]>PLB34356S03702693(18)31006210.1016/j.physletb.2018.12.062PhenomenologyFig. 1Parameter regions allowed by the observed DM relic density (0.0959 < Ωh2 < 0.1439) on the Higgsino mass vs. lightest neutralino mass plane for μ > 0 (left panel) and μ < 0 (right panel). Colours show the value of tanβ. The masses of sparticles other than the electroweakinos are fixed at 3 TeV. The value of At is also fixed to obtain the observed Higgs mass: At = 4.5 TeV for tanβ>10, At = 5.0 TeV for 7<tanβ<10 and At = 6.0 TeV for tanβ<7.Fig. 1Fig. 2Parameter regions allowed by the observed DM abundance (0.0959 < Ωh2 < 0.1439) on the (mχ˜10,σχ˜10nSI) logarithmic plane (upper panels) and (mχ˜10,σχ˜10nSD) logarithmic plane (lower panels) for μ > 0 (left panels) and μ < 0 (right panels). The orange solid lines mark the limit on σχ˜10n given by XENON1T [90,94] and LUX [93] experiments. The green dashed lines mark the projected limit of LUXZEPLIN [96]. The colours show the value of tanβ; grey regions are excluded by DM direct detection at 90% C.L.Fig. 2Fig. 3Constraints on the relevant parameter regions from invisible decay limits. Regions excluded by DM direct detection are filled with grey colour. The blue dashed lines indicate the 95% C.L. upper limits on the invisible decay branching ratio of 125 GeV Higgs boson for different values of tanβ. The green dotdashed lines and red dotted lines show the 95% C.L. upper limits from the combination of CMS searches for electroweakinos at the 13 TeV LHC with 35.9 fb−1 data and at the HLLHC with 3000 fb−1 data, respectively. Regions below these lines are excluded by the corresponding experimental results.Fig. 3Fig. 4The plots show, in the (tanβ,μ) plane, the h funnel region consistent with the observed DM abundance and DM direct detection limits. The green dotdashed and red dotted lines show the 95% C.L. upper limits from combined CMS searches for electroweakinos at the 13 TeV LHC with 35.9 fb−1 data and limits by the HLLHC with 3000 fb−1 data, respectively. Regions below the lines are excluded by the corresponding experimental results at 95% C.L.Fig. 4Fig. 5Surviving parameter regions of pMSSM shown on the lightest neutralino mass vs. the SI DMneutron elastic cross section (left panel) and vs. the Higgsino mass (right panel). Colours show the unified mass of sleptons, except for the grey samples that are excluded by DM direct detection at 90% C.L. or direct searches for sleptons at LHC at 95%C.L.Fig. 5Table 1Benchmark points illustrating the result of the combined CMS electroweakino searches. The uncertainties in CLs only represent the uncertainties from the CLs calculation and do not include the uncertainties of the signal event generation.Table 1BP1BP2BP3BP4
tanβ30103030
M1 (GeV)50505080
μ (GeV)390390−390390
mχ˜10 (GeV)49.546.448.678.0
mχ˜20 (GeV)401402402402
mχ˜30 (GeV)403403403403
mχ˜1± (GeV)400399400399
BR(χ˜20→χ˜10Z)45%39%39%33%
BR(χ˜20→χ˜10h)55%61%61%67%
BR(χ˜30→χ˜10Z)63%68%69%75%
BR(χ˜30→χ˜10h)37%32%31%35%
σχ˜2,30χ˜1± (fb)59.4559.4859.4859.46

CLs3l0.238 ± 0.0070.240 ± 0.0070.251 ± 0.0070.265 ± 0.007
CLs2l0.266 ± 0.0180.246 ± 0.0180.238 ± 0.0170.231 ± 0.016
CLs1l2b0.549 ± 0.0090.552 ± 0.0090.563 ± 0.0090.553 ± 0.009
CLscombine0.049 ± 0.0050.051 ± 0.0060.052 ± 0.0050.054 ± 0.006
Constraining resonant dark matter with combined LHC electroweakino searchesGiancarloPozzogiancarlo.pozzo@monash.eduYangZhangyang.zhang@monash.eduARC Centre of Excellence for Particle Physics at the Terascale, School of Physics and Astronomy, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria 3800, AustraliaARC Centre of Excellence for Particle Physics at the TerascaleSchool of Physics and AstronomyMonash UniversityMelbourneVictoria3800AustraliaEditor: J. HisanoAbstractIn the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model light neutralinos can satisfy the dark matter (DM) abundance constraint by resonant annihilation via a Z or a light Higgs (h) boson. In this work we study the current and future status of this scenario by investigating relevant experimental constraints, including DM direct detection, measurements of Z and Higgs invisible decays, and direct searches at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). To take full advantage of the LHC data, we combine the results of all relevant electroweakino searches performed by the Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) Collaboration. Such combination increases the bound on the Higgsino mass parameter to μ>390GeV, which is about 80 GeV stricter than the bound obtained from individual analyses. In a simplified model we find that the Z funnel region is on the brink of exclusion, the h funnel for μ<0 only survives if tanβ<7.4, and the h funnel for μ>0 is the main surviving region. Future DM direct detection experiments, such as LUX and ZEPLIN, can explore the whole region, while the high luminosity LHC can exclude tanβ>8 for μ>0 and tanβ>5.5 for μ<0. After applying the muon anomalous magnetic moment constraint only a tiny part of the Z/h funnel region survives which will soon be probed by ongoing experiments.1IntroductionA wide range of astrophysical observations indicates the existence of dark matter (DM) at various length scales via gravitational effects. Motivated by this during the last decades considerable effort was made to detect DM particles at collider experiments (such as LEP [1] and the LHC [2,3]), in direct (by XENON1T [4], LUX [5] or PandaX [6]) and indirect (AMSII [7], FermiLAT [8] or DAMPE [9]) detection experiments. Despite the lack of direct experimental evidence, the lightest neutralino of the Rparity conserving Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) [10–12] remains an especially attractive DM candidate. This is because, beyond dark matter, the MSSM provides solutions to several problems of the Standard Model (SM): the lightness of the observed Higgs mass, a dynamical mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking, the unification of particles and forces and beyond.Supersymmetric (SUSY) global fits, which also include experimental constraints on DM particles, have delineated the most likely model parameter regions [10–31]. In global fits of the phenomenological MSSM, there is always a Z/h funnel region in which neutralino dark matter can achieve the right thermal relic density through Z or Higgs boson resonant annihilation. Consequently, in this region the DM mass is about half of the Z or Higgs boson mass. Comparing to other regions, the Z/h funnel region is an islet in the parameter space where some of the supersymmetric particles (sparticles) are relatively light. These characteristics make the sparticles in the Z/h funnel region the most promising candidates to be detected at the LHC and DM search experiments. More importantly, several modest excesses of data above the expected background were found in the signal regions of recent CMS and ATLAS electroweakino searches, including signal region SR3ℓ_ISR (3.02 σ deviation), SR3ℓ_LOW (2.13 σ deviation) and SR2ℓ_ISR (1.99 σ deviation) in ATLAS recursive jigsaw reconstruction analysis [32], SR0D (2.3 σ deviation) in ATLAS ≥4ℓ+ETmiss analysis [33], and the notttlike signal region for masses between 96 and 150 GeV (2.0σ deviation) in CMS 2ℓ+ETmiss analysis [34]. The global fit of the electroweakino sector performed by GAMBIT Collaboration shows that the Z/h funnel region is consistent with a new physics interpretation of these excesses [35,36]. Motivated by these results, in this work we carefully explore the present and future status of the Z/h funnel region.On the theoretical side, Z/h resonant annihilation is important in natural SUSY [37], especially in the natural MSSM, since it allows the lightest neutralino to achieve the observed thermal relic density [38]. In the natural NexttoMSSM (NMSSM), although the inclusion of a singlet superfield relaxes the experimental constraints on the electroweakinos, the exclusion of the Z/h funnel region increases the lower limit on the DM mass from 20 GeV to 80 GeV [39–41]. The lower limit on the DM mass, in turn, is critical for any LHC sparticle search because under Rparity all sparticles decay to the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) χ˜10 and the LSP mass is folded into the analyses. Typically, stricter search limits arise in analyses with light neutralinos. In a simplified model, for instance, with first and secondgeneration massdegenerate squarks, squark masses below 1.6 TeV (1.4 TeV) are excluded for mχ˜10<200GeV (200GeV<mχ˜10<400GeV), but entirely survive if mχ˜10>600GeV [42]. Therefore, in most cases, the exclusion of the Z/h funnel region affects the mass limits of all sparticles.The MSSM Z/h funnel region has been examined in numerous recent papers [43–68]. The constraints from LHC RunI SUSY direct searchers were implemented by requiring that the SUSY signal events do not exceed the 95% confidence level (C.L.) upper limit in the signal region with the bestexpected exclusion power [44,47,63,64]. At RunI, due to relatively small backgrounds of leptonic processes, the signal region with the bestexpected exclusion power for the Z/h funnel region comes from the “3ℓ” search for the pp→χ˜1±χ˜20→W±Zχ˜10χ˜10→ℓℓvℓχ˜10χ˜10 process [69]. However, with the increase of centreofmassenergy and integrated luminosity, the boosted jets can also be used to distinguish signals of heavy electroweakinos from background events. As a result, the sensitivities of searches for other decay modes will increase significantly, even surpassing the “3ℓ” search. An example is the “1ℓ2b” search for the pp→χ˜1±χ˜20→W±Hχ˜10χ˜10→bb¯vℓχ˜10χ˜10 process with one lepton, two bjets and ETmiss final state. At the high luminosity LHC (HLLHC), the 95% C.L. exclusion contour of “3ℓ” search reaches 1100 GeV in the case of the WZmediated simplified models [70], while the exclusion contour of “1ℓ2b” search reaches 1310 GeV in χ˜1±, χ˜20 mass in the case of the Whmediated simplified models using the MVA technique [71]. At RunII the impact of “1ℓ2b” search in the Z/h funnel region cannot be ignored, because χ˜1± decay exclusively to χ˜10W± while BR(χ˜20→χ˜10h)+BR(χ˜30→χ˜10h)≃90% [44]. A statistical combination of exclusive signal regions in these searches maximizes the discovery potential. For example, in the case of the WZmediated simplified models, the combination performed by CMS [72] improves on the “3ℓ” analysis yielding an observed lower limit of 150 GeV on the chargino mass.In this work, we study the present status of Z/h funnel region under the constraint of 3l+ETmiss [73], 2l+ETmiss [34] and 1l+2b+ETmiss [74] searches using 13TeV35.9fb−1 LHC data, as well as the latest DM direct detection results. The rest of paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we briefly describe the electroweakino sector of MSSM, with focus on the properties of DM. We present the parameter space of the Z/h funnel region and related constraints in Section 3. The HLLHC reach for the regions that survive the present LHC constraints is discussed in Section 4. In Section 5 we investigate the Z/h funnel region in a practical phenomenology model. Finally, we draw our conclusions in Section 6.2The Z/hresonant neutralino dark materIn this section we describe the MSSM electroweakino sector, that is the superpartners of the electroweak gauge bosons (Bino B˜ and Winos W˜) and the two Higgs doublets (Higgsinos H˜). After electroweak symmetry breaking the electroweakinos mix to form neutralino χ˜i0(i=1,2,3,4) and chargino χ˜i±(i=1,2) mass eigenstates. In the ψα=(B˜,W˜0,H˜d0,H˜u0) basis neutralino masses are given by −12[ψαMχ˜0αβψβ+h.c.] with the nondiagonal, symmetric mass matrix(1)Mχ˜0=(M10−MZsWcβMZsWsβ0M2MZcWcβ−MZcWsβ−MZsWcβMZcWcβ0−μMZsWsβ−MZcWsβ−μ0). Here M1, M2 and μ are the Bino, Wino and Higgsino masses, sβ=sinβ and cβ=cosβ where tanβ=〈Hu〉/〈Hd〉 is the ratio of the vacuum expectation values of the two Higgs doublets, MZ is the Z boson mass, and sW and cW are the sine and cosine of the weak mixing angle θW. With the same