CERN Accelerating science

Left: Comparison of the data (solid circles) failing the $m_1 \simeq m_2$ requirement in the control sample where no isolation requirement is applied to reconstructed dimuons with the prediction of the background shape model (solid line) scaled to the number of entries in the data. The insets show the $B_{17+8}$ and $B_{8+8}$ templates (solid lines) for dimuons obtained with background-enriched data samples. Right: Distribution of the invariant masses $m_1$ vs. $m_2$ for the isolated dimuon systems for the three events in the data (shown as empty circles) surviving all selections except the requirement that these two masses fall into the diagonal signal region $m_1 \simeq m_2$ (outlined with dashed lines). The intensity (color online) of the shading indicates the background expectation which is a sum of the $\bbbar$ and the direct $\JPsi$ pair production contributions.

Left: Comparison of the data (solid circles) failing the $m_1 \simeq m_2$ requirement in the control sample where no isolation requirement is applied to reconstructed dimuons with the prediction of the background shape model (solid line) scaled to the number of entries in the data. The insets show the $B_{17+8}$ and $B_{8+8}$ templates (solid lines) for dimuons obtained with background-enriched data samples. Right: Distribution of the invariant masses $m_1$ vs. $m_2$ for the isolated dimuon systems for the three events in the data (shown as empty circles) surviving all selections except the requirement that these two masses fall into the diagonal signal region $m_1 \simeq m_2$ (outlined with dashed lines). The intensity (color online) of the shading indicates the background expectation which is a sum of the $\bbbar$ and the direct $\JPsi$ pair production contributions.

Left: The $95\%$ CL upper limits as functions of $m_{\text{h}_1}$, for the NMSSM case, on $\sigma(\Pp\Pp \to \text{h}_{1,2} \to 2 \text{a}_1) \times \mathcal{B}^2(\text{a}_1 \to 2 \mu)$ with $m_{\text{a}_1}=0.25\GeVcc$ (dashed curve), $m_{\text{a}_1}=2\GeVcc$ (dash-dotted curve) and $m_{\text{a}_1}=3.55\GeVcc$ (dotted curve). As an illustration, the limits are compared to the predicted rate (solid curve) obtained using a simplified scenario with $\sigma (\Pp\Pp \to \text{h}_1)=\sigma_\mathrm{SM}(m_{\text{h}_1})$~\cite{Dittmaier:2011ti}, $\sigma (\Pp\Pp \to \text{h}_2) \times \mathcal{B}(\text{h}_{2} \rightarrow 2 \text{a}_1) = 0$, $\mathcal{B}(\text{h}_1 \to 2 \text{a}_1) = 3\%$, and $\mathcal{B}(\text{a}_1 \to 2\mu) = 7.7\%$. The chosen $\mathcal{B}(\text{a}_1 \to 2\mu)$ is taken from~\cite{Dermisek:2010mg} for $m_{\text{a}_1} = 2\GeVcc$ and NMSSM parameter $\tan \beta = 20$. Right: The 95\% CL upper limit as a function of $m_{\text{h}}$, for the dark-SUSY case, on $\sigma(\Pp\Pp \to \text{h} \to 2 \text{n}_1 \to 2\text{n}_D + 2 \gamma_D) \times \mathcal{B}^2(\gamma_D \to 2 \mu)$ with $m_{\text{n}_1}=10\GeVcc$, $m_{\text{n}_D}=1\GeVcc$ and $m_{\gamma_D}=0.4\GeVcc$ (dashed curve). As an illustration, the limit is compared to the predicted rate (solid curve) obtained using a simplified scenario with SM Higgs boson production cross section $\sigma (\Pp\Pp \to \text{h})=\sigma_\mathrm{SM}(m_{\text{h}})$~\cite{Dittmaier:2011ti}, $\mathcal{B}(\text{h} \to 2 \text{n}_1)=1\%$, $\mathcal{B}(\text{n}_1 \to \text{n}_D + \gamma_D)=50\%$, and $\mathcal{B}(\gamma_D \to 2 \mu) = 45\%$. The chosen $\mathcal{B}(\gamma_D \to 2 \mu)$ is taken from~\cite{Falkowski:2010cm} for $m_{\gamma_D} = 0.4\GeVcc$.

