Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 130 references

Supersymmetry and the collider Dark Matter picture

T0 review · 0 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This review claims that the LHC's Run-2 search program for dark matter, with special focus on supersymmetric candidates, is comprehensive and that none of its searches observed a significant excess.

desk verdict An honest, well-structured status review of LHC dark matter searches as of August 2019; no new science, but accurate, traceable, and worth a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09672 v1 pith:LIJDZF7V submitted 2019-08-26 hep-ex hep-ph

Jeanette Miriam Lorenz This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-exhep-ph
keywords supersymmetrydarkmatterLHCmissingtransversemomentumelectroweakinossimplifiedmodelsdirectdetectioncomplementaritycollidersearches
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This review tries to establish that the dark matter search program at the LHC, with special focus on supersymmetric candidates, now gives a coherent and essentially complete collider picture: searches cover strong production of gluinos and squarks, third-generation squarks, charginos and neutralinos, sleptons, and mediator-based simplified models. The central claim is that none of these searches found a significant excess, so the plotted 95% confidence-level exclusion limits are the current experimental boundary on supersymmetric and mediator dark matter. A sympathetic reader should care because this is the experimental status that any model of weakly interacting dark matter must face, and because the review identifies where the remaining open space is, especially compressed higgsino and wino scenarios. It also argues that the Run-2 dataset has, for the first time, let LHC searches reach into electroweak production channels such as low-energy leptons and disappearing tracks.

What carries the argument

The machinery that carries the argument is the LHC search signature of missing transverse momentum ($E_T^{\text{miss}}$) produced by a stable, weakly interacting lightest supersymmetric particle, paired with decay-specific observables such as the effective mass $m_{\text{eff}}$, transverse mass $m_T$, the $m_{T2}$ variable, RJigsaw scale variables, and object-based $E_T^{\text{miss}}$ significance. Searches are designed and interpreted through simplified models, in which one sparticle pair is produced and decays to the LSP along a specific chain with all other sparticles decoupled; the analysis then defines exclusive signal regions and combines them in a profile likelihood fit to set 95% confidence-level exclusion limits. This combination of a common invisible-particle signature, model grids, and simultaneous fits is what lets the review translate many individual searches into one dark matter picture.

What would settle it

A single 5$\sigma$ excess in any of the signal regions the review compiles, say the 0-lepton multi-jet search, the three-body stop search, or the soft-dilepton compressed-higgsino search, would falsify the claim that none of the searches observed a significant excess, since the specific signal regions, luminosities, and event counts are listed in the cited experimental papers.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is the status summary: after Run-2 data taking at 13 TeV with integrated luminosities reaching about 140 $fb^{{-1}}$, the LHC experiments have conducted a search program for dark matter that is broad enough to be called comprehensive, and none of the searches highlighted in this review observed a statistically significant excess. The consequence is that limits such as gluino masses up to about 2 TeV for a light LSP, squark masses up to about 1.6 TeV, stop exclusion up to about 720 GeV in the three-body decay region, first LHC constraints on staus between 120 and 390 GeV, and chargino limits that go beyond previous collider bounds in compressed higgsino scenarios now stand as the experimental picture. The review stresses that these limits are model-dependent, valid for the specific simplified decay patterns assumed, and that a global MSSM reinterpretation shows no chargino/neutralino mass range is robustly excluded in the full theory.