notation, in the (W˜±,H˜±) basis the chargino mass matrix is given by(2)Mχ˜±=(M22cβMW2sβMWμ), where MW is the W boson mass. The physical masses of the neutralinos and charginos are given by the eigenvalues of Mχ˜0 and Mχ˜±.Due to the mχ˜1±>92GeV chargino mass limit from LEP [75], the Wino mass, M2, and Higgsino mass, μ, must be higher than about 100GeV. As a result, the lightest neutralino, with mass mχ˜10∼MZ/2 or Mh/2, must be Bino dominated. We demand it to be the LSP, and Rparity conservation renders it a DM candidate. The main annihilation mode for this DM proceeds via an schannel Z or Higgs boson, and the corresponding annihilation cross section is given by [63]:(3)σ(χ˜10χ˜10→Z/h→ff¯)≃12CZ/h21−4mχ˜102s1(s−MZ/h2)2+(MZ/hΓZ/h)2sMZ/h×ΓZ/h→ff¯, where CZ/h is the coupling between χ˜10 and the Z/h boson, and ΓZ/h is the corresponding decay width. The couplings arise via neutralino mixing, as shown by the relevant Lagrangian term [76]:(4)Lχ˜0=esWhχ˜¯10(N12−N11tanθW)(sinαN13+cosαN14)χ˜10+esWcWZμχ˜¯i0γμ[PL2(N142−N132)+PR2(N142−N132)]χ˜j0. Here α is the Higgs mixing angle, and Nij are the elements of the 4×4 unitary matrix that diagonalizes the neutralino mass matrix Mχ˜0 such that N112, N122 and N13,142 are the Bino, Wino and Higgsino components of χ˜10, respectively. Equation (4) shows that the Higgsino components play an important role both in the hχ˜10χ˜10 and Zχ˜10χ˜10 interaction.Considering the limit M1<100GeV<μ≪M2, the Higgsino components can be expressed as [44](5)N13=MZsWμ(sβ+cβM1μ),N14=−MZsWμ(cβ+sβM1μ), which decrease when the mass hierarchy between Higgsino and Bino increases. From equations (5) and (4), one can derive the couplings(6)CZ=eMZ2μ2cos(2β)(1+M12μ2),Ch=eMZμ[cos(β+α)+sin(β−α)M1μ]. Thus, the relic density of Z/hresonant DM at tree level depends on M1, μ and tanβ. We, therefore, perform a scan over M1, μ and tanβ to identify the parameter space where Z/hresonant DM satisfies the observed DM abundance. Following that, we examine the impact of current and future experimental constraints on this parameter space.3The parameter space and constraintsTo analyse the Z/h funnel region, we first study a simplified model that assumes the sfermion masses, wino mass M2, gluino mass M3 and CPodd Higgs mass MA are fixed at 3 TeV, heavy enough to decouple at LEP or the LHC. We set all the trilinear couplings except At to zero. To match the measured value of SMlike Higgs mass of 125.09 GeV [77], the trilinear coupling At is fixed at 4.5 TeV for tanβ>10, at 5.0 TeV for 7<tanβ<10 and at 6.0 TeV for tanβ<7. Under these assumptions, we sample the following parameter space:(7)10GeV<M1<100GeV,50GeV<μ<1500GeV,5<tanβ<50. We use SUSYHIT1.5 [78] based on SuSpect [79], together with SDECAY [78,80] and HDECAY [81] to generate the mass spectrum and to calculate the Z/h boson decay branching ratios, micrOMEGAs4.3.5 [82,83] to calculate the DM observables, and EasyScan_HEP [17] to perform the scan. Due to the low dimensionality and simplicity of the parameter space we generate samples on a grid.In Sections 3.1–3.4 we detail the relevant constraints on the Z/hresonant DM. Here we ignore other observations, such as Bphysics measurements, that tend to give mild constraints due to the high scale of the fixed SUSY parameters.3.1The thermal relic density of DMFrom equations (6) and (3), we see that the measurement of the DM abundance by Planck [84] and WMAP [85] place severe restrictions on the relationship among M1, μ and tanβ. We assume that the thermal relic density of the lightest neutralino is equal to the cold DM abundance Ωh2=0.1199±0.0022 at 2σ level with 10% theoretical uncertainty (cf. the Plik crosshalfmission likelihood in [84]). In Fig. 1 we project the allowed regions on the (mχ˜10,μ) plane for both μ>0 and μ<0 with colours indicating the value of tanβ.As sketched in Section 2, to achieve both the observed DM abundance and a sizeable coupling to the Z/h boson, the Binolike χ˜10 must contain a certain amount of Higgsino component. This imposes limits on the Higgsino mass, shown in Fig. 1 by the coloured regions. The blank region above the coloured region leads to an overproduction of DM in the early universe, while the blank region below the coloured region has a relic density smaller than 0.096. Due to the resonance in equation (3), the Higgsino mass is enhanced when mχ˜10 close to MZ/h, therefore the allowed region features two clear peaks.The Higgs resonances (the peaks around mh/2) in the left (μ>0) and right (μ<0) panel of Fig. 1 show different dependence on tanβ for a fixed mχ˜10. This difference is caused by the sign of M1/μ in the coupling between the χ˜10 and the Higgs boson. Taking the decoupling limit of the Higgs sector, β−α=π/2, Ch in equation (6) can be written as(8)Ch=eMZμ(sin2β+M1μ). Therefore, for M1/μ>0 and M1≃Mh/2 to keep the coupling Ch unchanged the Higgsino mass has to increase from 400 GeV to 1440 GeV and tanβ has to decrease from 50 to 5. For the same reason, for M1/μ<0 and M1≃Mh/2 the coupling is bracketed as μ decreases from 380 GeV to 130 GeV and tanβ decreases from 50 to 7. For M1/μ<0 and tanβ<7 there are two separate regions corresponding to the observed relic density, divided by the socalled “blind spot” where sin2β=M1/μ [40,52,86–88]. The coupling Ch changes sign between the two regions. For tanβ=5 and mχ˜10=52GeV, for example, the regions μ<−136GeV and −168GeV<μ<−1085GeV both correspond to Ωh2<0.14.The Z resonance, on the other hand, is independent of the sign of M1/μ and it mildly depends on tanβ, as shown in equation (6). The Higgsino can be as heavy as about 470 GeV when DM annihilates via the Z resonance.3.2Dark matter direct detection experimentsNeutralinos with nonnegligible Higgsino component can be directly detected via elastic scattering on nuclei mediated by Z or Higgs boson exchange [6,89–93]. The null result of the searches for such scattering by LUX [89], XENON1T [90,94] and PandaXII [6] provides limits on the spinindependent (SI) neutralinonucleon elastic cross section