Moriond Electroweak and Unified Theories 2016-Experimental

MORIOND ELECTROWEAK & UNIFIED THEORIES 2016 — EXPERIMENTAL SUMMARY —

Andreas Hoecker

CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland

Summary of the experimental results presented at the 51st edition of the Moriond Electroweak and Uniﬁed Theories conference held in March 2016 at La Thuile, Italy.

1 Introduction

The 51st Moriond Electroweak and Unified Theories conference featured, as is tradition, a vi- brant snapshot of newest results and trends in the fields of neutrino physics, astrophysics and cosmology, gravitational waves (!), dark matter and collider physics (it became the promised LHC feast). There were 53 beautifully prepared talks in addition to young scientist presenta- tions reporting a wealth of new experimental results that demonstrated once again that our field lives in data-driven times. The following is an attempt for a (necessarily incomplete) summary of the results presented.

The year 2015 has seen yet another Nobel Price for particle physics, and another one for neutrino oscillation. It was awarded jointly to Takaaki Kajita and Arthur B. McDonald from the Super- Kamiokande and Sudbury Neutrino Observatory experiments, respectively, “for the discovery of arXiv:1605.06042v1 [hep-ex] 19 May 2016 neutrino oscillations, which shows that neutrinos have mass”.1

Since these dramatic developments at the turn of the millennium neutrino physics has come a long way. Beyond the established facts that neutrinos are massive fermions with three active ﬂavours and mass eigenstates that are mixed ﬂavour states, there are, however, yet critical questions.

– What is the nature of the neutrinos, are they Majorana fermions?

2 – While the absolute mass splitting, ∆mij, and mixing angles, θ12, θ13, θ23, are known to about 3% and 3–7%, respectively, the mass hierachy is not. By convention normal hierarchy is dubbed the case where m2 m2 > m2 and inverted hierarchy stands for 3 2 1 m2 > m2 m2. 2 1 3

1 – CP violation in the neutrino sector, described by the phase δCP for flavour-changing transitions in the Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata (PMNS) neutrino mixing matrix, is unknown so far. – Are there sterile neutrinos, i.e., neutrinos that interact only with gravity but are singlets with respect to the Standard Model interactions? Are there heavy additional right-handed neutrinos? If so, are they in reach of current experiments? And also: neutrino cross section and flux measurements and their theoretical predictions need to be improved. The experimental tools to get handles on these questions are neutrino oscillation measurements (short and long baseline), single beta decay measurements, searches for neutrinoless double-beta decay, and cosmology.a Neutrinos also serve as messengers in astronomy, Sun and Geo science, as well as for phenomena such as grand unification, lepto/baryogenesis and physics beyond the Standard Model. Given the amount and importance of the open questions, and the variety of the available tools, neutrino physics benefits from an exciting experimental programme.

2.1 Results from short-baseline neutrino experiments

Low-energy scattering interactions of electron neutrinos or antineutrinos with matter has been a longstanding source of uncertainty. Apart from the controversial LSND result,4 there was the 2013 electron-neutrino appearance measurement by the MiniBooNE experiment at Fermi- lab that revealed in both neutrino and antineutrino beam modes5 an excess of events in the 0.2–0.4 GeV electron-neutrino energy range over the expectation, which is composed of (in order of importance) π0 misidentification, ∆ Nγ, muon and kaon decays, and other back- → ground sources. The excess appears electron-like in MiniBooNE’s Cherenkov detector, which cannot separate the signal from photon backgrounds. It is therefore important to have precise alternative low-energy cross-section measurements. This is the task of the new MicroBooNE experiment at Fermilab that is installed 500 m from the Booster Neutrino Beamline (BNB) ∼ (anti)muon-neutrino beam, and is dedicated to low-energy neutrino cross sections measurements of (anti)electron appearance.3 Because the LAr-TPC tracking-calorimeter technique is similar to that of the future large-scale DUNE (LBNF) neutrino experiment, featuring a kiloton of such a detector, MicroBooNE also represents a pilot project of that experiment. In a LAr-TPC a charged particle interacts with the liquid argon, wire planes detect drifting ionisation electrons ( tracks), photomultipliers detect scintillation light, and dE/dx is used to separate between → electrons and photons. Very first and promising commissioning results from October 2015 with muon-neutrino beam scattering reactions in MicroBooNE’s 170 ton LAr-TPC were presented at this conference. The MINERvA experiment at Fermilab performs detailed studies of neutrino interactions in varying nuclear targets (C, Pb, Fe, H2O) with the aim to help improve the modelling of these processes.6 For example, electron-neutrino quasi-elastic charged-current (CCQE) scattering is an oscillation signal, but only little low-energy cross-section data are available. Can the νµ νe → cross-section measurements be universally trusted? MINERvA sits on-axis at a short baseline along the NuMI (Neutrinos at the Main Injector) muon-neutrino beam, approximately 1 km after the NuMI target. During the low-energy NuMI running the beam peaks at 3.1 GeV muon- neutrino energy. The MINERvA detector features charged particle as well as electromagnetic and hadronic energy reconstruction, particle identification, and it uses the MINOS near detector as muon spectrometer. The exclusive measurement of flux-integrated differential cross sections + for νe and νe CCQE-like interactions (νen e p and νep e n) on nucleons in a hydrocarbon → − → a 2 The combination of Lyman-α, CMB and BAO data allows to set the upper limit mµ < 0.12 eV. P 2 Far Over Near Ratio

New analysis technique to 2 probe many magnitudes of Δm 41 0 1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 30 40 0.8 MINOS Preliminary 0.8 2 -3 2 ∆m32 = 2.37 x10 eV Direct ﬁt to F/N ratio sin2(θ ) = 0.41 0.6 23 0.6

for CC and NC events ) 2 -5 2 ∆m21 = 7.54 x10 eV -3 2 sin (θ13) = 0.022 0.4 0.4 Assume 3+1 sterile model 0.2 CC selection 0.2

0 1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 30 40 Set δ13, δ14, δ24 and θ14 to zero 0.50 1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 30 400.5 MINOS data

0.4 Three-flavour simulation 0.4 Systematic uncertainty we assume no νe -> νs

Far / Near Ratio (x10 0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2 Parameters fit are: 2 2 0.1 0.1 Δm 32, Δm 41, θ24, θ23, and θ34 NC selection 0 1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 30 40 Reconstructed Energy (GeV) Moved from likelihood method towards χ2 fit, containingFigure 1 – Ratioscovariance of the far-to-near detector counts versus the reconstructed neutrino energy for the charged- current (top panel) and neutral-current (bottom panel) selected events. The red band shows the prediction of the matrix with systematics 13 three-neutrino-flavour model with systematic uncertainty.

target by MINERvA and comparison with modelling expectations (from the neutrino event generator GENIE) exhibits suﬃciently good modelling for the current needs of the neutrino oscillation experiments.7 A nearly three times larger dataset has been already collected. The next step in the experimental programme consists of measurements at higher neutrino beam energy.

2.2 Results from long-baseline neutrino experiments

There are three present programmes for long-baseline neutrino experiments at Fermilab (MI- NOS, NOvA), in Japan (Tokai-to-Kamioka — T2K) and at CERN (OPERA). Long-baseline experiments measure muon-neutrino disappearance and νµ νe appearance, as well as their 2 → anti-processes. Their probabilities depend on sin (2θ13), which is well measured and large, on 2 2 2 sin (2θ23), ∆m32, and δCP , and on the sign of ∆m31 that sets the mass hierarchy. All these properties can be experimentally addressed. The MINOS experiment consists of a 24 ton near detector (ND), placed about 1 km from the NuMI beam target, and a 4.2 kiloton far detector (FD) installed 735 km away from the target and 705 m underground in the Soudan mine. Both near and far detectors are magnetised tracking/sampling calorimeters, segmented into planes of steel and scintillator strips. The detectors are designed to have equivalent functionality so that systematic uncertainties in the neutrino flux modelling and interaction cross sections cancel in the ratio. MINOS released in May 2014 a combined analysis of its muon-neutrino disappearance and νµ νe appearance data with results 2 2 → for ∆m32 and sin θ23. At this conference MINOS reported on a search for sterile neutrino using 8,9 the muon-neutrino beam. Presence of a fourth (sterile) neutrino (νsterile) requires to introduce six new parameters to the PMNS matrix (three plus one flavour model). For simplicity the additional CP phases and θ14 are set to zero, and the fit to data determines simultaneously 2 2 the parameters ∆m32, ∆m41, θ23, θ24, θ34. Because νactive–νsterile mixing may affect the ND reference measurement, which conventionally is assumed not to be affected by neutrino oscil-

3 3.5 50 Data Normal Hierarchy, 90% CL Unoscillated prediction Best fit prediction (no systs) NOνA Expected 1-σ syst. range T2K 2014 40 Best fit prediction (systs)

Backgrounds ) MINOS 2014 2 3.0 Normal Hierarchy eV 2.74×1020 POT-equiv. 30 -3 2 Best fit χ /Ndof =19.0/16 (10

20 2 32

m 2.5 Events / 0.25 GeV ∆

2.0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Reconstructed Neutrino Energy (GeV) 2 sin θ23

Figure 2 – The left panel shows the reconstructed neutrino energy distribution in the NOvA far detector. The green dotted line indicates the expected distribution without νµ disappearance. The data are significantly lower and well fitted with an oscillating signal. The oscillation parameter constraints obtained from these data are shown in the right panel, compared to other experiments. lation, a combined fit of the FD/ND ratio is performed. That fit shows agreement with the three-flavour model (c.f. Fig.1) allowing to derive limits on the additional four-flavour sterile neutrino parameters that improve over constraints from other experiments.