Left: The $95\%$ CL upper limits as functions of $m_{\text{h}_1}$, for the NMSSM case, on $\sigma(\Pp\Pp \to \text{h}_{1,2} \to 2 \text{a}_1) \times \mathcal{B}^2(\text{a}_1 \to 2 \mu)$ with $m_{\text{a}_1}=0.25\GeVcc$ (dashed curve), $m_{\text{a}_1}=2\GeVcc$ (dash-dotted curve) and $m_{\text{a}_1}=3.55\GeVcc$ (dotted curve). As an illustration, the limits are compared to the predicted rate (solid curve) obtained using a simplified scenario with $\sigma (\Pp\Pp \to \text{h}_1)=\sigma_\mathrm{SM}(m_{\text{h}_1})$~\cite{Dittmaier:2011ti}, $\sigma (\Pp\Pp \to \text{h}_2) \times \mathcal{B}(\text{h}_{2} \rightarrow 2 \text{a}_1) = 0$, $\mathcal{B}(\text{h}_1 \to 2 \text{a}_1) = 3\%$, and $\mathcal{B}(\text{a}_1 \to 2\mu) = 7.7\%$. The chosen $\mathcal{B}(\text{a}_1 \to 2\mu)$ is taken from~\cite{Dermisek:2010mg} for $m_{\text{a}_1} = 2\GeVcc$ and NMSSM parameter $\tan \beta = 20$. Right: The 95\% CL upper limit as a function of $m_{\text{h}}$, for the dark-SUSY case, on $\sigma(\Pp\Pp \to \text{h} \to 2 \text{n}_1 \to 2\text{n}_D + 2 \gamma_D) \times \mathcal{B}^2(\gamma_D \to 2 \mu)$ with $m_{\text{n}_1}=10\GeVcc$, $m_{\text{n}_D}=1\GeVcc$ and $m_{\gamma_D}=0.4\GeVcc$ (dashed curve). As an illustration, the limit is compared to the predicted rate (solid curve) obtained using a simplified scenario with SM Higgs boson production cross section $\sigma (\Pp\Pp \to \text{h})=\sigma_\mathrm{SM}(m_{\text{h}})$~\cite{Dittmaier:2011ti}, $\mathcal{B}(\text{h} \to 2 \text{n}_1)=1\%$, $\mathcal{B}(\text{n}_1 \to \text{n}_D + \gamma_D)=50\%$, and $\mathcal{B}(\gamma_D \to 2 \mu) = 45\%$. The chosen $\mathcal{B}(\gamma_D \to 2 \mu)$ is taken from~\cite{Falkowski:2010cm} for $m_{\gamma_D} = 0.4\GeVcc$.