σχ˜10nSI. In the χ˜10 mass region we consider the onesided 90% C.L. upper limit on σχ˜10nSI is about 5×10pb [94]. The most sensitive constraints on spindependent (SD) DMneutron elastic cross section σχ˜10nSD and DMproton elastic cross section σχ˜10pSD come from LUX [93] and PICO60 [95], respectively. In Fig. 2 we show current, as well as projected LUXZEPLIN (LZ) [96], constraints on σχ˜10nSI and σχ˜10nSD in the parameter regions that account for the observed DM abundance. The grey regions are excluded by either DM SI or SD scattering searches.The top panels of Fig. 2 show the predicted σχ˜10nSI in the surviving region as a function of mχ˜10. In the limit of heavy scalar superpartners, the dominant contribution of σχ˜10nSI comes from the tchannel exchange of a Higgs boson [52,88]:(9)σχ˜10nSI≃4μr2π[∑i=12Chiχ˜10χ˜10ChiNN2Mhi2]2. Here μr is the neutralinonucleus reduced mass, ChiNN denotes the effective coupling between the Higgs and nucleon. As discussed in Subsection 3.1, in the vicinity of the Higgs resonance Chχ˜10χ˜10 is restricted by the observed DM abundance. In this region σχ˜10nSI is practically independent of tanβ and sign of μ, and it is large enough to be fully covered by the LZ projected limits. On the other hand, on the Z resonance the DM relic density is independent of Chχ˜10χ˜10, and demands a fixed μ for certain mχ˜10, such as μ≃450GeV for mχ˜10=45GeV. As a result, for μ>0 the σχ˜10nSI cross section decreases when tanβ increases and will be detectable at LZ. For μ<0, however, due to the blind spot at sin2β=M1/μ, it is impossible to test Zresonance DM for tanβ=tan[arcsin(45/450)/2]≃20.On the contrary, at tree level and in the heavy squark limit only the tchannel Z boson exchange diagram contributes to σχ˜10nSD and σχ˜10pSD. Therefore, Zresonant DM will be detected at LZ by SD DMnucleon scattering, as shown in the bottom panels of Fig. 2. Since the 90% C.L. limit on the DM mass given by LUX [93] is about two times lower than the corresponding limit provided by PICO60 [95], while in our model σχ˜10nSD=0.76σχ˜10pSD, in the following we only study the SD DMneutron elastic cross section.In summary, a large part of the Z/h funnel region has been excluded by the current DM direct detection experimental constraints. The surviving regions require mχ˜10∈[41,46]∪[58,63]GeV for positive μ and mχ˜10∈[40,46]∪[58,63]GeV for negative μ. These regions will be probed by the SI and SD DMnucleon scattering detection at LZ. We should keep in mind, however, that these regions are obtained under the assumption that the masses of all nonelectroweakino sparticle masses are 3 TeV. If that is not the case, for example in the case of light squarks and a light nonSMlike CPeven Higgs, the SI DMneutron cross section could reduce and modify the allowed regions.3.3Z and Higgs boson invisible decayIf mχ˜10<MZ/2, the decay of Z boson to a pair of neutralinos is kinematically allowed. The decay width of this process is given by [63]:(10)Γ(Z→χ˜10χ˜10)=MZCZχ˜10χ˜10224π(1−4mχ˜102MZ2)32. 45GeV>mχ˜10>40GeV, in which DM direct detection is possible, equation (10) gives Γ(Z→χ˜10χ˜10)≲0.05MeV. This decay width is much below the LEP bound on the new physics contribution to Γ(Z→invisible)=2MeV at 95% C.L. LEP bounds on electroweakino masses, mχ˜1±>92GeV and mχ˜10+mχ˜2,30>208GeV [97], are not constraining either in the surviving regions.Similarly, for mχ˜10<Mh/2, the Higgs boson decay width into a pair of neutralinos is:(11)Γ(h→χ˜10χ˜10)=MhChχ˜10χ˜10216π(1−4mχ˜102Mh2)32. The combination of several searches performed by the ATLAS [98] and CMS [99,100] collaborations sets an upper limit of 0.24 at the 95% C.L. on BR(h→χ˜10χ˜10) for the 125 GeV Higgs boson. In Fig. 3, we show these limits in the (mχ˜10,μ) logarithmic plane for different values of tanβ. It is clear that the limits become stronger as tanβ decreases (increases) for μ>0 (μ<0), but they are always weaker than the DM direct detection limits. The global fit of Higgs couplings will provide a stricter constraint on the invisible Higgs decay width. However, the constraint from global fit can be relaxed by tuning the SUSY masses that here we fix at 3 TeV. For instance, the best fit point of global fit for Z/h funnel region in MSSM7 requires mt˜1≃2.1TeV and MA≃1.8TeV [10]. Thus we do not impose the Higgs invisible decay constraint from global fit in simplified model. The projected limit on BR(h→χ˜10χ˜10), such as BR(h→χ˜10χ˜10)>0.4% from ILC [101], can cover the whole Z funnel region, but not the h funnel [47,63].3.4Electroweakino searches at the 13 TeV LHCThe ATLAS [102–106] and CMS [34,72–74,107–109] collaborations performed numerous searches for direct production of electroweakinos at the 13 TeV LHC. In the simplified model in which the Winolike χ˜1± (χ˜20) decays to a W(Z) boson and a massless χ˜10, the search performed by ATLAS with 36 fb−1 data for final states involving two or three leptons excludes Wino masses up to 580 GeV [102]. The statistical combination of searches performed by CMS excludes the Wino below a mass of 650 GeV at the 95% C.L. [72]. The corresponding mass bounds for the Higgsino might be lower than that at least 100 GeV because the production rate of Higgsinolike chargino and neutralino pair is nearly half than the production rate of Winolike chargino and neutralino pair [44]. Based on these surviving regions of Z/hresonance DM could be excluded since the DM relic density imposes strict requirements on the Higgsino mass, as shown in Fig. 3. In the following, we assess the LHC constraints on the parameter space of interest by a detailed Monte Carlo simulation.We use MadGraph5_aMC@NLO_v2.6.1 [110] in combination with Pythia6 [111] to generate events for the relevant processes:(12)pp→χ˜1±χ˜2,30,pp→χ˜2,30χ˜2,30,pp→χ˜1±χ˜1∓, where the production rate of the first process at the LHC is much larger than the others. Here χ˜1± decays 100% to a W boson and a χ˜10, χ˜2,30 decay to a Z boson and a χ˜10 or a h boson and χ˜10. Although the branching ratios BR(χ˜2,30→χ˜10Z) and BR(χ˜2,30→χ˜10h) depend on tanβ and sign of μ, ∑BR(χ˜2,30→χ˜10Z) and ∑BR(χ˜2,30→χ˜10h) are roughly comparable for the whole parameter space [44]. The cross sections are normalized to nexttoleading order (NLO) computed by PROSPINO2 [112]. Finally, we use CheckMATE2.0.7 [113] with Delphes3.4.1 [114] to repeat the CMS analysis [72].The CMS combined search related to our processes [72] included the following channels.