The new NOvA long-baseline neutrino experiment at Fermilab consists of a 14 kiloton FD, 810 km away from target, installed on surface, and a 0.3 kiloton ND, both using fine-grained 10 tracking-calorimeter technology. NOvA is placed 0.8◦ off-axis from the NuMI beam so that the muon-neutrino beamb energy spread is reduced with peak at about 2 GeV close to the maximum muon-neutrino disappearance and electron-neutrino appearance probabilities. NOvA allows to identify electron-neutrino reactions. First NOvA results are based on data taken between November 2014 and June 2015 with a low-intensity (< 500 kW) beam. Electron-neutrino cross- section measurements found somewhat larger values than T2K and Gargamelle, which is input to the GENIE modelling. An initial measurement of muon-neutrino disappearance11 provided 2 2 a first constraint on ∆m32 and sin θ23, both in agreement with earlier results from MINOS and 12 T2K, but not yet reaching their precision (see Fig.2). A first νµ νe appearance measurement → resulted in 6/11 events observed with the use of two different analysis methods (LID/LEM) in the FD for about one expected background event (estimate based on ND measurements). This corresponds to an excess of 3.3/5.3σ, respectively, with the LEM result being less compatible with the inverted hierarchy. NOvA results with a twice larger dataset are forthcoming. Data with increased beam power (700 kW) are expected to be taken in 2016.

The Japan-based experiment T2K13 has a 295 km long baseline, using as FD Super-Kamiokande a Cherenkov detector with pure water as active material, and the NDs INGRID (on axis) and ND280 (off-axis), featuring different target materials, though currently only carbon was de- ployed. T2K is placed 2.5◦ off beam axis providing a narrow neutrino energy at a peak value of about 0.6 GeV. A combined νµ disappearance and νe appearance analysis using T2K’s 2010–2013 2 2 data provided the world’s best measurements of ∆m32 and sin θ23. During the 2014/2015 runs 20 T2K operated in νµ beam mode with 390 kW beam power collecting a total of 11 10 protons- · on-target (POT). The antineutrino beam being less pure, the larger wrong-sign background must be measured in the ND giving about 10% flux and cross section systematic uncertainty. This is

b With magnetic horns focusing on positive mesons the NuMI beam is composed of 97.6% νµ, 1.7% νµ, 0.7% νe and νe for neutrino energies between 1 and 3 GeV.

4 7 6 ×10-3 ⇤⇤ also at BMCC/CUNY, Science Department, New York, 3 ) 5.5 20 2 New York, U.S.A. T2K ν beam 4.01×10 POT Data TABLET2K IV. ν best Percentage fit changeT2K ν 90% in the CL number of 1-ring µ-like[1] Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa, and S. Sakata, Prog. Theor. 2.5 νµ CCQE 5events before the oscillationT2K ﬁtν 68% from CL 1 systematic parame- | (eV T2K ν best fit νµ CCnon-QE T2K ν 90% CL Phys. 28,870(1962). 2 32 ter variations,MINOS ν best assuming fit the oscillation parameters listed in 2 νµ CCQE 4.5 MINOS ν 90% CL [2] B. Pontecorvo, Sov. Phys. JETP 26,984(1968). ν CCnon-QE m TableSuper-K III and best that fit the anti-neutrino and neutrino oscillation µ ∆ ν Super-K ν 90% CL [3] K. Nakamura, S. T. Petcov, et al. (Particle Data Group), 1.5 NC 4parameters are identical.

Events/0.1 GeV Phys. Rev. D 86,010001(2012),seesection13.NEU- νe + νe CC 1 ν-mode best fit | or 3.5 exp exp TRINO MASS, MIXING, AND OSCILLATIONS. 2 32 Source of uncertainty (number of parameters) nSK /nSK 0.5 m 3 [4] P. Adamson et al. (MINOS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. ∆ | ND280-unconstrained cross section (6) 10.0% Lett. 108,191801(2012). 2.5 Flux and ND280-constrained cross section (31) 3.4% 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 [5] K. Abe et al. (Super-Kamiokande Collaboration), Phys. 1.5 2 Super-Kamiokande detector systematics (6) 3.8% Rev. Lett. 107,241801(2011). 1 Pion FSI and reinteractions (6) 2.1% [6] K. Abe et al. (T2K Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Meth- 0.5 1.5 ods A659,106(2011). Total (49) 11.6% 1 [7] D. Beavis, A. Carroll, I. Chiang, et al. (E889 Collabora-

