 DM Models & Signatures in CMS searches  Analyzing CMS data  MonoJet, MonoLepton, MonoPhoton, MonoTop, Top pairs  SUSY Searches  Perspectives for LHC Run 2 OUTLINE 2

Introduction 3

DM models in CMS searches  Most of the CMS DM searches use Effective Field Theories : ⇒ MonoJet, MonoLepton, MonoPhoton, Top pair  Validity: M V >> √s = O(10 TeV)  Search parameters : cut-off scale  ; DM mass m   Operators : probe spin-(in)dependent interactions 4

5 ISR jet/photon Mono-jet/photon Recoiling W Mono-lepton Single top Mono-top DM Production in Colliders

MonoJet : event selection  Jet p T >110 & |  |<2.4  p T fractions : ch. had. ≥ 20% & neutr. had. ≤ 70% & photons ≤ 70%  Accept 2 nd jet ( p T >30 & |  |<4.5 & D  J1J2 <2.5 ) ; Veto 3 rd jet (p T,  )  MET ≡ Missing Transverse Energy = Vectorial sum of the visible objects  7 MET Regions : MET > {250, 300, 350, 400, 450, 500, 550} GeV  Lepton veto : e/m(p T >10 & R iso <0.2) t(p T >20 & |h|<2.3) Kill QCD, ttbar Kill V, VV, top 6

MonoJet : signal extraction Single-bin counting experiment after optimal MET cut Z   Wjets are estimated using  +jets and cross checked with Z-> . 7

MonoJet : results Vector coupling Spin-independent interaction Axial-Vector coupling Spin-dependent interaction 8 CDMS excess CMS PAS EXO

MonoLepton  Advantages : clean leptonic signature less LHC easier to trigger than monojet/monophoton  Interferences sensitive to different couplings for Up- and Down- type quarks  Largest  for  =-1  M  > 100 GeV steep drop (limited  -space)  ”edge” depends on .  Shape m T depends on  ! Master variable  transverse mass m T 9

MonoLepton : event selection   : ID & R iso 45 &  p T <30%  Veto 2 nd  (p T >25) kill cosmics & DY  e : ID & A iso 100 & IsoCalo<3%  Veto 2 nd e (pT>35) kill DY  Back-to-back lepton and MET  0.4 < pT(l) / MET < 1.5   >

Major backgrounds = MC x SF from data High mT tail : fit m T shape analysis : multi-bin counting 11 MonoLepton : signal extraction

MonoLepton : results 12 CMS PAS EXO Axial-Vector coupling Spin-dependent interaction Vector coupling Spin-independent Interaction Comparable to monojet reach

MonoPhoton : event selection Kill  +jet 13  MET > 140   (MET,  ) > 2.0  “MET ID” :  2 fit using unclustered energy remove fake MET  Lepton veto : ≥1 isolated lepton  R iso < 0.2 (e) / 0.1 (  ) Kill W(l )+   Photon :  E T > 145 GeV & |  |<1.44 (purity)  ID : H/E < 0.05 & ECAL energy deposit’s shape  Anomalous signals removal, timing cut (BX±3ns)  PF isolation : surrounding h ±,0 and photons  Fake photons from electrons removed

MonoPhoton : signal extraction Single-bin counting experiment after p T (  ) cut Major backgrounds = MC x SF from data Beam halo timing distribution in data 14

MonoPhoton : results 15 CMS PAS EXO

Top Pairs & MonoTop  Heavy quarks enhance sensitivity to scalar interactions  Two possible final states :  Signatures: 1. Large MET + 2 leptons + ≥2 pT 2. Large MET + 1 lepton  Top pairs  MonoTop  Probe couplings that favor heavy quarks  FCNC diagrams with new particle in the final state  Search for scalar & vector DM particle  Signature : t  bW(qq)  1 b-jet + 2 jets + MET 16

Top Pairs dileptonic  Leptons : R iso 20 ; |  | < 2.4 (  ), 2.5 (e)  Leptons : m L1L2 >20 ; m ll = m Z ± 15 GeV ; scalar pT sum > 120 ;  <2  Jets : ≥2 Jets pT>30 & |h|<5 & loose ID  Jets : scalar pT sum < 400  MET > 320  Irreducible backgrounds = MC x SF from data tt, t, DY, VV  Fakes : 1 or 2 mis-ID lepton(s) Fit (S,B) to data 17 CMS PAS B2G

Top Pairs semileptonic  1 Lepton : R iso 30 ; |  | < 2.1 (  ), 2.5 (e)  Jets : ≥3 Jets pT>30 & |  |<4 & loose ID & ≥1 b-jet  Jets/MET :  (Jet1+Jet2, MET) > 1.2  MET>320 GeV & m T >160 GeV & m T2 W (W decay kinematics)>200 GeV  All backgrounds = MC x SF from data Fit (S,B) to data q1q1 q2q2 18 CMS PAS B2G

Top Pairs : results Semileptonic Dileptonic 19

MonoTop : event selection  2 jets pT>60, 3 rd jet pT>40 ; m3j<250 ; 1 b-jet ; all jets : |eta|<2.4  4 th jet veto : pT > 35  Lepton veto : pT>10(20) m(e) ; |h|<2.4(2.5) m(e) ; Riso ≤ 2  MET > CMS PAS B2G , arXiv: , submitted to PRL

MonoTop : results 21 CMS PAS B2G

SUSY Searches 22 CMS PAS SUS

23 pMSSM Interpretations DCS stands for Direct CMS Search No astrophysical data included NB, absolute distributions strongly depend on the choice of priors

24 CMS data slightly prefer lower densities and heavier WIMP. Relic density and WIMP mass  = Xsec coefficient Z = signed Bayesian analog of the frequentist “n-sigma” Z > 5 means discovery Z < means exclusion at 95% CL Relic densityNeutralino mass

Summary  CMS covers already a broad panel of final states, with sensitivities to various scenarios  So far, no new signal observed   Upper limits on the production cross sections between and pb  Upper limits on  -nucleon interaction cross sections between and cm 2  Collider results mainly limits below M  < 10 GeV 25

Perspectives for LHC Run 2  Running conditions : 13 TeV, 25 ns, = 40 expect factor 4 in rate  Need to optimise X+MET triggers to cope with such conditions  Refine background estimations and reduce associated uncertainties  Physics models : EFT validity is an important limitation to current searches switch to simplified models with extra search parameters wrt EFT searches 26