•The “≥3ℓ” search for the pp→χ˜1±χ˜20→W±Zχ˜10χ˜10→ℓℓvℓχ˜10χ˜10 process, with three or more leptons and large ETmiss in the final state [73]. In the several signal regions (SR) categorized by the number of lepton and lepton flavour, SRA targets the WZ topology. This is done by selecting events with three lightflavour leptons (e,μ), two of which form an oppositesign, sameflavour (OSSF) pair. These events are further divided into 44 bins by the invariant mass of the pair Mℓℓ, the transverse mass MT of the third lepton and ETmiss. In [72], the categorization has been updated to improve the sensitivity for the region of mχ˜20−mχ˜10≃MZ by requiring HT, the scalar pT sum of the jets, with pT>30GeV. However, compared to [73], the observed lower mass limit of the Winolike χ˜1± for massless mχ˜10 has also been improved from 450 GeV to 500 GeV. Here we adopt the improved bins of SRA for the analysis, but the validation of cutflows is based on [73] since the cutflow in [72] has not been provided.•The “2ℓ onZ” search for the pp→χ˜1±χ˜20→ZW±χ˜10χ˜10→ℓℓjjχ˜10χ˜10 process, with exactly two OSSF leptons consistent with the Z boson mass, two non btagged jets consistent with the W boson mass and large ETmiss in the final state [34]. The variable MT2 [115,116] is defined using ETmiss and the two leptons are required to be more energetic than 80 GeV to reduce the tt¯ background. Then four exclusive bins are defined based on ETmiss. The analysis probes Winolike χ˜1± masses between approximately 160 and 610 GeV for mχ˜10=0GeV and BR(χ˜1±→W±χ˜10)=BR(χ˜20→Zχ˜10)=100%.•The “1ℓ2b” search for the pp→χ˜1±χ˜20→hW±χ˜10χ˜10→bb¯vℓχ˜10χ˜10 process, with exactly one lepton, exactly two b jets and large ETmiss in the final state [74]. The invariant mass of the two b jets is required to be in the range [90, 150] GeV. The transverse mass of the leptonETmiss system and the contransverse mass MCT of the two b jets are used to suppress backgrounds, and the ETmiss separates the SR into two exclusive bins. The result excludes mχ˜1± between 220 GeV and 490 GeV at 95% C.L. when the χ˜10 is massless in the simplified model.Additionally, there are “H(γγ)” searches for the pp→χ˜1±χ˜20→hW±χ˜10χ˜10→γγvℓχ˜10χ˜10 process, and “2ℓ soft” searches for the pp→χ˜1±χ˜20→Z⁎W±⁎χ˜10χ˜10→ℓℓjjχ˜10χ˜10 process where Z⁎ and W±⁎ are offshell. But we do not include them in the analysis, further constraining the regions that survived DM direct detection limits, because the former can only exclude Wino below 170 GeV in a simplified model and the latter targets the situation of mχ˜20−mχ˜10≃MZ.As checked by CMS [72], these SRs are mutually exclusive, which means that they can be statistically combined to maximize the detection sensitivity. Thus, we combine them together though the modified frequentist approach, CLs method [117], by RooStats [118]. The likelihood functions are written as(13)L(μ)=∏iNch∫dμ′∫dbi′(μ′si+bj′)nie−(μ′si+bj′)ni!×e−(μ′−μ)22σμ2×e−(bi′−bi)22σbi2, where μ is the parameter of interest, μ′ and bi′ are nuisance parameters, and ni and bi are the number of signal and background events in the SRs. We take μ=1 for the signal hypothesis and μ=0 for the background only hypothesis. The background event numbers bi and uncertainties σbi are taken from the CMS reports, while the relative uncertainties of signal σμ are assumed to equal 5%. Covariance matrices are not included.In Fig. 3 we show the 95% C.L. combined upper limits in the plane of mχ˜10 and μ indicated by green dotdash lines. They barely depend on tanβ and the sign of μ, and slightly decrease with increasing mχ˜1±. To illustrate this, we choose four benchmark points of fixed mχ˜1± as examples and show the details of the CLs in Table 1. Comparing BP1, BP2 and BP3 we can see that the variation of tanβ and sign of μ will affect the branching ratios of the Higgsinolike χ˜2,30, which can be easily obtained from equation (8), but hardly change BR(χ˜20→χ˜10Z)+BR(χ˜30→χ˜10Z) and BR(χ˜20→χ˜10h)+BR(χ˜30→χ˜10h). For BP4, a heavier Bino mass M1 leads to a relatively compressed spectrum and hence smaller signal cut efficiencies.In summary, for Z/h funnel DM, regions in which μ is smaller than about 390 GeV are excluded by LHC RunII results, which limits are stricter than DM direct detection for negative μ and positive μ with tanβ>20. The Z funnel region is on the verge of complete exclusion. In the case of μ<0, the h funnel region can only survive with tanβ<7.4, while the h funnel region of μ>0 is the main surviving region. The h funnel regions for μ>0 and μ<0 are also shown in Fig. 4 on the (tanβ,μ) plane to display the surviving parameter space more clearly.4Electroweakino searches at the HLLHCAlthough the h funnel region of μ>0, that is the main region that survives the current experimental limits, will be fully probed by LZ [96], the HLLHC reach is still worth investigating as a complementary test. We employ two electroweakino analyses at the HLLHC proposed by ATLAS: the “3ℓ” search [70] and the “1ℓ2b” search [71]. Similar to the “≥3ℓ” search at 13 TeV, the “3ℓ” search at the HLLHC targets the pp→χ˜1±χ˜20→W±Zχ˜10χ˜10→ℓℓvℓχ˜10χ˜10 process with three or more leptons and large ETmiss in the final state. For 3000 fb−1 luminosity four signal regions, indicated by ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’, optimize the discovery and exclusion ability. The 1ℓ2b search for the pp→χ˜1±χ˜20→W±hχ˜10χ˜10→vℓbb¯χ˜10χ˜10 process at the HLLHC corresponds to two signal regions, ‘C’ and ‘D’. Unlike the 13 TeV analysis, the signal regions at the HLLHC are not exclusive. For example, in both analyses, the signal