Ratio to no oscillations 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 tion), Physics Design Report BNL 52459 (1995). 2 2 Reconstructed ν Energy (GeV) sin (θ23) or sin (θ23) [8] K. Abe et al. (T2K Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Meth- trino energy bins. ods A694,211(2012). FIG. 3. Top: The reconstructed energy distribution of the 2 [9] N. Abgrall et al. (T2K ND280 TPC Collaboration), Nucl. Figure 3 – Anti-muon-neutrino disappearance signal measuredFIG. 4. by TheWe T2K 68% define in and a (dominantly) 90% confidence= 2ln( anti-muon-neutrino regions(o)/max( for sin))2( as✓ ) the ratio 34 far detector ⌫ candidates and the best fit prediction, sep- 23 Instrum. Methods A637,25(2011). beam. The leftµ panel shows the 34 data events seen in theand far detectorm2 assuming compared normal to the hierarchy. best fitL prediction. T2K ⌫ [13],L The SK ⌫ [5] 2 arated by interaction mode. This is compared to the pre- of32 the marginal likelihood at a point o in the sin ([10]✓23)P. Amaudruz et al. (T2K ND280 FGD Collaboration), right panel shows the extracted (anti-)oscillation parameters.and| MINOS| ⌫ 2[4] 90% confidence regions are also shown. dicted spectrum assuming the anti-neutrino oscillation pa- – m32 oscillation parameter space and the maximumNucl. Instrum. Methods A696,1(2012). rameters are identical to the neutrino parameters measured marginal likelihood. The confidence region is then[11] de-S. Fukuda et al. (Super-Kamiokande Collaboration), by T2K [13]. Bottom: The observed data and ⌫µ-mode best fined as the area of the oscillation parameter space forNucl. Instrum. Methods A501,418(2003). improved with the use of a combined fit of the neutrino flux model together with external and fit prediction as a ratio to the unoscillated prediction. no indicationwhich of new2 is physics, less than and a standard are also in critical good agree- value. [12] K. Abe et al. (Super-Kamiokande Collaboration), Nucl. ND280 data as input to the oscillation fit. Such a complex extraction is required because FD Instrum. Methods A737,253(2014). ment withTable similar IV measurements summarizes the from fractional MINOS error [4] and on the ex- [13] K. Abe et al. (T2K Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D91, and ND use different target and measurement technologies.SK [5].pected The Theresults number measurement presented of SK events here, of ν with fromµ disappear- the a 1 firstvariation T2K of the TABLE III. Oscillation parameters used for the fit. The pa- 072010 (2015). ance yielded2 a significant2 deficit with only 34 muonanti-neutrino eventsflux, cross-section, (c.f. dataset, Fig. are3), andcompetitive hence far a detector clear with sign systematic those of from parame-[14] K. Abe et al. (T2K Collaboration), Phys. rameters sin (✓23)andm32 were allowed to fit in the ranges 15 given.oscillation, All other while parameters that of wereνe appearance fixed to the values with shown,3 electronboth MINOSters. events Although and seen SK, is demonstrating the not fractional yet significant. error the e↵ onectiveness the expected of num-Rev. D87,012001(2013),[Addendum:Phys. taken from previous T2K fits [13] and the Particle Data Groupthe o↵-axisber of beam events technique. due to systematic errors is large, the e↵ectRev.D87,no.1,019902(2013)]. The European long-baseline programme concentrated on the search for tau-neutrino appearance review [33]. We thankof systematic the J-PARC parameters sta↵ for on superb the confidence accelerator regions per- found[15] A. Ferrari, P. R. Sala, A. Fasso, and J. Ranft, Report No. CERN-2005-010 and SLAC-R-773 and INFN-TC-05- from the conventional muon-neutrino beam sentformance fromin CERN this and fit the is to CERN negligible the 732 NA61 due km collaboration to away the limited OPERA for data pro- statistics. Parameter ⌫ ⌫ 11 (2005). detector in the Italian Gran-Sasso Laboratory (CNGS). A breakthrough for this experiment2 2 2 viding valuableThe impact particle of fixing production the values data. of sin We(✓ acknowl-23) and m32 in sin (✓23)0.527fit0–1 [16] T. T. Böhlen et al., Nuclear Data Sheets 120,211(2014). was achieved2 3 with2 the July 2015 observation ofedge a fifth thethe tau-neutrino support fit is also of negligible. MEXT, candidate Japan; exceeding NSERC the (grant [17] R. Brun, F. Carminati, and S. Giani, Report No. CERN- m (10 eV )2.51fit0–20 32 SAPPJ-2014-00031),16 NRC and CFI, Canada; CEA and W5013 (1994). threshold2 of 5σ for the νµ ντ appearance observation. TheIn observedOPERA⌫ charged-currentµ reconstructed energyneutrino spectrum from sin (✓13)0.0248→ CNRS/IN2P3, France; DFG, Germany; INFN, Italy; Na- [18] C. Zeitnitz and T. A. Gabriel, In Proc. of International interactions2 ((νµ )ντ + N τ −( e, µ, h) + X) are recordedthe anti-neutrino in detectors beam (bricks) mode data of lead is shown and in the up- sin (✓12)0.304→ → → tional Scienceper plot Centre of Fig. (NCN), 3, overlaid Poland; with RSF, the best RFBR fit spectrum and as-Conference on Calorimetry in High Energy Physics, Tal- emulsion2 film5 with2 sub-micron resolution. The total target size consists of of 150 thousand bricks. lahassee, FL, USA, February 1993. m21 (10 eV )7.53MES, Russia; MINECO and ERDF funds, Spain; SNSF OPERA features additional target trackers and muonsuming spectrometers. normal hierarchy, Tau-neutrino separated candidates by interaction mode.[19] N. Abgrall et al. (NA61/SHINE), (2015), (rad) -1.55 and SERI, Switzerland; STFC, UK; and DOE, USA. We are identifiedCP by tracks with a large impact parameterThe from lower the plot tau indecay Fig. and 3 is no the muon ratio of from data to the ex-arXiv:1510.02703 [hep-ex]. also thankpected, CERN unoscillated for the UA1/NOMAD spectrum. magnet, DESY the primary interaction vertex. Data between 2008 and 2012 were used, corresponding to 18 [20] Y. Hayato, Acta Phys. Polon. B40, 2477 (2009), version for the HERA-B magnet mover system, NII for2 SINET4, 5.3.2 of NEUT library is used that includes (i) the multin- 19 2 The best fit values obtained are sin (✓23·)=0.45 and and10 mPOTare giving estimated 20 thousand using a neutrino maximum interactions likelihood in the detector of which 6.72 thousand were 32 the WestGridm2 and=2 SciNet.51 10 consortia3eV , with in Compute 68% confidence Canada, intervalsucleon ejection model of Nieves et al. [21] and (ii) nuclear fit to the measured14 reconstructed energy spectrum in 32 fully analysed. The five identified tau candidatesGridPP consistof| and 0.38 the of| – three Emerald0.64 and⇥ one-prong High 2.26 – Performance 2.80 and ( one10 3 three-ComputingeV2)respectively.long range correlations for CCQE interactions, treated in the far detector. All other oscillation parameters are the random phase approximation [22]. prong hadronic decays, and one muon decay.facility, The pureA UK. goodness-of-fit muon In addition decay test participation candidate was performed⇥ has of individual a by very comparing re- this fixed as shown in Table III. Oscillation probabilitiessearchers are and institutions has been further supported [21] J. Nieves, I. Ruiz Simo, and M. J. Vicente Vacas, Phys. small background expectation of 0.004 0.001 events.fit The to an overall ensemble background of toy experiments, expectation giving is a p-value of calculated using the full three-flavor oscillation± frame-by funds from: ERC (FP7), H2020 RISE-GA644294- Rev. C 83,045501(2011). estimated to be 0.25 0.05 events, the expected signal0.38. 2.64 0.53 events, which is compatible [22] J. Nieves, J. E. Amaro, and M. Valverde, Phys. Rev. C work [31], assuming the normal mass hierarchy (m2 JENNIFER,> EU; JSPS, Japan; Royal Society, UK; DOE ± 32 The± fit results are shown in Fig. 4 as 68% and 90% con-70, 055503 (2004), [Erratum-ibid. C 72 (2005) 019902]. 0).with Matter the eobserved↵ects are five included events. with The an signal Earth significancedensityEarly of Careeris 5.1σ program,hence establishing USA. the observation fidence regions in the sin2(✓ )–m2 plane. The[23] 90%C. Wilkinson, In Proc. of 16th International Workshop ⇢ of= 2.6tau-neutrino g/cm3 [32]. appearance. OPERA also set limits on sterile neutrinos. The OPERA23 physics32 on Neutrino Factories and Future Neutrino Beam Facil- confidence regions from the T2K neutrino beam mode programmeConfidence regions has now are ended. constructed for the oscillation ities (NUFACT 2014), Glasgow, Scotland, UK, August joint disappearance and appearance fit [13], the SK fit parameters using the constant 2 method [33]. A 2014 . to ⌫ in atmospheric neutrino data [5], and the MINOS marginal likelihood is used for this, integrating over the µ [24] C. H. Llewellyn Smith, Phys. Rept. 3,261(1972). ⇤ alsofit at to J-PARC,⌫ beam Tokai, and Japan atmospheric data [4] are also shown[25] M. Jacob, Gauge Theories and Neutrino Physics (Else- nuisance2.3 Results parameters fromf (short-baseline)with prior probability reactor functions experiments µ † aliatedfor comparison. member at Kavli A second, IPMU (WPI), fully Bayesian, the University analysis wasvier Science Ltd, North-holland/amsterdam, 1978). ⇡(f) to find the likelihood as a function of only the rele- of Tokyo,also performed, Japan producing a credible region matching[26] theA. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. [MiniBooNE Collaboration], vant oscillation parameters o: ‡ also at National Research Nuclear University ”MEPhI” Phys. Rev. D 81,092005(2010). New neutrino measurements from experiments placed closeconfidence to nuclear regions reactors presented in above. China (Daya and Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, [27] A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo et al. (MiniBooNE), Phys. Rev. Bay) and France (Double Chooz) were reported. Nuclear reactors represent powerful νe sources Moscow,Conclusions.— Russia We report the first study of ⌫µ disap-D88,032001(2013). Ebins from beta-decay of the nuclear fission products. Detectors§ alsopearance at JINR, installed Dubna,using in an theirRussia o↵-axis(km) beam vicinity and present can measure-[28] G. Fiorentini et al. (MINERvA Collaboration), Phys. 2 O 2 2 3 2 (o)= i(o, f) ⇡(f) df, (2)¶ also at Institute of Particle Physics, Canada Rev. Lett. 111,022502(2013). measure theL mixing angleL θ13 from⇥ the νe survival probabilityments of thatsin (✓ is23 dominated)=0.45 and bym the32 =2 ∆m.3251 10 eV . Z i ⇥ 2 term. Y These results are consistent with the values of sin (✓23) 2 where Ebins denotes the number of reconstructed neu- and m32 observed previously by T2K [13], providing The Daya Bay detector has completed its full assembly. It consists of two near experimental

5 FD&/&ND&ratio Double&Chooz&θ13&in&the&world Reactor&& vs.&T2K FDCI$data/prediction$ FDCII$data/$ND$data$ World&θ13&comparison PRD91&072010&(2015)& Double Chooz JHEP 1410, 086 (2014) single&detector Preliminary (Moriond) DC$new$θ13 Double&Chooz&1σ Daya&Bay&1σ Daya Bay PRL 115, 111802 (2015)

RENO Far / NearFar/ Preliminary (arXiv:1511.05849) Reactor&& vs.&NOvA T2K PRD 91, 072010 (2015) Arbitrary δCP arXivL1601.05522&& 2 ∆ m32 > 0 (accepted&by&PRL) ∆ m2 < 0 published 32 preliminary 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 2 sin 2θ13

Figure 4 – Left: ratio of far (FD-II) to near detector yields versus visible energy measured by Double Chooz. 2 • Systematic&uncertainties&suppressed&in&FDEND&relative&comparison&Overlaid is the best fit result. The no-oscillation hypothesis is clearly excluded. Right: comparison of sin (2θ13) measurements.20 • DC&θ13&is&higher&than&other&reactor&θ13&by&~30%&(1.4σ&wrt&Daya&Bay)& • Currently&energy&uncertainties&are&assumed&to&be&uncorrelated&across& • Long&baseline&(T2K,&NOvA)&weakly&favors&higher&θ13&than&reactor&average& detectors&(conservative&approach)& areas (effective baselines 512 m and 561 m from the• 17.4Reactor& GW thermalθ13&is&key¶meter&to&solve&CPEviolation&and&mass&hierarchy power reactor near Hong ⇔&strong&correlation&expected&with&the&same&scintillator&and&electronics& Kong) and one far area (1.6 km). The detection of νe occurs through the inverse beta decay + + (IBD) reaction νe + p e + n in gadolinium (Gd) doped liquid scintillators. The prompt e → annihilation photon and delayed 8 MeV photons from the neutron capture are measured. The νe flux uncertainty is largely eliminated by simultaneous measurements at the three different 2 detector sites. Daya Bay already provided the world’s most precise measurement sin (2θ13) = 0.084 0.005 using data taken between October 2012 and November 2013 and using two third ± of the total of eight antineutrino detectors.17 The new analysis presented at this conference used neutrons captured by hydrogen (instead of Gd) providing an additional θ13 measurement as the data sample is largely independent and the systematic uncertainties different. It found18,19 2 2 sin (2θ13) = 0.071 0.011 (nH) and, when averaged with the Gd result, sin (2θ13) = 0.082 0.004 ± ± (nGd & nH). The Double Chooz collaboration presented their brand new oscillation measurement at this conference.20 Double Chooz installed at the Chooz nuclear power plant in France (close to the Belgium border) with two operating units (B1 nd B2) has terminated its multi-detector setup with a near detector (0.4 km from the nuclear cores, available since 2015) and a far detector (1.1 km, available since 2011). The nearly iso-flux setup of the detectors reduces the flux uncertainty to less than 0.1%. The uncorrelated detection systematic uncertainty is lower than 0.3%. Double Chooz performs a combined parameter fit to the FD-I, FD-II and ND data (c.f. left panel of Fig.4 for the ratio FD-II/ND), including also reactor-off data to constrain 2 backgrounds. The preliminary result sin (2θ13) = 0.118 0.018 has a significance of 5.8σ and ± is in agreement with previous measurements. The right panel in Fig.4 shows a comparison of 2 sin (2θ13) measurements (not including the latest Daya Bay combination).