Load-bearing premise

The whole picture depends on the assumption that the simplified decay patterns used in the searches stand in for the full range of possible supersymmetric dark matter models; the review admits this is imperfect because a full-model fit finds no chargino or neutralino mass range that is robustly excluded.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If no significant excess is real, the remaining supersymmetric dark matter parameter space is pushed toward models with compressed spectra, low-momentum decay products, or long-lived particles.
  • The relic-density-preferred mass ranges for pure higgsino (about 1.1 TeV) and pure wino (about 3 TeV) LSPs are not yet reached by Run-2 searches, so a future higher-energy or higher-luminosity collider would be needed to cover them.
  • Many of the compiled searches used only partial Run-2 data, so applying the full dataset will sharpen the electroweakino and slepton limits before any new collider is built.
  • Collider searches and direct detection are complementary: the LHC is more sensitive than direct detection experiments for low dark matter masses, while direct detection covers higher masses in the same simplified models.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the null picture holds through the full Run-2 dataset, the first LHC dark matter signal is more likely to appear in the currently systematics-limited compressed channels, such as soft two-lepton and disappearing-track signatures, rather than in the well-explored gluino and squark channels.
  • The review's own caveat about simplified models implies that the true exclusion power on the full MSSM is weaker than the individual limit plots suggest; a global fit over all Run-2 searches would quantify how model-dependent the 'comprehensive' coverage really is.
  • The mediator-model comparisons with direct detection assume benchmark couplings; changing the assumed quark and dark matter couplings would shift the relative sensitivity and could change which experiment leads in a given mass range.
  • A testable extension would be to reinterpret the full set of Run-2 searches, including invisible Higgs and Z decays, in a common phenomenological MSSM scan, which would either confirm or soften the conclusion that existing searches cover supersymmetric dark matter.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a review of the LHC collider search programme for dark matter, with emphasis on supersymmetric candidates. It describes the simplified models used by ATLAS and CMS (SUSY simplified models, mediator simplified models, Higgs/Z portals, effective field theory), explains the common event-topology ingredients such as missing transverse momentum, m_eff, m_T, and m_T2, and then highlights a selection of results: strong-production searches for gluinos and squarks, stop and sbottom searches, electroweakino searches (higgsino, wino/bino, slepton), generic jet/V/gamma/H plus missing-ET searches, invisible Higgs decays, and comparisons with direct detection. The central status claim is that the ATLAS/CMS search programme is comprehensive and that none of the reported searches observed a significant excess.

Significance. If the status summary is accurate, the paper is a useful and reliable snapshot of the collider dark matter landscape as of mid-2019. Its strengths are traceability to public ATLAS/CMS papers and notes, explicit discussion of model dependence, and, notably, the GAMBIT caveat in Sec. 4.3.4, which warns that simplified-model limits do not robustly exclude any chargino/neutralino mass range in the full MSSM. The paper also correctly notes in Sec. 9 that pure-higgsino and pure-wino LSPs at the relic-density-preferred masses and long-lived-particle scenarios are not yet covered. Because these limitations are stated rather than hidden, the review does not overclaim, and its value as a citable overview is real.

minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains a typo: 'which existence' should read 'whose existence'. In addition, 'WIMPS' in Section 1 should be 'WIMPs'.
  2. [§2.1] The relic-density constraint list is garbled: 'or 2 m(LSP)∼ m(h)' should presumably read 'or m(LSP) ∼ m(h)' without the stray '2'. Please also re-check the numeration of the list.
  3. [§3 / Fig. 3] The caption and figure panel for Fig. 3 include placeholder sub-captions such as 'Figure 1: Diagram 1' and 'Figure 2: Diagram 2' that appear to be remnants from another document; the final figure should be cleaned.
  4. [§4.3.2] When describing the RJigsaw analysis, the text says 'the excess could not be confirmed'; since multiple 3σ deviations were mentioned, it should read 'these excesses' or 'none of the excesses' for grammatical accuracy.
  5. [§7] The invisible-Higgs limit should be typeset as B(H → invisible) < 0.19 rather than the inline 'BH→invisible'.
  6. [§9] To avoid ambiguity in the concluding claim 'None of these searches observed a significant excess', please add an explicit sentence noting that the local 3σ excesses discussed in §4.3.2 are below the usual 5σ significance criterion and were not confirmed in the full dataset.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the review reports external experimental constraints and explicitly acknowledges the simplified-model caveats.

full rationale

This paper is a review article that surveys ATLAS and CMS dark matter and supersymmetry searches. It contains no new derivation, no fitted parameters presented as predictions, and no self-citation chain that carries a load-bearing argument. Its central claims, such as 'none of these searches observed a significant excess' and the quoted exclusion limits, are summaries of primary experimental results from the ATLAS and CMS collaborations and from the GAMBIT reinterpretation study. The only structurally weak premise, namely that simplified-model limits do not automatically map onto the full MSSM, is explicitly disclosed in Section 4.3.4 and again in the conclusion, where the author notes that pure-higgsino and pure-wino LSPs have not yet reached relic-density-preferred masses and that long-lived-particle scenarios are not covered by most conventional searches. Because the review's statements are judged against external published primary sources rather than against the review itself, there is no circular reduction by definition, by fitted input, or by self-citation. The paper is self-contained as a status report and therefore receives a circularity score of zero.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new entities are introduced. The ledger contains only benchmark values and assumptions inherited from the experiments and the LHC Dark Matter Working Group. The paper's own contribution is organizational, not derivational.

