jet tagging via particle clouds

    H. Qu and L. Gouskos, “Jet tagging via particle clouds”,Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 056019, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.056019,arXiv:1902.08570

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  49. [49]

    References 25

    HEPData record for this analysis, 2025.doi:10.17182/hepdata.166010. References 25

    work page doi:10.17182/hepdata.166010 2025

  50. [50]

    The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC

    CMS Collaboration, “The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC”,JINST3(2008) S08004, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004

    doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/s08004 2008

  51. [51]

    Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC Run 3

    CMS Collaboration, “Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC Run 3”, JINST19(2024) P05064,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/05/P05064, arXiv:2309.05466

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    Performance of the CMS level-1 trigger in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS level-1 trigger in proton-proton collisions at √s=13 TeV”,JINST15(2020) P10017, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/10/P10017,arXiv:2006.10165

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  53. [53]

    The CMS trigger system

    CMS Collaboration, “The CMS trigger system”,JINST12(2017) P01020, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/01/P01020,arXiv:1609.02366

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  54. [54]

    Performance of the CMS high-level trigger during LHC Run 2

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance of the CMS high-level trigger during LHC Run 2”, JINST19(2024) P11021,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/11/P11021, arXiv:2410.17038

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations

    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”,JHEP07 (2014) 079,doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2014)079,arXiv:1405.0301

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  56. [56]

    Parton distributions for the LHC Run II

    NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions for the LHC Run II”,JHEP04(2015) 040, doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2015)040,arXiv:1410.8849

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  57. [57]

    Parton distributions from high-precision collider data

    NNPDF Collaboration, “Parton distributions from high-precision collider data”,Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 663,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5199-5, arXiv:1706.00428

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  58. [58]

    Revisiting slepton pair production at the Large Hadron Collider

    B. Fuks, M. Klasen, D. R. Lamprea, and M. Rothering, “Revisiting slepton pair production at the Large Hadron Collider”,JHEP01(2014) 168, doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2014)168,arXiv:1310.2621

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  59. [59]

    Precision predictions for electroweak superpartner production at hadron colliders with Resummino

    B. Fuks, M. Klasen, D. R. Lamprea, and M. Rothering, “Precision predictions for electroweak superpartner production at hadron colliders with Resummino”,Eur. Phys. J. C73(2013) 2480,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2480-0,arXiv:1304.0790

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  60. [60]

    Electroweak superpartner production at 13.6 Tev with Resummino

    J. Fiaschi, B. Fuks, M. Klasen, and A. Neuwirth, “Electroweak superpartner production at 13.6 Tev with Resummino”,Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 707, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11888-y,arXiv:2304.11915

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  61. [61]

    Slepton pair production at the LHC in NLO+NLL with resummation-improved parton densities

    J. Fiaschi and M. Klasen, “Slepton pair production at the LHC in NLO+NLL with resummation-improved parton densities”,JHEP03(2018) 094, doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2018)094,arXiv:1801.10357

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  62. [62]

    Joint resummation for slepton pair production at hadron colliders

    G. Bozzi, B. Fuks, and M. Klasen, “Joint resummation for slepton pair production at hadron colliders”,Nucl. Phys. B794(2008) 46, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2007.10.021,arXiv:0709.3057

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  63. [63]

    Transverse-momentum resummation for slepton-pair production at the CERN LHC

    G. Bozzi, B. Fuks, and M. Klasen, “Transverse-momentum resummation for slepton-pair production at the CERN LHC”,Phys. Rev. D74(2006) 015001, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.015001,arXiv:hep-ph/0603074

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  64. [64]

    A. P . Neuwirth, “HEPi”, 2024.doi:10.5281/zenodo.8430836. 26

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.8430836 2024

  65. [65]

    The POWHEG-BOX

    C. Oleari, “The POWHEG-BOX”,Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.205-206(2010) 36, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2010.08.016,arXiv:1007.3893

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  66. [66]

    A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms

    P . Nason, “A new method for combining NLO QCD with shower Monte Carlo algorithms”,JHEP11(2004) 040,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/11/040, arXiv:hep-ph/0409146

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  67. [67]

    Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method

    S. Frixione, P . Nason, and C. Oleari, “Matching NLO QCD computations with parton shower simulations: the POWHEG method”,JHEP11(2007) 070, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/11/070,arXiv:0709.2092

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  68. [68]

    A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX

    S. Alioli, P . Nason, C. Oleari, and E. Re, “A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX”,JHEP06(2010) 043,doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2010)043,arXiv:1002.2581

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  69. [69]

    A positive-weight next-to-leading-order Monte Carlo for heavy flavour hadroproduction

    S. Frixione, P . Nason, and G. Ridolfi, “A positive-weight next-to-leading-order Monte Carlo for heavy flavour hadroproduction”,JHEP09(2007) 126, doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/09/126,arXiv:0707.3088

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  70. [70]

    GEANT4 – a simulation toolkit

    GEANT4 Collaboration, “GEANT4 – a simulation toolkit”,Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506 (2003) 250,doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8

    doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(03)01368-8 2003

  71. [71]

    An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2

    T. Sj ¨ostrand et al., “An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2”,Comput. Phys. Commun.191 (2015) 159,doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024,arXiv:1410.3012

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  72. [72]

    Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements

    CMS Collaboration, “Extraction and validation of a new set of CMS PYTHIA8 tunes from underlying-event measurements”,Eur. Phys. J. C80(2020) 4, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7499-4,arXiv:1903.12179

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  73. [73]

    Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector

    CMS Collaboration, “Particle-flow reconstruction and global event description with the CMS detector”,JINST12(2017) P10003,doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/10/P10003, arXiv:1706.04965

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  74. [74]

    Technical proposal for the Phase-II upgrade of the Compact Muon Solenoid

    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

    2015

  75. [75]

    The anti-kT jet clustering algorithm

    M. Cacciari, G. P . Salam, and G. Soyez, “The anti-kT jet clustering algorithm”,JHEP04 (2008) 063,doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063,arXiv:0802.1189

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  76. [76]

    FastJet user manual

    M. Cacciari, G. P . Salam, and G. Soyez, “FastJet user manual”,Eur. Phys. J. C72(2012) 1896,doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-012-1896-2,arXiv:1111.6097

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  77. [77]

    Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Jet energy scale and resolution in the CMS experiment in pp collisions at 8 TeV”,JINST12(2017) P02014, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/12/02/P02014,arXiv:1607.03663

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  78. [78]

    Jet algorithms performance in 13 TeV data

    CMS Collaboration, “Jet algorithms performance in 13 TeV data”, CMS Physics Analysis Summary CMS-PAS-JME-16-003, 2017

    2017

  79. [79]

    Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, “Identification of heavy-flavour jets with the CMS detector in pp collisions at 13 TeV”,JINST13(2018) P05011, doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/05/P05011,arXiv:1712.07158

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  80. [80]

    Performance summary of AK4 jet b tagging with data from proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV with the CMS detector

    CMS Collaboration, “Performance summary of AK4 jet b tagging with data from proton-proton collisions at 13 TeV with the CMS detector”, CMS Detector Performance Note CMS-DP-2023-005, 2023. References 27

    2023

Showing first 80 references.