Reactor ﬂux anomalies

21 Daya Bay reports a recent νe flux measurement using 340 thousand near-detector IBD candidates, with better than 1% energy calibration, and comparison with model predictions: an overall deficit in data of about 2σ is found and a significant local deviation at around 5 MeV antineutrino energy. While an overall deficit may seem like disappearance to a sterile neutrino, the local deviation does not. These findings are consistent with the reactor neutrino anomaly pic- ture emerging from earlier short baseline measurements (Daya Bay, Reno, Double Chooz) that

6 22 found a ratio of measured to expected νe flux of about 0.94. It was reported at this conference that much caution is needed when interpreting these results as systematic uncertainties in the flux modelling may in total cover the observed deficit. The 5 MeV bump may be due to several fission daughter isotopes (e.g., uranium 238 or plutonium). Therefore one cannot currently con- sider seriously new physics claims based on absolute reactor flux comparisons. There is ample literature about the reactor flux anomaly.23 Approximately ten very-short-baseline experiments are currently in their construction or plan- ning phases with the aim to provide additional absolute flux measurements. Among these is the SoLid experiment, a 3 ton highly segmented plastic scintillation detector coated with Lithium-6, designed to measure flux and energy of νe at distances between 6–10 m from the compact BR2 test reactor with a highly-enriched uranium core in Mol (Belgium). The main experimental challenges are the suppression of background in the proximity of the reactor (requiring a good separation of captured-neutrons versus e/γ) and the precise location of the IBD products. To achieve this, not only the time difference but also spatial information is used to reconstruct IBD events. The goal of SoLid is to run the experiment for three years to resolve the reactor neutrino anomaly without relying on theoretical modelling.24

2.4 Neutrinos from the Sun

The Borexino collaboration reported new measurements25 after their 2014 breakthrough evidence for detection of the Sun’s primary proton–proton fusion neutrinos, found within 10% precision to have a yield consistent with the Sun’s photon luminosity.26 Borexino was initially designed for studying the 0.86 MeV Be-7 solar electron-neutrinos via νe–e scattering and electron recoil measurements (also IBD). The experiment consists of a 270 ton liquid scintillator, surrounded by 890 ton buffer fluid. It is installed in a 9.5 m diameter nylon vessel, 1.3 km underground at the Gran Sasso Laboratory (LGNS). The extremely high radiopurity of Borex- ino allows for a 250 keV neutrino energy threshold. Since that seminal 2014 result Borexino focused on the highly challenging detection (proof) of the catalytic CNO cycle in the Sun, a complex chain of CNCNONC transitions involving different C, N, O isotopes and believed to be the dominant energy source in stars more massive than the Sun. Borexino also performed tests of electron charge conservation through the search for e γν, ννν decays achieving the world’s 28 → best electron lifetime sensitivity τe > 6.6 10 years; and the 5.9σ observation of geological νe · for which the largest background stems from nuclear reactors.28,27

2.5 Neutrino astronomy

Cosmic rays have been measured over eleven orders of magnitude in energy, but their highest- energy sources are not well known yet. Several favourable conditions make neutrinos from outer space to excellent astronomical probes for the study of cosmic rays. Neutrinos are not deﬂected by astrophysical foreground and therefore point back to their sources. Moreover, owing to their characteristic scattering signatures, the ﬂavour of neutrinos can be reconstructed in a large detector providing information about their origin. IceCube29 is a spectacular experiment buried between 1.5–2.5 km deep in South Pole ice. It has and active volume of about 1 km3 distributed among 86 strings. IceCube measures Cherenkov light “track” and “cascade” (shower) signatures that are characteristic charged-current interactions in ice of muon-neutrinos and electron-neutrinos, respectively. A so-called “double-bang” event would be signature for a tau-neutrino in which a produced tau lepton of PeV energy penetrates 50 m ice in average before it decays leaving a hadronic or electromagnetic shower. IceCube detected interactions from about 100 thousand neutrinos with larger than 200 GeV

7 PoS(ICRC2015)1081 ], + 5 C. Kopper : 2 − µ ν E : e ν excess of up-going ’. Colours show the test σ × 8

PoS(ICRC2015)1081 is consistent with that from 23 θ . Colors show the test statistics (TS) for the point-source clustering test ⇥ and 2 32 m C. Kopper arrival directions of the neutrino events in galactic IceCube also sees a 5.9 30 Arrival directions of the events in galactic coordinates. Shower-like events are marked with 8 Right: R. Abbasi et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A601M.G. (2009) Aartsen 294 et al., Science 342, 1242856 (2013) R. Abbasi et al., PRL 111 (2013) 021103 M. G. Aartsen et al., PRD89 (2014) 062007 M. G. Aartsen et al., PRD91 (2015) 022001 IceCube Coll., PoS(ICRC2015)1086, these proceedings IceCube Coll., PoS(ICRC2015)1066, these proceedings Other searches in IceCube have managed to reduce the energy threshold for a selection of start- for a signal of astrophysical neutrinos. The energy [4] [5] [6] [7] [1] [2] [3] ing events even further in order tobut be at better this able time to they have describe only thecontinue been observed applied these flux to and lower-threshold the its searches first properties two and [ yearsIceCube. of will data Because extend used of them for its this to study. simplicityto the We and more will full detailed its searches, set robustness the with of search respect presentedinput data here for to collected is follow-up systematics well by observations when suited by towards compared other triggeringanalysis experiments. and in providing a In more the automated future, manner weto in thus produce order plan alerts to to as update continue an the this input current for results multi-messenger with efforts. more statistics and References Observation of Astrophysical Neutrinos in Four Years of IceCube Data Figure 7: and those containing tracks with at each location. No significant clustering was found. 6. Future Plans ) decay (c.f. diagrams in Fig.6), which would indicate σ 8, and if the neutrinos originate from neutron decay one 5 . . νββ 5 : 1 : 1. The current IceCube data are consistent with the 8 : 1 . . IceCube IceCube Preliminary IceCube IceCube Preliminary 5 A next generation experiment, IceCube-Gen2, covering an active area of about 31 inclusive neutrino energy spectrum measured by IceCube after four years of data taking. Also . 30 Left: , is currently in its R&D phase. 3 = 1 : 1 : 1 on earth, if muons are suppressed due to, e.g., large magnetic fields in space the τ first two but exclude theto third occur pattern. in No the hint accumulated for data tau sample. neutrinosIceCube was also found belongs yet to butmuon-neutrino the is elite disappearance. expected of The experiments measurement who of have observed ∆ neutrino oscillation through would expect to see a pattern of 2 that there is a non-zero Majorana mass term as Dirac neutrino masses do not mix neutrinos and 10 km 2.6 Of which quantum nature are neutrinos? The yet unrevealed Majoranadetecting or neutrinoless Dirac double nature beta of (0 neutrinos can be addressed experimentally by model may be insufficientmuon-neutrinos (charged to current only) describe in theground the normalised 0.2–8.3 data. to PeV energy data regime atversus over 100 the atmospheric TeV neutrino back- neutrino energy energy. cannotastrophysical A be neutrinos possible excluded. pattern do The inexample measured not the in arrival spectral exhibit directions the index of right clustering the panel that observed of would Fig.5). The hint reconstruction to of aastrophysical the point neutrinos. neutrino source Pion flavour (seeν decay can the should provide produce informationrelative relative abundances about would neutrino be the abundances 1 of source : 1 of the other experiments. IceCube alsoand searched solar flares. for sterile neutrinos, heavy dark matter annihilation, shown are the estimatedcoordinates. atmospheric Shower-like backgrounds. events are marked with ’+’ and those containing tracks with ’ Figure 5 – spectrum was found to be somewhat harder than expected indicating that the canonical energy per year, amongfrom which atmospheric a muon few and dozens muon-neutrino are background. of astrophysicalIceCube origin, measured and the thedata majority inclusive stems neutrino taking energy (see spectrum2 left above PeV panel 60 energy of TeV with during Fig.5). a four significance years A of of total 6 of 53 good events were found up to around statistics value for point-sourcetaken clustering from at Ref. each location. No significant clustering was found. Both figures are Deposited energies of the observed events with predictions. Colors as in Fig. 2. Distribution of deposited PMT charges of the events. Atmospheric muon backgrounds (estimated

Figure 3: uncertainties on the prediction shown as a hatched band. For scale, the 90% CL upper bound on the

, whereas the solid line shows a spectrum with a best-ﬁt spectral index. s

with 1 charm component of atmospheric neutrinos(assuming is an unbroken shown power-law as model) are aof shown magenta in line. gray. The The dashed line best-ﬁt shows astrophysical a spectra ﬁxed-index spectrum

Figure 2: from data) are shown inoverall red. background at Due trigger to level thethan (black incoming 6000 line). track p.e. veto, The are these data the backgrounds events events fall in reported much the in faster unshaded this than region work. the at Atmospheric charges neutrino greater backgrounds are shown in blue Observation of Astrophysical Neutrinos in Four Years of IceCube Data c 2 2 antineutrinos. Through the relation Γ0νββ M0νββ mββ and theory input for the nuclear ∝ | | h i matrix element one can via the measurement of or bound on Γ0νββ infer information on the neutrino mass and hierarchy. Experiments searching for 0νββ decay require large mass, high isotopic abundance, good energy resolution, high eﬃciency and low background. Results from the EXO-200 and CUORE-0 experiments where reported at this conference.36,33

EXO-200 is a detector that uses an enriched n p n p (81%) liquid-xenon TPC (136Xe 136 Ba + → 2e ) and is installed in a nuclear waste iso- e e − W W lation plant in New Mexico, US. EXO-200 presented in 2014 a result using data corre- ν− sponding to 100 kg years of 136Xe exposure34 νΜ x · − with no evidence for 0νββ decay giving a half- ν life lower limit of 1.1 1025 years at 90% CL. · W e W e This corresponds to mββ < (190–470) meV, n p n p h i where the range is due to diﬀerent theoretical assumptions on the nuclear matrix element. 35,36 Figure 6 – Representative Feynman diagrams for two- A recent analysis reported at this confer- neutrino double beta decay (left) and neutrinoless double ence searched for the 2νββ decay of 136Xe to beta decay (right). Figures taken from Ref.37. + 136 the 01 excited state of Ba, which de-excites via two photons. No signiﬁcant signal was found in that search.