region C covers the signal region D. As a result, we choose the signal region with the bestexpected exclusion power in each analysis, and then combine them together using the CLs method described in Subsection 3.4.The combined expected 95% C.L. upper limits on the Z/h funnel region are presented in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 by red dot lines. We find that the combined result pushes the bound on μ to 960 GeV, which is 150 GeV stricter than the result of each individual analysis. There is no doubt that the Z funnel region will be completely excluded. The parameter space of h funnel region will be restricted to a very small region: tanβ<8 for μ>0 and tanβ<5.5 for μ<0. Such small tanβ, however, is highly disfavoured by experimental constraints, such as the SMlike Higgs data [119,120] and the muon anomalous magnetic moment.5The Z/h funnel in phenomenological MSSMAfter exhibiting the status of the Z/h funnel region in simplified MSSM, it is desirable to investigate the situation when we get rid of the assumptions, such as the fixed sfermion masses and the ratio of neutralino DM to observed DM. In this section we briefly examine the Z/h funnel region in a wider model scope and with more experimental constraints. To this end, we study the light DM scenario of phenomenological MSSM (pMSSM) [76] by scanning the following parameter space:(14)2<tanβ<60,10GeV<M1<100GeV,100GeV<M2<1000GeV,100GeV<μ<1500GeV,50GeV<MA<2TeV,At=Ab<5TeV,200GeV<mQ3,mU3=mD3<2TeV,100GeV<mL1,2,3=mE1,2,3=AE1,2,3<2TeV. The mass of the gluino and the first two generation squarks are fixed to 2 TeV. In addition to the constraints described in Section 3, during the scan we implement the following experimental constraints at 95% C.L.:•Bphysics constraints, such as the precise measurements of B→Xsγ, Bs→μ+μ−, Bd→Xsμ+μ− and the mass differences ΔMd and ΔMs [97];•the muon anomalous magnetic moment (aμ), the measured value of which deviates from the SM prediction (aμSM) [121,122];•global fit of the MSSM Higgs sector implemented by the packages HiggsBounds [123] and HiggsSignals [124];•searches for direct production of charginos and neutralinos in events with 3ℓ+ETmiss [69] and 2ℓ+ETmiss [125] at LHC RunI using CheckMATE2.0.23. We also require ml˜>2.0mχ˜10 to discard the samples with DM coannihilation through sleptons in the early universe. Since there may be other sources of DM, here we set only an upper bound on the DM relic density. Assuming that the other sources of the DM have no interaction with nuclei, this implies that we have to scale the DMneutron elastic cross section by the ratio of neutralino DM relic density and observed DM abundance.The surviving parameter regions of pMSSM are presented in Fig. 5 with grey points indicating the samples further excluded by DM SI/SD direct detection and direct searches for sleptons using 36 fb−1 data at LHC RunII [102,126], and other colours indicating the unified mass of sleptons. The left panel is similar to the left top panel of Fig. 2, though now χ˜10 may represent only part of the total DM. Both the Z and h funnel regions are tightly restricted by the DM direct detection constraints that yield mχ˜10∈[43.1,45.6]GeV or [59.2,63.6]GeV. In the right panel we find that the combination of electroweakino searches further excludes regions where the ratio of the neutralino DM relic density over the observed DM density is smaller than 58% (19%) for the Z (h) funnel region. Comparing the pMSSM model to the simplified model we find that the constraint on aμ, which requires tanβ>9, reduces the height of the h funnel region. Furthermore, aμ also restricts the slepton masses [127]. As shown by the colours in Fig. 5, the surviving samples require either a light slepton or a light chargino. For Z/h resonances, the points of ml˜≲460GeV are excluded by the multilepton plus ETmiss searches at LHC RunII [102,126], which further reduce the height of the h funnel peak from 650 GeV to 580 GeV. Therefore, the detection of the whole Z/h funnel region in pMSSM will be much faster than the one in the simplified model, in the joint result of future slepton searches and electroweakino searches at LHC. For example, if the exclusion limits on Higgsino mass and slepton mass are both improved by about 150 GeV, there would be no surviving point in pMSSM.6SummaryIn this work we investigate the current and future status of the Z/h funnel region in the MSSM with the constraints from DM direct detection, measurements of Z/h invisible decay, direct searches for electroweakinos/sleptons at the LHC and muon g2 measurement. Differently from previous studies in which the constraints from LHC were implemented by requiring the SUSY signal events in an individual signal region, we combine the results of all relevant electroweakino searches performed by the CMS, especially the “1ℓ2b” search. Such combination increases the bound on the Higgsino mass parameter to μ>390GeV, which is about 80 GeV stricter than the bound obtained from individual analyses.With such improvement, we find that in a simplified model the Z funnel region is on the brink of complete exclusion, the h funnel of μ<0 only survives if tanβ<7.4, and the h funnel region of μ>0 is the main surviving region:1.Z funnel region, mχ˜10∈[42.5,45.8]GeV, μ∈[388,484]GeV;2.Z funnel region, mχ˜10∈[42.5,45.8]GeV, μ∈[−388,−486]GeV;3.h funnel region, mχ˜10∈[59.4,63.4]GeV, μ∈[−386,−1089]GeV, tanβ∈[5,7.4];4.h funnel region, mχ˜10∈[58.4,63.6]GeV, μ∈[386,1444]GeV. They can be entirely detected by LZ, while regions 1 and 2, and most of the parameter space in region 3 and 4 can be excluded by the HLLHC.In the popular pMSSM, the surviving parameter space becomes smaller due to other constraints. Especially, the light sleptons required by the muon anomalous magnetic moment will accelerate the exclusion of Z/h funnel region at the LHC. Only a tiny part of the parameter space can survive the current experimental constraints. Though the modest excesses in recent electroweakino searches prefer