free parameters (2)
  • benchmark mediator couplings g_q, g_l, g_chi = g_q=0.25, g_l=0, g_chi=1
    Adopted from the LHC Dark Matter Working Group and ATLAS summaries (Sections 6.1 and 8, Figures 21 and 24). The review does not fit them; they are hand-chosen benchmark values on which the reported mediator limits and direct-detection comparisons depend.
  • 2HDM+U(1) benchmark parameters for h plus MET limits = tan beta=1, g_Z'=0.8, m_chi=100 GeV, m_H=m_Hpm=300 GeV
    Used by the ATLAS h plus MET search summarized in Section 6.3 (Figure 22); these define the mediator mass limit of 2.8 TeV. They are external benchmark inputs, not fitted in this review.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption R-parity conservation is assumed in all SUSY searches
    Stated in Section 2.1: without R-parity the LSP is not stable and does not provide the missing-energy DM signature used by the searches.
  • domain assumption Simplified models describe the signal topologies used for limits
    Stated in Section 2.1.1. The review acknowledges this is not a complete theory and reports GAMBIT's finding that full-MSSM electroweakino exclusion is not robust.
  • domain assumption The quoted ATLAS, CMS, LEP, and GAMBIT results are correct
    The review transmits collaboration limits without reanalysis. Every numerical statement in Sections 4 through 8 depends on the accuracy of the cited primary sources.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Supersymmetry and the collider Dark Matter picture." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LIJDZF7V

@misc{pith2026190809672,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Supersymmetry and the collider Dark Matter picture},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LIJDZF7V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09672}
}
read the original abstract