The LGNS based experiment CUORE-0, a prototype of the full CUORE experiment, employs a bolometric technique using an array of tellurium dioxide crystals (130Te 130 Xe + 2e ) cooled → − down to remarkable 10 mK. The bolometer benefits from excellent energy resolution but no particle identification capability. A first CUORE-0 measurement32,33 using a 130Te exposure of 9.8 kg years revealed no signal at the expected Qββ value of 2528 keV, giving, when combined · with a previous Cuoricino result, the 90% CL limit mββ < (270–760) meV, where again the h i range reflects the matrix element uncertainty.

3 Proton decay — GUT messengers

It is not possible to reach energies in the laboratory that would allow to directly study the physics at the expected grand unification scale. Even Enrico Fermi’s “Globatron” (that was to be built in 1994) would with current LHC magnet technology “only” reach insufficient 20 PeV proton–proton centre-of-mass energy. Proton decay is among the greatest mysteries in elementary particle physics. It is required for baryogenesis and predicted by grand unified theories (GUT). Its discovery could therefore provide a probe of GUT scale physics.

All current limits are dominated by searches at the Super-Kamiokande (SK) experiment.d New results from SK combining all SK I–IV data (1996–now) were presented at this conference.38 No signiﬁcant excess was found leading to the following strong limits: τ(p e+π0) > 1.7 1034 years → · (no events seen in the signal regions R1/2, for 0.07/0.54 background events expected), τ(p → µ+π0) > 7.8 1033 years (less sensitive because the µ+ is detected through its decay to e+, 0/2 · events seen in R1/2, for 0.05/0.82 background events expected), τ(p K+ν) > 6.6 1033 years → · (the K+ being below Cherenkov threshold is detected through its decay, no events seen in signal regions SB/C, for 0.39/0.56 background events expected), The SK collaboration also looked for more exotic phenomena.

cMajorana masses cannot originate from a Yukawa coupling to the Standard Model Brout-Englert-Higgs (BEH) ﬁeld and thus would make neutrinos very diﬀerent from the other known fermions. dWe recall that “KamiokaNDE” stands for “Kamioka Nucleon Decay Experiment”.

9 An order of magnitude gain in sensitivity on τ(p e+π0) is expected from the Hyper-Kamiokande → project which has 25 times the size of SK (SK holds 50 kiloton of pure water) and has an expected begin of construction in 2018.

4 Direct dark matter searches

Direct dark matter experiments search for elastic collisions of a weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP) from the galactic halo with a target nucleus at rest in the laboratory. With an assumed WIMP average speed of about 220 km per second the collision is expected to lead to a measurable nuclear recoil of about 20 keV. The effective scattering Lagrangian may have scalar (spin-independent, SI A2, where A is the atomic number of the target nucleus) or axial- ∝ vector (spin-dependent, SD nuclear spin, no coherent amplification) terms. The dominant ∝ background stems from electrons recoiling after X-ray or γ-ray interactions. Direct dark matter experiments have similar challenges to overcome as neutrino experiments. They must be deep underground, have excellent radiopurity, must be shielded around the active detector volume and they require redundant signal detection technologies. The CDMSlite experiment (CDMSlite stands for CDMS low ionisation threshold experiment) is located at the US Soudan Underground Laboratory. CDMS looks for keV-scale recoils from elastic scattering of WIMPs off target nuclei. It uses up to 19 Ge and 11 Si detectors. Ionisa- tion charges and phonons (heat) are measured and used to discriminate electron from nuclear recoils. CDMSlite operates one Ge detector at increased bias voltage to amplify the phonon signal and gain sensitivity to lower WIMP masses. Two runs were taken with the second benefiting from reduced acoustic noise (hence a lower threshold) and longer exposure. The newly39,40 excluded parameter space for SI WIMP–nucleon interaction extends to WIMP masses down to 37 41 2 1.6–5.5 GeV and cross sections between 10− –10− cm . With this measurement the Super- CDMS programme has ended. It will be followed up byExclusion SuperCDMS limit at SNOLAB (2.1 km deep underground). Extends searches to sub-GeV/c2 range

The CRESST-II experiment at C C R R E E S S S S D S

T T a u I I r p the LNGS has further improved I I k

2 2 e 0 0 S r i 1 1 C 5 4 d e D

- its sensitivity to even lower mass M 5 0 S

2 2 C 0 0 R 1 1 E 5 WIMPs. Energy threshold is 4 S S T

II C key for this search. CRESST-II o m m . 2 0 uses cryogenic calcium tungstate 1 2

C (CaWO ) crystals to measure DMS 4 lite 2 015 2014 scintillation light and phonons CDEX 07.09.20 ED ELW EIS to separate electron from neu- 15 S 2 012 tron recoils. Transition edge sen- sors (TES, about 15 mK) and X EN ON 1 00 20 a squid system measure, amplify 12 LUX and read out the signal, allowing 2013 sub-keV energy thresholds and a high-precision energy reconstruc- Franz Pröbst MPI Munich 19 tion. Combined with the light Figure 7 – Summary of low-mass WIMP–nucleon cross-section limits target nuclei, CRESST-II has the (in pb) versus WIMP mass.42 potential to probe < 1 GeV dark 36 2 41,42 matter particles. At 0.5 GeV a limit of about 10− cm was obtained. Systematic studies on the current data sample are still ongoing. The follow-up programme with 50–100 eV threshold starts in April 2016. XENON100 is the second phase of the XENON dark matter experiment at LNGS running since

10 XENONnT Sensitivity

39 ] 2 10 DAMA/Na XENON1T Sensitivity in 2 t y 40 Expected limit (90% CL) 10 DAMA/I CDMS-Si (2013) ± 1 expected 10 41 ± 2 expected XENON10 (2013) 10 42 SuperCDMS (2014) PandaX (2014) DarkSide-50 (2015) 10 43 44 LUX (2015) 10 XENON100 (2012) 45 10 y)* XENON1T (2 t 10 46 * 10 47 y) XENONnT (20 t 10 48

49 Billard et al., Neutrino Discovery*LUX2015 limit (2013) model

WIMP-nucleon Cross Section [cm 10 6 10 20 30 100 200 1000 2000 10000 WIMP mass [GeV/c2]

Figure 8 – Current WIMP–nucleon cross-section limits versus-48 the2 WIMP mass and extrapolations2 (plot taken from XENONnT).XENONnT The lowest sensitivity bold line depicts goal: the ~2x10 expected coherent cm @ν –mNWIMPscattering = 50 background. GeV/c

Patrick Decowski - Nikhef/UvA 2009.45 It is the predecessor of the ambitious programme XENON1T. XENON100 uses a 61 (100) kg target (active veto) liquid-gas xenon (LXe) filled TPC. Liquid xenon as target material features a high density, high atomic number, sensitivity to spin-dependent interactions through approximately 50% odd isotopes, low threshold due to high ionisation and scintillation yield, low backgrounds, and a self-shielding target. The liquid xenon scintillation light is measured by photomultiplier tubes (PMT). Light from prompt scintillation (S1) and delayed ionisation (S2) allows to discriminate electron from nuclear recoil. The primary results were published46 by XENON100 in 2012 providing powerful limits on the WIMP–nucleon interaction cross section down to about 2 10 45 cm2 for a WIMP mass of 50 GeV at 90% CL for SI interactions.43 SD · − results were released in 2013 with best limits of about 10 38 cm2 and 4 10 40 cm2 for proton − · − and neutron cross sections, respectively.44 A recent XENON100 analysis47 addresses the periodic signal reported by the DAMA collaboration. XENON100 does not find significant periodicity, excluding DAMA’s phase and amplitude at 4.8σ. DAMA-like dark matter models are excluded to at least 3.6σ. The experimental follow-up programme XENON1T has its commissioning almost completed. First results are expected in the course of 2016.