light electroweakino, the Z/h funnel region in MSSM is not an ideal interpretation; this is particularly true in view of a plausible improvement of the bounds on σχ˜10nSI expected by the ongoing DM direct detection experiments, or also in view of the increase of the limits on slepton and electroweakino in noncompressed region by the forthcoming LHC 80 fb−1 results.AcknowledgementsWe thank Csaba Balazs for useful comments on the draft. This research was supported by the ARC Centre of Excellence for Particle Physics at the Terascale, under the grant CE110001004.References[1]J.AbdallahDELPHIEur. Phys. J. C382005395arXiv:hepex/0406019 [hepex][2]M.AaboudATLASJ. High Energy Phys.012018126arXiv:1711.03301 [hepex][3]A.M.SirunyanCMSJ. High Energy Phys.072017014arXiv:1703.01651 [hepex][4]E.AprileXENONEur. Phys. J. C772017881arXiv:1708.07051 [astroph.IM][5]D.S.AkeribLUXPhys. Rev. D932016072009arXiv:1512.03133 [physics.insdet][6]X.CuiPandaXIIPhys. Rev. Lett.1192017181302arXiv:1708.06917 [astroph.CO][7]M.AguilarAMSPhys. Rev. Lett.1102013141102[8]M.AckermannFermiLATPhys. Rev. Lett.1152015231301arXiv:1503.02641 [astroph.HE][9]J.ChangDAMPEAstropart. Phys.9520176arXiv:1706.08453 [astroph.IM][10]P.AthronGAMBITEur. Phys. J. C772017879arXiv:1705.07917 [hepph][11]E.BagnaschiEur. Phys. J. C782018256arXiv:1710.11091 [hepph][12]G.AadATLASJ. High Energy Phys.102015134arXiv:1508.06608 [hepex][13]P.AthronGAMBITEur. Phys. J. C772017824arXiv:1705.07935 [hepph][14]P.AthronGAMBIT5th Large Hadron Collider Physics Conference (LHCP 2017)Shanghai, China, May 15–20, 20172017arXiv:1708.07594 [hepph][15]P.AthronGAMBITEur. Phys. J. C772017784Addendum:Eur. Phys. J. C782201898arXiv:1705.07908 [hepph][16]M.A.AjaibI.GogoladzearXiv:1710.07842 [hepph]2017[17]C.HanK.i.HikasaL.WuJ.M.YangY.ZhangPhys. Lett. B7692017470arXiv:1612.02296 [hepph][18]P.BechtleEur. Phys. J. C76201696arXiv:1508.05951 [hepph][19]E.A.BagnaschiEur. Phys. J. C752015500arXiv:1508.01173 [hepph][20]C.BalazsA.BuckleyD.CarterB.FarmerM.WhiteEur. Phys. J. C7320132563arXiv:1205.1568 [hepph][21]A.FowlieM.KazanaK.KowalskaS.MunirL.RoszkowskiE.M.SessoloS.TrojanowskiY.L.S.TsaiPhys. Rev. D862012075010arXiv:1206.0264 [hepph][22]O.BuchmuellerEur. Phys. J. C7220122243arXiv:1207.7315 [hepph][23]C.StregeG.BertoneF.FerozM.FornasaR.Ruiz de AustriR.TrottaJ. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.13042013013arXiv:1212.2636 [hepph][24]M.CitronJ.EllisF.LuoJ.MarroucheK.A.OliveK.J.de VriesPhys. Rev. D872013036012arXiv:1212.2886 [hepph][25]N.BornhauserM.DreesPhys. Rev. D882013075016arXiv:1307.3383 [hepph][26]S.HenrotVersilléR.LafayeT.PlehnM.RauchD.ZerwasS.PlaszczynskiB.Rouillé d'OrfeuilM.SpinelliPhys. Rev. D892014055017arXiv:1309.6958 [hepph][27]P.BechtleProceedings, 2013 European Physical Society Conference on High Energy Physics (EPSHEP 2013), Stockholm, Sweden, July 18–24, 2013PoSvol. EPSHEP20132013313arXiv:1310.3045 [hepph][28]O.BuchmuellerEur. Phys. J. C7420142922arXiv:1312.5250 [hepph][29]J.EllisEur. Phys. J. C7420142732arXiv:1312.5426 [hepph][30]P.BechtleProceedings, 37th International Conference on High Energy Physics (ICHEP 2014), Valencia, Spain, July 2–9, 2014Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc.273–2752016589arXiv:1410.6035 [hepph][31]P.BechtleJ. High Energy Phys.062012098arXiv:1204.4199 [hepph][32]M.AaboudATLASarXiv:1806.02293 [hepex]2018[33]M.AaboudATLASPhys. Rev. D982018032009arXiv:1804.03602 [hepex][34]A.M.SirunyanCMSJ. High Energy Phys.032018076arXiv:1709.08908 [hepex][35]A.KvellestadGAMBIT39th International Conference on High Energy Physics (ICHEP 2018)Seoul, GangnamGu, Korea, Republic of, July 4–11, 20182018arXiv:1807.03208 [hepph][36]P.AthronGAMBITarXiv:1809.02097 [hepph]2018[37]H.BaerV.BargerP.HuangA.MustafayevX.TataPhys. Rev. Lett.1092012161802arXiv:1207.3343 [hepph][38]M.AbdughaniL.WuJ.M.YangEur. Phys. J. C7820184arXiv:1705.09164 [hepph][39]J.CaoY.HeL.ShangW.SuY.ZhangJ. High Energy Phys.082016037arXiv:1606.04416 [hepph][40]J.CaoY.HeL.ShangW.SuP.WuY.ZhangJ. High Energy Phys.102016136arXiv:1609.00204 [hepph][41]U.EllwangerJ. High Energy Phys.022017051arXiv:1612.06574 [hepph][42]M.AaboudATLASarXiv:1712.02332 [hepex]2017[43]T.HanF.KlingS.SuY.WuJ. High Energy Phys.022017057arXiv:1612.02387 [hepph][44]L.CalibbiJ.M.LindertT.OtaY.TakanishiJ. High Energy Phys.112014106arXiv:1410.5730 [hepph][45]M.van BeekveldW.BeenakkerS.CaronR.PeetersR.Ruiz de AustriPhys. Rev. D962017035015arXiv:1612.06333 [hepph][46]A.AchterbergS.AmorosoS.CaronL.HendriksR.Ruiz de AustriC.WenigerJ. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.15082015006arXiv:1502.05703 [hepph][47]R.K.BarmanG.BelangerB.BhattacherjeeR.GodboleG.MendirattaD.SenguptaPhys. Rev. D952017095018arXiv:1703.03838 [hepph][48]J.BramanteN.DesaiP.FoxA.MartinB.OstdiekT.PlehnPhys. Rev. D932016063525arXiv:1510.03460 [hepph][49]M.ChakrabortiA.DattaN.GangulyS.PoddarJ. High Energy Phys.112017117arXiv:1707.04410 [hepph][50]M.BadziakM.OlechowskiP.SzczerbiakJ. High Energy Phys.072017050arXiv:1705.00227 [hepph][51]T.HanS.PadhiS.SuPhys. Rev. D882013115010arXiv:1309.5966 [hepph][52]M.BadziakM.OlechowskiP.SzczerbiakJ. High Energy Phys.032016179arXiv:1512.02472 [hepph][53]A.ChoudhuryS.RaoL.RoszkowskiPhys. Rev. D962017075046arXiv:1708.05675 [hepph][54]M.ChakrabortiU.ChattopadhyayS.PoddarJ. High Energy Phys.092017064arXiv:1702.03954 [hepph][55]A.KobakhidzeM.TaliaL.WuPhys. Rev. D952017055023arXiv:1608.03641 [hepph][56]A.ChoudhuryS.MondalPhys. Rev. D942016055024arXiv:1603.05502 [hepph][57]M.van BeekveldW.BeenakkerS.CaronR.Ruiz de AustriJ. High Energy Phys.042016154arXiv:1602.00590 [hepph][58]S.ProfumoT.StefaniakL.Stephenson HaskinsPhys. Rev. D962017055018arXiv:1706.08537 [hepph][59]L.CalibbiT.OtaY.TakanishiJ. High Energy Phys.072011013arXiv:1104.1134 [hepph][60]G.BelangerF.BoudjemaA.CottrantR.M.GodboleA.SemenovPhys. Lett. B519200193arXiv:hepph/0106275 [hepph][61]T.HanZ.LiuA.NatarajanJ. High Energy Phys.112013008arXiv:1303.3040 [hepph][62]Q.F.XiangX.J.BiP.F.YinZ.H.YuPhys. Rev. D942016055031arXiv:1606.02149 [hepph][63]K.HamaguchiK.IshikawaPhys. Rev. D932016055009arXiv:1510.05378 [hepph][64]C.HanInt. J. Mod. Phys. A3220171745003arXiv:1409.7000 [hepph][65]E.BernreutherJ.HorakT.PlehnA.ButterarXiv:1805.11637 [hepph]2018[66]C.ArinaM.ChalaV.MartinLozanoG.NardiniJ. High Energy Phys.122016149arXiv:1610.03822 [hepph][67]T.A.W.MartinD.MorrisseyJ. High Energy Phys.122014168arXiv:1409.6322 [hepph][68]D.BarducciA.BelyaevA.K.M.BharuchaW.PorodV.SanzJ. High Energy Phys.072015066arXiv:1504.02472 [hepph][69]G.AadATLASJ. High Energy Phys.042014169arXiv:1402.7029 [hepex][70]Search for Supersymmetry at the High Luminosity LHC with the ATLAS ExperimentTech. Rep. ATLPHYSPUB20140102014CERNGeneva[71]Prospect for a Search for Direct Pair Production of a Chargino and a Neutralino Decaying Via a W Boson and the Lightest Higgs Boson in Final States with One Lepton, Two BJets and Missing Transverse Momentum at the High Luminosity LHC with the ATLAS DetectorTech. Rep. ATLPHYSPUB20150322015CERNGeneva[72]A.M.SirunyanCMSarXiv:1801.03957 [hepex]2018[73]A.M.SirunyanCMSarXiv:1709.05406 [hepex]2017[74]A.M.SirunyanCMSJ. High Energy Phys.112017029arXiv:1706.09933 [hepex][75]Lepsusywg, aleph, delphi, l3 and opal experiments, note lepsusywg/0204.1, note lepsusywg/0103.1http://lepsusy.web.cern.ch/lepsusy[76]J.CaoY.HeL.ShangW.SuY.ZhangJ. High Energy Phys.032016207arXiv:1511.05386 [hepph][77]G.AadCMSATLASPhys. Rev. Lett.1142015191803arXiv:1503.07589 [hepex][78]A.DjouadiM.M.MuhlleitnerM.SpiraPhysics at LHCProceedings, 3rd Conference, Cracow, Poland, July 3–8, 2006Acta Phys. Pol. B382007635arXiv:hepph/0609292 [hepph][79]A.DjouadiJ.L.KneurG.MoultakaComput. Phys. Commun.1762007426arXiv:hepph/0211331 [hepph][80]M.MuhlleitnerLinear collidersProceedings, International Conference, LCWS 2004, Paris, France, April 19–23, 2004Acta Phys. Pol. B3520042753hepph/0409200 [hepph][81]A.DjouadiJ.KalinowskiM.SpiraComput. Phys. Commun.108199856arXiv:hepph/9704448 [hepph][82]G.BelangerF.BoudjemaA.PukhovA.SemenovComput. Phys. Commun.1492002103arXiv:hepph/0112278 [hepph][83]D.BarducciG.BelangerJ.BernonF.BoudjemaJ.Da SilvaS.KramlU.LaaA.PukhovarXiv:1606.03834 [hepph]2016[84]P.A.R.AdePlanckAstron. Astrophys.5942016A13arXiv:1502.01589 [astroph.CO][85]J.DunkleyWMAPAstrophys. J. Suppl.1802009306arXiv:0803.0586 [astroph][86]C.CheungL.J.HallD.PinnerJ.T.RudermanJ. High Energy Phys.052013100arXiv:1211.4873 [hepph][87]P.HuangC.E.M.WagnerPhys. Rev. D902014015018arXiv:1404.0392 [hepph][88]M.BadziakM.OlechowskiP.SzczerbiakProceedings, 18th International Conference from the Planck Scale to the Electroweak Scale (Planck 2015), Ioannina, Greece, May 25–29, 2015PoSPLANCK20152015130arXiv:1601.00768 [hepph][89]D.S.AkeribLUXPhys. Rev. Lett.1182017021303arXiv:1608.07648 [astroph.CO][90]E.AprileXENONPhys. Rev. Lett.1192017181301arXiv:1705.06655 [astroph.CO][91]C.FuPandaXIIErratumPhys. Rev. Lett.1182017071301Phys. Rev. Lett.12042018049902arXiv:1611.06553 [hepex][92]E.AprileXENON100Phys. Rev. D942016122001arXiv:1609.06154 [astroph.CO][93]D.S.AkeribLUXPhys. Rev. Lett.1182017251302arXiv:1705.03380 [astroph.CO][94]XENON1Thttps://science.purdue.edu/xenon1t/?p=1080[95]C.AmolePICOPhys. Rev. Lett.1182017251301arXiv:1702.07666 [astroph.CO][96]D.S.AkeribLUXZEPLINarXiv:1802.06039 [astroph.IM]2018[97]C.PatrignaniParticle Data GroupChin. Phys. C402016100001[98]G.AadATLASJ. High Energy Phys.112015206arXiv:1509.00672 [hepex][99]V.KhachatryanCMSJ. High Energy Phys.022017135arXiv:1610.09218 [hepex][100]Search for Invisible Decays of the Higgs Boson Produced Through Vector Boson Fusion at s=13TeVTech. Rep. CMSPASHIG170232018CERNGeneva[101]D.M.AsnerProceedings, 2013 Community Summer Study on the Future of U.S. Particle Physics: Snowmass on the Mississippi (CSS2013)Minneapolis, MN, USA, July 29August 6, 20132013arXiv:1310.0763 [hepph][102]M.AaboudATLASarXiv:1803.02762 [hepex]2018[103]M.AaboudATLASarXiv:1802.03158 [hepex]2018[104]M.AaboudATLASSubmitted for publication:Phys. Rev. D2017arXiv:1712.08119 [hepex][105]M.AaboudATLASarXiv:1712.02118 [hepex]2017[106]M.AaboudATLASEur. Phys. J. C782018154arXiv:1708.07875 [hepex][107]A.M.SirunyanCMSPhys. Rev. D972018032007arXiv:1709.04896 [hepex][108]A.M.SirunyanCMSPhys. Lett. B7792018166arXiv:1709.00384 [hepex][109]A.M.SirunyanCMSarXiv:1801.01846 [hepex]2018[110]J.AlwallR.FrederixS.FrixioneV.HirschiF.MaltoniO.MattelaerH.S.ShaoT.StelzerP.TorrielliM.ZaroJ. High Energy Phys.072014079arXiv:1405.0301 [hepph][111]P.TorrielliS.FrixioneJ. High Energy Phys.042010110arXiv:1002.4293 [hepph][112]W.BeenakkerR.HopkerM.SpiraarXiv:hepph/9611232 [hepph]1996[113]D.DercksN.DesaiJ.S.KimK.RolbieckiJ.TattersallT.WeberComput. Phys. Commun.2212017383arXiv:1611.09856 [hepph][114]J.de FavereauC.DelaereP.DeminA.GiammancoV.LemaîtreA.MertensM.SelvaggiDELPHES 3J. High Energy Phys.022014057arXiv:1307.6346 [hepex][115]C.G.LesterB.NachmanJ. High Energy Phys.032015100arXiv:1411.4312 [hepph][116]C.G.LesterD.J.SummersPhys. Lett. B463199999arXiv:hepph/9906349 [hepph][117]A.L.ReadJ. Phys. G, Nucl. Part. Phys.2820022693[118]G.SchottRooStats TeamProceedings, PHYSTAT 2011 Workshop on Statistical Issues Related to Discovery Claims in Search Experiments and UnfoldingCERN, Geneva, Switzerland 1720 January 20112011CERNGeneva199208arXiv:1203.1547 [physics.dataan][119]J.A.CasasJ.M.MorenoK.RolbieckiB.ZaldivarJ. High Energy Phys.092013099arXiv:1305.3274 [hepph][120]C.ArinaV.MartinLozanoG.NardiniJ. High Energy Phys.082014015arXiv:1403.6434 [hepph][121]G.W.BennettMuon g2Phys. Rev. D732006072003arXiv:hepex/0602035 [hepex][122]M.DavierA.HoeckerB.MalaescuZ.ZhangEur. Phys. J. C7120111515Erratum:Eur. Phys. J. C7220121874arXiv:1010.4180 [hepph][123]P.BechtleO.BreinS.HeinemeyerO.StålT.StefaniakG.WeigleinK.E.WilliamsEur. Phys. J. C7420142693arXiv:1311.0055 [hepph][124]P.BechtleS.HeinemeyerO.StålT.StefaniakG.WeigleinEur. Phys. J. C7420142711arXiv:1305.1933 [hepph][125]G.AadATLASJ. High Energy Phys.052014071arXiv:1403.5294 [hepex][126]A.M.SirunyanCMSSubmitted for publication:Phys. Lett.2018arXiv:1806.05264 [hepex][127]P.CoxC.HanT.T.YanagidaarXiv:1805.02802 [hepph]2018