One of the key questions in particle physics and astrophysics is the nature of dark matter, which existence has been confirmed in many astrophysical and cosmological observations. Besides direct and indirect detection experiments, collider searches for dark matter offer the unique possibility to not only detect dark matter particles but in case of discovery to also study their properties by making statements about the potential underlying theory. The search program for dark matter at the ATLAS and CMS experiments at the Large Hadron Collider is comprehensive, and includes both supersymmetric dark matter candidates and other alternatives. This review presents the latest status in these searches, with special focus on supersymmetric dark matter particles.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09672 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Interplay8 of different dark matter experiments: Direct detection experiments search for collision of galactic DM with material in underground detectors. Indirect detection experiments look for annihilation of galactic DM particles. Collider searches aim to produce DM particles. radiation (else it would not be non-luminous) and needs to result in the correct relic density (the density at the time of the freeze-out).… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Different example simplified models36–38 used in SUSY searches: A model with gluino pair production and decays to LSPs via charginos (left), with stop pair production and direct decays to tops and LSPs (middle) and chargino/neutralino pair production with decays to Higgs and W bosons and LSPs (right). A big circle in contrast to a normal vertex indicates that an additional interaction including a virtual particle oc… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Diagram 17 Z0 V A q q¯ ￾¯ ￾ h [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_17.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (22 more)
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Diagram 2 1 t t t t ¯ ￾/a g g ￾¯ ￾ Z/￾/g/h [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: In Z → e +e− processes no true Emiss T is present, but fake Emiss T can occur. Distributions of Emiss T are shown for ATLAS51 (left) and for CMS50 (right) in such a selection. Data is compared to MC simulation of the most important processes contributing such as Z → e …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Examples for observables useful in searches for supersymmetric particles. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The typical estimation of backgrounds in a search distinguishes between irreducible and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Production cross sections of supersymmetric particles at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Exclusion limits64 at 95% CL considering a simplified model with pair production of gluinos and ˜g → qq¯χ˜ 0 1 (left) and with pair production of squarks and ˜q → qχ˜ 0 1 (right). ˜t1 ! bff0 ￾˜0 1 ˜t1 ! bW￾˜0 1 ˜t1 ! t￾˜0 1 ￾m> 0 ￾m>m˜t1 ￾m>mW + mb ￾m> 0 ￾m>m˜t1 ￾m>mW …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Different possibilities of stop quark decays depending on the available mass difference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Summary of ATLAS searches for the lighter stop quark. Also kinematic difficult regions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Interpretation of searches for stop and sbottom quarks in signatures with and without [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Depending on the relative size of M1, M2 and µ, the lighter charginos and neutralinos are close in mass and almost degenerate (for µ < M1 < M2) and the LSP shows a large higgsino contribution, or the masses of the lighter charginos and neutralinos are notably lager th…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Different scenarios for decays of Higgsinos. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Decay diagram for the higgsino LSP100 (left) and the ultra-compressed higgsino LSP (middle) scenarios. The signature in the ATLAS detector for the ultra-compressed higgsino LSP scenario99 (right). 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 [GeV] ll Truth m 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The invariant mass of both leptons for higgsino or wino/bino LSPs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Possible decays of pair-produced ˜χ ± 1 and ˜χ 0 2 into final states with two or three leptons.103 Events / 15 GeV −1 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 ATLAS -1 s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb SR2-SF-loose Data Total SM Z + jets VV Top Reducible Other ) = (400,1) GeV 1 0 χ ∼ l,~ m( ) = (500…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Suppression of tt¯ and WW backgrounds is well achieved by mT2 which is bounded from above by the mass of W boson. The mT2 distribution is shown in the ATLAS 2/3-lepton search103 in signal region requiring two leptons (left). Limits obtained by the ATLAS 2/3-lepton and…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: A standard decay tree is shown for the ATLAS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Comparison of the background estimates with the observed data in the ATLAS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Summary of exclusion limits87 at 95 % CL by the ATLAS Collaboration for the simplified model ˜χ 0 2χ˜ ± 1 → hχ˜ 0 1Wχ˜ 0 1 (left). Summary of exclusion limits106 by the CMS Collaboration for the simplified models ˜χ 0 2χ˜ ± 1 → h/Zχ˜ 0 1Wχ˜ 0 1 (right). The signature …
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Limits in the mDM versus σSI/SD plane for vector (left) or axial-vector (right) simplified models obtained by the jet/V +Emiss T search110 at 90 % CL in comparison to limits by direct￾detection experiments. SI refers to spin-independent and SD to spin-dependent. 6.3. …
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: The ATLAS h+Emiss T analysis120 improves its sensitivity by using the object-based Emiss T significance instead of the event-based significance (left). Definitions see text. Limits at 95 % CL are given in a type-II 2HDM model with additional U(1) gauge symmetry (right…
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Searches for invisible Higgs decays can be interpreted as limits on the spin-independent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Summary of constraints8 in the vector-mediator simplified dark matter model with parameter settings gq = 0.25, gl = 0 and gχ = 1 as function of mZ0 V and mχ (top) and of σSI against mχ (bottom). compares results by collider searches to findings of DD experiments. Coll…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

130 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Dress and G

    M. Dress and G. Gerbier, in Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001, M. Tanabashi et al. (2018)

    2018

  2. [2]

    Bertone, Cambridge University Press (2010)

    G. Bertone, Cambridge University Press (2010)

    2010

  3. [3]

    Clowe et al

    D. Clowe et al. , Astrophys. J. 648, L109 (2006)

    2006

  4. [4]

    Planck Collaboration, arXiv:1807.06205 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    Planck Collaboration, arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    Lahav and A.R

    O. Lahav and A.R. Liddle, in Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001, M. Tanabashi et al. (2018)

    2018

  7. [7]

    Jungman et al

    G. Jungman et al. , Phys. Rept. 267, 195 (1996)

    1996

  8. [8]

    ATLAS Collaboration, JHEP 1805 (2019) 142

    2019

Show all 130 references
  1. [9]

    Evans and P

    L. Evans and P. Bryant, JINST 3 (2008) S08001

    2008

  2. [10]

    ATLAS Collaboration, JINST 3 (2008) S08003

    2008

  3. [11]

    ATLAS-TDR-19 and ATLAS-TDR-19-ADD-1, 2010 and 2012 (unpublished)

    ATLAS Collaboration, Report No. ATLAS-TDR-19 and ATLAS-TDR-19-ADD-1, 2010 and 2012 (unpublished)

    2010

  4. [12]

    Abbott et al

    B. Abbott et al. , JINST 13 (2018) T05008

    2018

  5. [13]