Dark matter searches with the LUX experiment were also presented.48 LUX is a liquid-Xe experiment located at the Sanford Underground Research Facility in South Dakota, US, about 1.5 km deep. LUX is very similar to XENON100 based on a dual-phase liquid Xe target. It has a larger active target and lower threshold than XENON100 (3 keV vs. 6.6 keV) and hence sensitivity to lower WIMP masses. A reanalysis of the 2013 data (95 live days, 145 kg ﬁducial mass) with improved calibration, event reconstruction and background modelling increases the sensitivity especially at low WIMP masses.49 The best SI limit at WIMP masses of around 40 GeV reaches down to approximately 7 10 46 cm2 WIMP–nucleon cross section. LUX has · − also recently published SD limits using the same dataset.50 Their follow-up programme LZ = LUX + ZEPLIN is entering CD-2 review and has a planned start for 2025.

Dark matter searches undertake and prepare a healthy experimental programme with orders of magnitude improved sensitivity. Figure8 shows the WIMP–nucleon cross-section limits versus the WIMP mass and extrapolations. Shown by the thick red line is the irreducible coherent elastic neutrino–nucleon scattering background that is expected to be in reach with the next generation experiments.

11 5 Gravitational waves

The LIGO/VIRGO Collaboration, a new popstar in science, reported on February 11th, 2016 an earth-shattering measurement52: a huge gravitational wave (GW) signal of a binary black hole merger detected simultaneously in the two LIGO sites (the VIRGO experiment was not operational at the time of the measurement), first noticed by its online burst detection system. This measurement is an example of scientific perseverance.51 PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS week ending PRL 116, 061102 (2016) 12 FEBRUARY 2016 The principle of the measure- (b) ment is sketched in Fig.9. Spin-2 GWs lengthens one arm while shortening the other and vice versa in the LIGO laser interferometer: ∆L(t) = δLx − (a) δLy = h(t)L. The optical signal measured is proportional to the strain h(t). There are several enhancements to a basic Michelson interferometer in LIGO: test mass mirrors mul- tiply the effect of GW on the light phase by a factor of about 300; a power recycling mirror on the input amplifies the laserFIG. 3. Simplified diagram of an Advanced LIGO detector (not to scale). A gravitational wave propagating orthogonally to the detector planeFigure and linearly 9 polarized – Principle parallel to of thethe 4-km opticalLIGO cavities gravitational will have the effect wave of lengthening measurement. one 4-km arm and shortening light; output signal recyclingthe other during one half-cycle of the wave; these length changes are reversed during the other half-cycle. The output photodetector records these differential cavity length variations. While a detector’s directional response is maximal for this case, it is still significant for broadens the bandwidth. Themost other angles of incidence or polarizations (gravitational waves propagate freely through the Earth). Inset (a): Location and orientation of the LIGO detectors at Hanford, WA (H1) and Livingston, LA (L1). Inset (b): The instrument noise for each detector near test masses are isolated fromthe seismic time of the noise signal detection; and this have is an amplitude very low spectral thermal density, expressed noise. in terms All of equivalent relevant gravitational-wave com- strain amplitude. The sensitivity is limited by photon shot noise at frequencies above 150 Hz, and by a superposition of other noise sources at ponents of the interferometerlower are frequencies isolated[47]. Narrow-band against features vibrations. include calibration Thelines (33– laser38, 330, and light 1080 Hz), passes vibrational through modes of suspension vacuum to reduce Raleigh scatteringfibers (500 Hz and of harmonics), light offand 60 air Hz electric molecules. power grid harmonics. A system of calibration lasers and array of environmental sensorsthe gravitational-wave further signalhelps extraction to reduce by broadening systematic the suspensions: uncertainties. the test masses are Two 40-kg fused (better silica substrates bandwidth of the arm cavities [51,52]. The interferometer with low-loss dielectric optical coatings [58,59],andare three!) distant interferometeris are illuminated needed with ato 1064-nm localise wavelength a GW Nd:YAG and laser, measuresuspended with its fused polarisation. silica fibers from the stage above [60]. stabilized in amplitude, frequency, and beam geometry To minimize additional noise sources, all components On September 14, 2015 at 09:51[53,54]. The UTC gravitational-wave (11:51 CEST),signal is extracted within at the aother total than of the16 laser days source are of mounted simulta- on vibration output port using a homodyne readout [55]. isolation stages in ultrahigh vacuum. To reduce optical neous two-detector observationalThese data interferometry taken techniques by LIGO are designed Hanford, to maxi- phase Washington fluctuations caused (H1) by and Rayleigh LIGO scattering, the mize the conversion of strain to optical signal, thereby pressure in the 1.2-m diameter tubes containing the arm- Livingston, Louisiana (L1), theminimizing signals the impact shown of photon in theshot noise left (the panel principal of Fig.cavity beams10 were is maintained detected below 1 μ (thePa. H1 data are shifted by 6.9 ms tonoise allow at high for frequencies). a better High comparison). strain sensitivity also TheServo detected controls are GW used pattern to hold the armis an cavities on requires that the test masses have low displacement noise, resonance [61] and maintain proper alignment of21 the optical extremely loud event (modifiedwhich signal-to-noise is achieved by isolating themratio from of seismicρ ˆc = noise 23 (low.6).components The maximum[62]. The detector strain output is(10 calibrated− ) in strain times the 4 km arm length givesfrequencies) a length and designing deformation them to have low of thermal 4 10 noise18 m,bywhich measuringis its responseabout to 0.5% test mass the motion size induced by (intermediate frequencies). Each test mass is suspended· − as photon pressure from a modulated calibration laser beam of a proton. The measured spectrumthe final stage can of bea quadruple-pendulum well reproduced system [56] by, GW[63]. calculations The calibration is established after to fitting an uncertainty its (1σ) of supported by an active seismic isolation platform [57]. less than 10% in amplitude and 10 degrees in phase, and is parameters to the observation.These The systems event, collectively dubbed provide more GW150914, than 10 orders iscontinuously found monitoredto have with a calibration significance laser excitations at of magnitude of isolation from ground motion for frequen- selected frequencies. Two alternative methods are used to over background of more thancies above5.1σ 10. Hz. The Thermal time noise series is minimized shown by using in thevalidate figure the absolute was calibration, filtered one referenced with to a the main 35–350 Hz bandpass filter tolow-mechanical-loss suppress large materials fluctuations in the test masses andoutside their laser the wavelength detectors’ and the other most to a radio-frequency sensitive oscillator frequency band, and with band-reject filters to remove strong061102-4 instrumental spectral lines. The right panel of Fig. 10 shows a sketch of the posited black hole encounter and coalescence. Thereafter, GW150914 occurred 1.3 0.5 billion years (410 Mpc) ago. Over a duration of 0.2 s, ± frequency and amplitude of the binary black hole system increased from 35 to 150 Hz (in about 8 cycles). To reach 75 Hz orbital frequency, the objects needed to be very close (about 350 km to each other and massive (thus black holes e). Two black holes of initially 36 and 29 solar masses

eDigression. There are gargantuan black holes in the universe. Many galaxies are expected to host supermassive black holes with more than a million times the mass of the Sun in its centre, formed during the galaxy creation process. NGC 4889, the brightest elliptical galaxy in the Coma cluster (94 Mpc 300 Mly from earth), hosts a ∼ record black hole of 21 billion times M , with event horizon diameter of 130 billion km (Sun: 1.4 million km). ∼

12 PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS week ending PRL 116, 061102 (2016) 12 FEBRUARY 2016 properties of space-time in the strong-field, high-velocity the coincident signal GW150914 shown in Fig. 1. The initial regime and confirm predictions of general relativity for the detection was made by low-latency searches for generic nonlinear dynamics of highly disturbed black holes. gravitational-wave transients [41] and was reported within three minutes of data acquisition [43]. Subsequently, matched-filter analyses that use relativistic models of com- II. OBSERVATION pact binary waveforms [44] recovered GW150914 as the On September 14, 2015 at 09:50:45 UTC, the LIGO most significant event from each detector for the observa- Hanford, WA, and Livingston, LA, observatories detected tions reported here. OccurringPHYSICAL within the 10-ms intersite REVIEW LETTERS week ending PRL 116, 061102 (2016) 12 FEBRUARY 2016