Left: The $95\%$ CL upper limits as functions of $m_{\text{a}_1}$, for the NMSSM case, on $\sigma(\Pp\Pp \to \text{h}_{1,2} \to 2 \text{a}_1) \times \mathcal{B}^2(\text{a}_1 \to 2 \mu)$ with $m_{\text{h}_1}=90\GeVcc$ (dashed curve), $m_{\text{h}_1}=125\GeVcc$ (dash-dotted curve) and $m_{\text{h}_1}=150\GeVcc$ (dotted curve). The limits are compared to the predicted rate (solid curve) obtained using a simplified scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\text{h}_{1} \to 2 \text{a}_1) = 3\%$, $\sigma (\Pp\Pp \to \text{h}_{1})=\sigma_\mathrm{SM}(m_{\text{h}_{1}} = 125\GeVcc)$~\cite{Dittmaier:2011ti}, $\sigma (\Pp\Pp \to \text{h}_2) \times \mathcal{B}(\text{h}_{2} \rightarrow 2 \text{a}_1) = 0$, and $\mathcal{B}(\text{a}_1 \to 2\mu)$ as a function of $m_{\text{a}_1}$ which is taken from~\cite{Dermisek:2010mg} for NMSSM parameter $\tan \beta = 20$. Right: The $95\%$ CL upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(\text{h}_{1} \to 2 \text{a}_1) \times \mathcal{B}^2(\text{a}_1 \to 2 \mu)$ with $m_{\text{h}_1}=90\GeVcc$ (dashed curve), $m_{\text{h}_1}=125\GeVcc$ (dash-dotted curve) and $m_{\text{h}_1}=150\GeVcc$ (dotted curve) assuming $\sigma(\Pp\Pp \to \text{h}_{1}) = \sigma_\mathrm{SM}(m_{\text{h}_{1}})$~\cite{Dittmaier:2011ti} and $\sigma (\Pp\Pp \to \text{h}_2) \times \mathcal{B}(\text{h}_{2} \rightarrow 2 \text{a}_1) = 0$. The limits are compared to the predicted branching fraction (solid line) obtained using a simplified scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\text{h}_{1} \to 2 \text{a}_1) = 3\%$ and $\mathcal{B}(\text{a}_1 \to 2\mu)$ as a function of $m_{\text{a}_1}$ which is taken from~\cite{Dermisek:2010mg} for NMSSM parameter $\tan \beta = 20$.

Left: The $95\%$ CL upper limits as functions of $m_{\text{a}_1}$, for the NMSSM case, on $\sigma(\Pp\Pp \to \text{h}_{1,2} \to 2 \text{a}_1) \times \mathcal{B}^2(\text{a}_1 \to 2 \mu)$ with $m_{\text{h}_1}=90\GeVcc$ (dashed curve), $m_{\text{h}_1}=125\GeVcc$ (dash-dotted curve) and $m_{\text{h}_1}=150\GeVcc$ (dotted curve). The limits are compared to the predicted rate (solid curve) obtained using a simplified scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\text{h}_{1} \to 2 \text{a}_1) = 3\%$, $\sigma (\Pp\Pp \to \text{h}_{1})=\sigma_\mathrm{SM}(m_{\text{h}_{1}} = 125\GeVcc)$~\cite{Dittmaier:2011ti}, $\sigma (\Pp\Pp \to \text{h}_2) \times \mathcal{B}(\text{h}_{2} \rightarrow 2 \text{a}_1) = 0$, and $\mathcal{B}(\text{a}_1 \to 2\mu)$ as a function of $m_{\text{a}_1}$ which is taken from~\cite{Dermisek:2010mg} for NMSSM parameter $\tan \beta = 20$. Right: The $95\%$ CL upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(\text{h}_{1} \to 2 \text{a}_1) \times \mathcal{B}^2(\text{a}_1 \to 2 \mu)$ with $m_{\text{h}_1}=90\GeVcc$ (dashed curve), $m_{\text{h}_1}=125\GeVcc$ (dash-dotted curve) and $m_{\text{h}_1}=150\GeVcc$ (dotted curve) assuming $\sigma(\Pp\Pp \to \text{h}_{1}) = \sigma_\mathrm{SM}(m_{\text{h}_{1}})$~\cite{Dittmaier:2011ti} and $\sigma (\Pp\Pp \to \text{h}_2) \times \mathcal{B}(\text{h}_{2} \rightarrow 2 \text{a}_1) = 0$. The limits are compared to the predicted branching fraction (solid line) obtained using a simplified scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\text{h}_{1} \to 2 \text{a}_1) = 3\%$ and $\mathcal{B}(\text{a}_1 \to 2\mu)$ as a function of $m_{\text{a}_1}$ which is taken from~\cite{Dermisek:2010mg} for NMSSM parameter $\tan \beta = 20$.