    CMS Collaboration, JINST 3 (2008) S08004

    2008

  6. [14]

    Boveia and C

    A. Boveia and C. Doglioni, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 68, 429 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    S. P. Martin, Report No. arXiv:hep-ph/9709356, 2016 (unpublished)

    2016 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Fayet, Phys

    P. Fayet, Phys. Lett. 64B, 159 (1976). August 27, 2019 0:49 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE SUSY˙DM˙collider˙3 Supersymmetry and the collider Dark Matter picture 29

    1976

  9. [17]

    Fayet, Phys

    P. Fayet, Phys. Lett. 69B, 489 (1977)

    1977

  10. [18]

    G. R. Farrar and P. Fayet, Phys. Lett. 76B, 575 (1978)

    1978

  11. [19]

    J. R. Ellis et al. , Nucl. Phys. B 238, 453 (1984)

    1984

  12. [20]

    Goldberg, Phys

    H. Goldberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1419 (1983), Erratum: [Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 099905 (2009)]

    1983

  13. [21]

    Toby Falk et al. , Phys. Lett. 339B, 248 (1994)

    1994

  14. [22]

    LEP Collaborations, hep-ex/0312023 (2003)

    2003 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Beneke et al

    M. Beneke et al. , JHEP 1603, 119 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    Krall and M

    R. Krall and M. Reece, Chin. Phys. C 42, no. 4, 043105 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B 716, 1 (2012)

    2012

  18. [26]

    CMS Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B 716, 30 (2012)

    2012

  19. [27]

    Barbieri and G

    R. Barbieri and G. F. Giudice, Nucl. Phys. B 306, 63 (1988)

    1988

  20. [28]

    de Carlos and J

    B. de Carlos and J. A. Casas, Phys. Lett. B 309, 320 (1993)

    1993

  21. [29]

    J. L. Feng, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 63, 351 (2013)

    2013

  22. [30]

    Djouadi et al

    A. Djouadi et al. [MSSM Working Group], hep-ph/9901246 (1998)

    1998 arXiv

  23. [31]

    C. F. Berger, J. S. Gainer, J. L. Hewett and T. G. Rizzo, JHEP 0902, 023 (2009)

    2009

  24. [32]

    ATLAS Collaboration, JHEP 1510, 134 (2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    Alwall, M

    J. Alwall, M. P. Le, M. Lisanti and J. G. Wacker, Phys. Lett. B 666, 34 (2008)

    2008

  26. [34]

    Alwall, P

    J. Alwall, P. Schuster and N. Toro, Phys. Rev. D 79, 075020 (2009)

    2009

  27. [35]

    Alves et al

    D. Alves et al. [LHC New Physics Working Group], J. Phys. G 39, 105005 (2012)

    2012

  28. [37]

    ATLAS Collaboration, JHEP 1806, 108 (2018)

    2018

  29. [38]

    ATLAS Collaboration, arXiv:1812.09432 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Gambit Collaboration. Eur. Phys. J. C 79, no. 5, 395 (2019)

    2019

  31. [40]

    Albert et al

    A. Albert et al. , arXiv:1703.05703 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  32. [41]

    Boveia et al

    A. Boveia et al. ,.arXiv:1603.04156 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  33. [42]

    Abe et al

    T. Abe et al. [LHC Dark Matter Working Group], Phys. Dark Univ. , 100351

  34. [43]

    R. E. Shrock and M. Suzuki, Phys. Lett. 110B, 250 (1982)

    1982

  35. [44]

    Escudero et al

    M. Escudero et al. , JCAP 1612, 029 (2016)

    2016

  36. [45]

    Goodman et al

    J. Goodman et al. , Phys. Rev. D 82, 116010 (2010)

    2010

  37. [46]

    P. J. Fox et al. , Phys. Rev. D 85, 056011 (2012)

    2012

  38. [47]

    Busoni et al

    G. Busoni et al. , Phys. Lett. B 728, 412 (2014)

    2014

  39. [48]

    Racco et al

    D. Racco et al. , JHEP 1505, 009 (2015)

    2015

  40. [49]

    ATLAS Collaboration. Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) no.11, 903

    2018

  41. [50]

    JINST 14, no

    CMS Collaboration. JINST 14, no. 07, P07004 (2019)

    2019

  42. [51]