propagation time, the events have a combined signal-tonoise ratio (SNR) of 24 [45]. Only the LIGO detectors were observing at the time of GW150914. The Virgo detector was being upgraded, and GEO 600, though not sufficiently sensitive to detect this event, was operating but not in observational mode. With only two detectors the source position is primarily determined by the relative arrival time and localized to an area of approximately 600 deg2 (90% credible region) [39,46]. The basic features of GW150914 point to it being produced by the coalescence of two black holes—i.e., their orbital inspiral and merger, and subsequent final black hole ringdown. Over 0.2 s, the signal increases in frequency and amplitude in about 8 cycles from 35 to 150 Hz, where the amplitude reaches a maximum. The most plausible explanation for this evolution is the inspiral of two orbiting masses, m1 and m2, due to gravitational-wave emission. At the lower frequencies, such evolution is characterized by the chirp mass [11] FIG. 1. The gravitational-wave event GW150914 observed by the LIGO Hanford (H1, left column panels) and Livingston (L1, right column panels) detectors. Times are shown relative to September 14, 2015 at 09:50:45 UTC. For visualization, all time series are filtered with a 35–350 Hz bandpass filter to suppress large fluctuationsm m outside3=5 the detectorsc3’ most5 sensitive frequency band, and3=5 band-reject FIG. 2. Top: Estimated gravitational-wave strain amplitude filtersFigure to remove10 the strong – instrumentalLeft: spectralthe lines gravitational-wave seen1 in the2 Fig. 3 spectra. Top row, left:− eventH18= strain.3 −11Top GW150914=3 row,_ right: L1 strain. observed by the LIGO Hanford (H1, left column M0.5 ð Þ π f f ; from GW150914 projected onto H1. This shows the full GW150914 arrived first at L1 and 6.9−þ0.4 ms later at H1; for a visual1 comparison,=5 the H1 data are also shown, shifted in time by this amountpanels) and inverted and (to account Livingston for the detectors¼ ’ relativem (L1,1 orientations).m right2 Second column¼ G row: Gravitational-wave96 panels) strain detectors. projected onto each Timesbandwidth are shown of the waveforms, relative without to September the filtering 14,used 2015for Fig. at1. detector in the 35–350 Hz band. Solid lines show að numericalþ relativityÞ waveform for a system with parameters consistent with those recovered09:50:45 from GW150914 UTC.[37,38] Theconfirmed top to 99.9% panels by an independent show calculation the based measured on [15]. Shaded areas GW show 90% strains. credible The For inset a better images visualshow numerical comparison relativity the models H1 of data the black are regions for two independent waveformwhere reconstructions.f and f_ Oneare (dark gray) the models observed the signal using frequency binary black hole and template its waveforms time hole horizons as the black holes coalesce. Bottom: The Keplerian [39]shifted. The other (light in gray)time doesby not use 6.9 an astrophysical ms. The model, but panels instead calculates in the strain second signal as a linear row combination show of the GW strains projected onto each detector in the sine-Gaussian wavelets [40,41]derivative. These reconstructions and haveG a 94%and overlap,c are as shown the in gravitational[39]. Third row: Residuals constant after subtracting and the effective black hole separation in units of Schwarzschild radii filtered numerical relativity waveform from the filtered detector time series. Bottom row:A time-frequency representation [42] of the 2 strain35–350 data, showing Hz the frequency signal frequency increasing band. over time. The solid line_ superimpose the fit predictions(RS 2GM=c based) and on the general effectiverelativity relative velocity calculations. given by the speed of light. Estimating f and f from the data in Fig. 1, ¼ The third row shows the residuals after subtracting the filteredpost-Newtonian numerical relativity parameter v=c waveformGMπf=c from3 1=3, the where filteredf is the we obtain a chirp mass of M 30M ,implyingthatthe ¼ð Þ detector timetotal series, mass andM them061102-2 bottomm is panels70≃M in show⊙ the detector a time-frequency frame. gravitational-wave representation frequency of the calculated strain with data, numerical showing relativity the 1 2 and M is the total mass (value from Table I). signal frequencyThis increasing bounds¼ the sumoverþ of time. the≳ SchwarzschildRight:⊙ estimated radii of the gravitational-wave strain amplitude from GW150914 projected ontobinary H1. components The bottom to 2 panelGM=c2 shows210 km. the Toeffective reach an black hole separation in units of Schwarzschild radii ≳ and the effectiveorbital relative frequency velocity. of 75 Hz Figures (half the and gravitational-wave explanations takendetector from Ref.[33],52 a. modified Michelson interferometer (see frequency) the objects must have been very close and very Fig. 3) that measures gravitational-wave strain as a differ- compact; equal Newtonian point masses orbiting at this ence in length of its orthogonal arms. Each arm is formed frequency would be only 350 km apart. A pair of by two mirrors, acting as test masses, separated by neutron stars, while compact,≃ would not have the required Lx Ly L 4 km. A passing gravitational wave effec- ¼ ¼ ¼ mass, while a black hole neutron star binary with the tively alters the arm lengths such that the measured deduced chirp mass would have a very large total mass, difference is ΔL t δLx − δLy h t L, where h is the (M ) inspiral with about half the speed of light. The black holesð Þ¼ merge within¼ ð Þ tens of ms; and would thus merge at much lower frequency. This gravitational-wave strain amplitude projected onto the the inspiral,leaves merging black holes and as ringdown the only known leave objects a characteristic compact detector. amplitude This differential and frequency length variation GW alters pattern. the phase The total radiatedenough to reach GW an energy orbital frequency amounts of to 75 Hz(3.0 without0.5)Mdifference. The between direct the observation two light fields of returning this event to the contact. Furthermore, the decay of the waveform after± it beam splitter, transmitting an optical signal proportional to follows uponpeaks the is indirectconsistent with proof the damped of GWs oscillations from energyof a black lossthe measurements gravitational-wave strain in binary to the output pulsar photodetector. systems in 1982.53,54hole relaxing to a final stationary Kerr configuration. To achieve sufficient sensitivity to measure gravitational Below, we present a general-relativistic analysis of waves, the detectors include several enhancements to the GW150914; Fig. 2 shows the calculated waveform using basic Michelson interferometer. First, each arm contains a the resulting source parameters. resonant optical cavity, formed by its two test mass mirrors, that multiplies the effect of a gravitational wave on the light phase by a factor of 300 [48]. Second, a partially trans- The observation of GW150914III. DETECTORS bundles several discoveries: it is the first direct detection of GWs, the first observation of a binary black hole merger,missive it showspower-recycling that relativelymirror at the input heavy provides stellar- addi- Gravitational-wave astronomy exploits multiple, widely tional resonant buildup of the laser light in the interferometer mass blackseparated holes( detectors> 25 M to distinguish) exist gravitational in nature, waves it from is theas observation a whole [49,50]: 20of W the of laser “no-hair-conjecture” input is increased to 700 W according tolocal which instrumental any black and environmental hole canbe noise, fully to provide characterisedincident on by the only beam three splitter, classical which is further observables increased to source sky localization, and to measure wave polarizations. 100 kW circulating in each arm cavity. Third, a partially (mass, electricThe LIGO charge, sites each angular operate momentum), a single Advanced it LIGO is thetransmissive most relativistic signal-recycling binary mirror atevent the output ever optimizes seen (v/c 0.5), and it leads to a new limit on the graviton mass of < 1.2 10 22 eV. GW150914 ∼ · − is likely not a unique binary black hole event. The061102-3 rate is inferred to lie between 2 and 400 events per Gpc3 and year, which is at the higher end of the expectations. Adding VIRGO will improve the localisation of future GW events. New interferometers are upcoming in India and Japan. Electromagnetic and high-energy neutrino follow-up programmes are also in work (no high-energy neutrino coincidence during GW150914 was seen by ANTARES and IceCube).

Gravitational waves have joined the club for multi-messenger astronomy together with photons, cosmic rays and neutrinos. The paper reporting the observation52 collected more than 100 citations within a month. The LIGO/VIRGO collaboration released a number of companion papers about detector and analysis details and implications of GW150914.55

13 6 Flavour Physics

Flavour physics deals with the study of ﬂavour transitions, mixing and CP violation in all its aspects. Precision measurements and the measurement of rare, and search for forbidden processes provides sensitivity to new physics beyond the current energy frontier of direct production. By these measurements it is hoped to acquire insight into the mystery of the observed ﬂavour structure (which is related to the BEH sector).

6.1 Tetraquarks?

Although hadron spectroscopy is not a topic traditionally discussed at this conference, it occurred that the D0 experiment at Tevatron had recently reported56 the observation of a new state in the invariant mass spectrum of Bs( J/ψφ)π . The new state has a mass and width of 5568 MeV → ± and 22 MeV, respectively, and a fiducial yield ratio ρ (relative to the Bs yield) between about 5 and 12%. It is compatible with a hadronic state with valence quarks of four different flavors (tetraquark) made of a diquark-antidiquark pair and quantum numbers J P = 0+. A prompt cross-check performed by the LHCb collaboration57,58 did not confirm the observation in a 20 times larger Bs sample. An upper limit on ρ of 1–2% depending on the fiducial region is found. Other experiments are also looking for this state. The results may depend on beam, energy and analysis differences between the experiments.

6.2 CKM Matrix Full combination

Among the central topics of flavour physics 1 is the continuing effort to overconstrain LHCb the CKM matrix and thus test the Stan- 1-CL 0.8 B+ decays Preliminary dard Model quark-flavour sector. LHCb Bs has joined this effort with important con- 0.6 decays tributions. A precise measurement of the CKM angle γ (through tree-level processes) 0.4 68.3% together with sin(2β) (through mixing- B0 induced CP violation) or Vub (through 0.2 | | decays tree-level processes), fixes the apex of the 95.5% Combination 0 CKM unitarity triangle. All other mea- 0 50 100 150 surements probe these constraints. Among γ [°] the results reported by LHCb in this area B decays 58 s are : a Vub/Vcb measurement from Λb Figure 11 – Confidence0 level versus the CKM angle γ as ob- | | → B 63 decays + pµν with 5% precision59 that is closer to tained by LHCb for analyses involving B decays (blue), + 0 Bs decays (darkB decays orange), B decays (light orange), and the exclusive B-factory numbers for Vub 69 | | their combination (green). (which exhibit tension with the larger inclu- Combination sive numbers), the world’s best single ∆md 23 60 1 measurement 0.5050 0.0021 0.0010 ps− (the B-factories have a combined uncertainty of 1 ± ± 61 0.005 ps− ), a sin(2β) measurement of 0.731 0.035 0.020 that approaches the precision of ± ± 0 s d the B-factories, the world’s best constraints on CP violation in B(s) mixing (asl, asl) in agreement with the Standard Model (D0 sees a 3.6σ deviation), and a search for CPT violation62 0 (difference in mass or width) in the B(s) systems together with the measurement of sidereal phase dependence of the CPT violating parameter. LHCb has engaged into a vigorous programme63 to determine the CKM angle γ arg( V ? ). ∼ − ub It can be measured through interference of b u with b c tree transitions. The hadronic → →