    JETM-2019-03, 2019 (unpublished)

    ATLAS Collaboration, Report No. JETM-2019-03, 2019 (unpublished)

    2019

  43. [53]

    Hinchliffe et al

    I. Hinchliffe et al. , Phys. Rev. D 55, 5520 (1997)

    1997

  44. [54]

    D. R. Tovey, Phys. Lett. B 498, 1 (2001)

    2001

  45. [55]

    M. E. Cabrera and J. A. Casas, arXiv:1207.0435 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  46. [56]

    Arnison et al

    G. Arnison et al. (UA1), Phys. Lett. B122, 103 (1983)

    1983

  47. [57]

    Banner et al

    M. Banner et al. (UA2), Phys. Lett. B122, 476 (1983)

    1983

  48. [58]

    A. J. Barr et al. , JHEP 0911, 096 (2009)

    2009

  49. [59]

    Borschensky et al

    C. Borschensky et al. , Eur. Phys. J. C 74, no. 12, 3174 (2014)

    2014

  50. [60]

    Beenakker et al

    W. Beenakker et al. , Nucl. Phys. B 492, 51 (1997)

    1997

  51. [61]

    Beenakker et al

    W. Beenakker et al. , Nucl. Phys. B 515, 3 (1998)

    1998

  52. [62]

    ATLAS Collaboration, https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/AtlasPublic/

  53. [63]

    CMS Collaboration, https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/CMSPublic/

  54. [64]

    CMS Collaboration, arXiv:1908.04722 [hep-ex]

    1908 arXiv

  55. [65]

    ATLAS-CONF-2019-040, 2019 (unpublished)

    ATLAS Collaboration, Report no. ATLAS-CONF-2019-040, 2019 (unpublished). August 27, 2019 0:49 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE SUSY˙DM˙collider˙3 30 Jeanette Miriam Lorenz

    2019

  56. [67]

    ATLAS Collaboration, JHEP 1806, 107 (2018)

    2018

  57. [68]

    ATLAS Collaboration, JHEP 1712, 034 (2017)

    2017

  58. [69]

    ATLAS Collaboration, JHEP 1709, 084 (2017)

    2017

  59. [70]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 96, no. 11, 112010 (2017)

    2017

  60. [71]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 97, no. 11, 112001 (2018)

    2018

  61. [72]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 97, no. 9, 092006 (2018)

    2018

  62. [73]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, no. 8, 625 (2018)

    2018

  63. [74]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 99, no. 1, 012009 (2019)

    2019

  64. [75]

    CMS-PAS-SUS-19-008, 2019 (unpublished)

    CMS Collaboration, Report no. CMS-PAS-SUS-19-008, 2019 (unpublished)

    2019

  65. [76]

    CMS Collaboration, JHEP 1906, 143 (2019)

    2019

  66. [77]

    ATLAS-CONF-2019-017, 2019 (unpublished)

    ATLAS Collaboration, Report No. ATLAS-CONF-2019-017, 2019 (unpublished)

    2019

  67. [78]

    ATLAS Collaboration, JHEP 12 (2017) 085

    2017

  68. [79]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 898

    2017

  69. [80]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 510

    2015

  70. [81]

    CMS Collaboration, JHEP 10 (2017) 005

    2017

  71. [82]

    CMS Collaboration, JHEP 10 (2017) 019

    2017

  72. [83]

    CMS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 032009

    2018

  73. [84]

    CMS Collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 327

    2017

  74. [85]

    CMS Collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 294

    2017

  75. [86]

    CMS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 012003

    2017

  76. [87]

    ATL-PHYS-PUB-2019-022, 2019 (unpublished)

    ATLAS Collaboration, Report No. ATL-PHYS-PUB-2019-022, 2019 (unpublished)

    2019

  77. [89]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 18

    2018

  78. [90]

    DAmbrosio et al , Nucl

    G. DAmbrosio et al , Nucl. Phys. B 645, 155 (2002)

    2002

  79. [91]

    Barbieri and G

    R. Barbieri and G. F. Giudice, Nucl. Phys. B 306 (1988) 63

    1988

  80. [92]

    de Carlos and J

    B. de Carlos and J. A. Casas, Phys. Lett. B 309 (1993) 320

    1993

  81. [93]

    Dimopoulos et al

    S. Dimopoulos et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 76 (1996) 3494

    1996

  82. [94]

    K. T. Matchev and S. D. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 077702

    2000

  83. [95]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 092002

    2018

  84. [96]

    CMS Collaboration, JHEP 1803, 166 (2018)

    2018

  85. [97]

    CMS Collaboration, JHEP 1803, 076 (2018)

    2018

  86. [98]

    CMS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 97, no. 3, 032007 (2018)

    2018

  87. [99]

    ATLAS Collaboration, JHEP 1806, 022 (2018)

    2018

  88. [100]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 052010

    2018

  89. [101]

    CMS Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B 782, 440 (2018)

    2018

  90. [102]

    ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2019-014

    2019

  91. [103]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 995

    2018

  92. [104]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 092012

    2018

  93. [105]

    ATLAS-CONF-2019-020 (2019)

    ATLAS Collaboration, Report No. ATLAS-CONF-2019-020 (2019)

    2019

  94. [106]

    CMS Collaboration, JHEP 1803, 160 (2018)

    2018

  95. [107]

    ATLAS-CONF-2019-019, 2019 (unpublished)

    ATLAS Collaboration, Report No. ATLAS-CONF-2019-019, 2019 (unpublished)

    2019

  96. [108]

    ATLAS-CONF-2019-031, 2019 (unpublished)

    ATLAS Collaboration, Report No. ATLAS-CONF-2019-031, 2019 (unpublished)

    2019

  97. [109]

    ATLAS-CONF-2019-018, 2019 (unpublished)

    ATLAS Collaboration, Report No. ATLAS-CONF-2019-018, 2019 (unpublished)

    2019

  98. [110]

    CMS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 092005

    2018

  99. [111]

    ATLAS Collaboration, JHEP 1801, 126 (2018)

    2018

  100. [112]

    CMS Collaboration, JHEP 1807, 014 (2017)

    2017

  101. [113]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 032005

    2016

  102. [114]

    CMS Collaboration, JHEP 1902, 074 (2019)

    2019

  103. [115]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, no. 6, 393 (2017). August 27, 2019 0:49 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE SUSY˙DM˙collider˙3 Supersymmetry and the collider Dark Matter picture 31

    2017

  104. [116]

    J. F. Gunion and H. E. Haber, Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003) 075019

    2003

  105. [117]

    Berlin et al

    A. Berlin et al. , JHEP 1406 (2014) 078

    2014

  106. [118]

    G. C. Branco et al. , Phys. Rept. 516 (2012) 1

    2012

  107. [119]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017) 181804

    2017

  108. [120]

    ATLAS-CONF-2018-039, 2018 (unpublished)

    ATLAS Collaboration, Report No. ATLAS-CONF-2018-039, 2018 (unpublished)

    2018

  109. [121]

    CMS Collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 280

    2019

  110. [122]

    CMS Collaboration, JHEP 1809 046 (2018)

    2018

  111. [123]

    CMS Collaboration, JHEP 1710 180 (2017)

    2017

  112. [124]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 96, no. 11, 112004 (2017)

    2017

  113. [125]

    ATLAS-CONF-2018-038, 2018 (unpublished)

    ATLAS Collaboration, Report No. ATLAS-CONF-2018-038, 2018 (unpublished)

    2018

  114. [126]

    Liss et al

    T.M. Liss et al. , in Phys. Rev. D 98, M. Tanabashi et al. (2018)

    2018

  115. [127]

    CMS Collaboration, arXiv:1907.03729 [hep-ex]

    1907 arXiv

  116. [128]

    ATLAS Collaboration, [arXiv:1903.07570 [hep-ex]]

    1903 arXiv

  117. [129]

    ATLAS-CONF-2019-005, 2019 (unpublished)

    ATLAS Collaboration, Report No. ATLAS-CONF-2019-005, 2019 (unpublished)

    2019

  118. [130]

    CMS Collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (2019) 421

    2019

  119. [131]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, no. 23, 231801 (2019)

    2019

  120. [132]

    CMS Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B 793, 520 (2019)

    2019

  121. [133]

    CMS Collaboration, https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/CMSPublic/SummaryPlotsEXO13TeV

  122. [134]

    ATLAS Collaboration, JHEP 1609, 175 (2016)

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.