14 Consistent with CP conservation hypothesis with p = 0.32

Direct CP violation with ACP arXiv:1602.03160

×10-3 10 − + − + dir CP A SL K Κ and π π Can parameterise A into direct and Γ − + CP a AΓ prompt K Κ • ∆ A prompt π−π+ indirect components Γ 5 no CPV dir t t ind ACP = aCP 1 + È Í yCP + È ÍaCP 0 A · B · SL SL

CP A prompt

∆

-5 CP A

Also measure t , t ∆ • È Í È Í LHCb ind Use LHCb measurements of A aCP -10 ×10-3 • ¥≠ -10 -5 0 -5 10 ind and yCP [1,2] aCP

0 0 + + Figure 12 – CP asymmetries measured in D /D K K−/π π− decays decomposed into direct and indirect → components.68 The measured values by LHCb are compatible with the no-CP -violation hypothesis.

parameters are the amplitude ratio rB and the strong final-state-interaction (FSI) phase δB that need to be determined from data. The extraction of γ is then theoretically clean, but large statistics are needed due to the CKM suppression of some of the involved amplitudes. To fully 0 exploit the available data LHCb uses B±, B , Bs, and many D decay modes requiring different ? techniques; also DK and DsK are used. Some modes show large direct CP13asymmetries. / 15 It is unfortunately impossible to appropriately discuss the individual measurements in this summary, so we only show the overall results on γ in Fig. 11. The combined fit, dominated by the + 69 +7.1 measurements from charged B to charm decays, gives γ = 70.9 8.5 deg, which is in agreement with the value from the CKM fit (not including the direct γ measurements)− of 64 68 2 deg. ±

6.3 CP violation and mixing in charm decays

In the neutral charm sector the mixing probability is extremely low due to CKM suppression of order λ10, making charm mixing a challenging measurement. Mixing-induced or direct CP - violation effects are also expected to be small so that for both measurements large data yields are needed. Owing to a large cross section and hadronic triggers, LHCb has collected a huge charm sample during Run-1. A new mixing analysis66 presented at this conference used the decay D0 K π+π π+ to determine the strong phase difference needed for the measurement → − − of γ from B+ D0( K π+π π+)K+ decays. It exploits the time-dependent ratio of wrong- → → − − sign (D0 K+π π+π ) to right-sign (D0 K π+π π+) events that depends on the charm → − − → − − mixing coefficients, the ratio of Cabibbo-favoured and doubly Cabibbo-suppressed amplitudes, and on their interference (hence the sensitivity to the strong phase). 65,66 LHCb also presented a new measurement of the time-integrated CP asymmetry ∆ACP = 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 ACP (D /D K K−) ACP (D /D π π−), where the D flavour is inferred from the → − ?+ → 0 + 67 1 charge of the soft pion in the decay D D π . An earlier result by LHCb using 0.6 fb− → of data collected during Run-1 exhibited an unexpected 3.5σ deviation from zero (∆ACP = 0.82 0.21 0.11, where the first uncertainty is statistical and the second systematic). The new ±68 ± 1 result using the full 3.0 fb− Run-1 data sample, ∆ACP = 0.10 0.08 0.03, does not confirm ± ± the earlier evidence for a deviation66 (see also Fig. 12).

15 ]

9 0.8 2011-2012 data − 18 ATLAS ATLAS [10

Total fit -1 )

− s = 7 TeV, 4.9 fb 16 -1 0.6 µ

s= 7 TeV, 4.9 fb Combinatorial bkg -1 + s = 8 TeV, 20 fb -1 SS-SV bkg µ 14 s= 8 TeV, 20 fb CMS & LHCb + −

99.73% 95.45% 68.27% B → µ µ → s 0.4

12 0 Events / 40 MeV 10 B 0.446 < BDT < 1 B( 0.2 8 SM 6 0 4 Contours for -2 ∆ln(L) = 2.3, 2 ATLAS −0.2 6.2, 11.8 from maximum of L 0 4800 5000 5200 5400 5600 5800 01234567

0 + − −9 Dimuon mass [MeV] B(B s → µ µ ) [10 ]

Figure 14 – Left: dimuon mass distribution in the most signal-like BDT bin. Data and ﬁt results (split into + signal and background components) are overlaid. Right: delta log-likelihood contours in the (B µ µ−) + B → versus (Bs µ µ−) plane obtained without imposing the constraint of non-negative branching fractions. Also B → shown are the combined result by CMS and LHCb, the Standard Model prediction with uncertainties and the ATLAS result within the boundary of non-negative branching fractions. The ﬁgures taken from Ref.74.

6.4 Rare B decays 0 + d Bs µ µ + ! + The rare flavour-changing neutral current decay Bs µ µ µ → − b (c.f. diagrams in Fig. 13) is a prominent channel to look for new + 0 0 W Z physics. It has been searched for during almost 30 years at many Bs t accelerators improving the sensitivity by five orders of magnitude W s 70,71,72 µ before being observed by CMS and LHCb in November 0 + f Bs µ µ 2014 through a combination of their Run-1 datasets. They found ! + + +0.7 9 b µ (Bs µ µ−) = 2.8 0.6 10− with a significance of 6.2σ. The B → − · 73 9 + 0 corresponding Standard Model prediction (3.7 0.2) 10− is 0 X X ± · Bs t in agreement with the measurement. The CKM suppressed Bd W f + +1.6 10 channel was found to be (B µ µ−) = 3.9 1.4 10− with s B → − · 73 µ a significance of 3.2σ. This value is larger than the prediction Figure 13 – Representative Feyn- 10 (1.1 0.1) 10− . man diagrams for Standard Model ± · (top) and new physics (bottom) + At this conference, ATLAS presented their full Run-1 result for contributions to Bs µ µ−. the two channels.74,75 The analysis proceeded similarly to that → of CMS and LHCb employing a multivariate Boosted Decision Tree (BDT) to suppress hadrons faking muons giving rise to peaking backgrounds, another BDT to suppress continuum background, and a two-dimensional fit to continuum-BDT bins and the dimuon mass (unbinned) to locate the signal. The fitted event yields are normalised to B+ J/ψK+ requiring as → input the ratio of decay constants fs/fd taken from a dedicated ATLAS measurement (also requiring theoretical input). As control channels to validate the cut efficiencies and multivariate + + analyses serve B J/ψK and Bs J/ψφ. The expected sensitivity of the analysis for → → a Standard Model branching fraction is 3.1σ. Figure 14 (left panel) shows the dimuon mass distribution in the most signal-like BDT bin. No significant signal is seen in this or the other two selected BDT bins. Constraining the two branching fractions to be non-negative in the fit + +1.1 9 9 gives (Bs µ µ ) = 0.9 10 with an upper limit of 3.0 10 at 95% CL. The upper B → − 0.8 · − · − limit for (B µ+µ ) is 4−.2 10 10. The compatibility with the Standard Model amounts to B → − · − 2.0σ. The right panel of Fig. 14 shows the fit result in the two-dimensional branching fraction plane together with the combined CMS and LHCb result and the Standard Model prediction. Also shown is the ATLAS result within the boundary of non-negative branching fractions.

f The d subscript in Bd is usually omitted.

16 ' 5 P 2 LHCb 1 SM from DHMV + b sµ µ example 0 ! -1 Introduction Introduction Standard Model -2 + 0 5 10 15 b sµ µ example bsW bst 2 2 4 q [GeV /c ]! + W + W + Introduction Rare B and Db decaysµ µmeasurements exampleSearches at LHCfor New and the Physicst TeVatron inµ+ b → s ll µ+ Rare 2B and! D decay measurements? + at LHC and the TeVatron ⌫ Introduction Figure 16 – The angular ratio P50 versus the invariantStandard mass q of the Model recoiling dimuon system in B K µ µ− 76 77 → 0 measured by LHCb (left panel) and Belle (right panel). Also shown are selected theoretical predictions. ,Z µ µ StandardRare Model B decays: bsW Mediatedbs by EWt penguin and box 6.5 Flavour+ anomalies bsW MediatedW + bs byW EW+t penguin and box Rare B and Db decaysµ µmeasurements exampleSearches at LHCfor New and the Physicst TeVatron inµdiagrams+ b → s inll the SM µ+“New physics” (loop order and at tree level) Rare B and! D decay measurementsF =1FCNC at LHC and the TeVatron diagrams⌫ in the SM + W Wg˜ Several measurements in the flavour sector exhibitF =1FCNC non-significant0 t µW+ µ+ 0 ,Z µ bsW bsµ⌫ bs˜ g˜ bsg˜ bst bs but interesting anomalies withprocesses, respect to theory forbidden predictions. at A bs Standard Model processes, forbidden0 at bs + prominentRare example B decays: is given by angular coefficients describing the,Z t µ d˜ d˜µ + d˜ + H H + + Mediated by EWtree penguin level in and the box SM. µ i ˜ µ µ i µ µ µ + t d µ ⌫ transition b sµ µ−Mediated. Figure 15 shows by EW Feynmantree penguin level graphs in and for the Stan- box SM. ,Z0 µ H 0 Z0 bsW→ bst 0 ,Z µ H0 µ µ µ dard Modeldiagrams and putative in new the physicsIn SM extensions contributions.“New to physics” The the LHCb SM (loop order and at,Z tree+ level) Hµ+ F =1FCNC diagrams in the SM + µ + collaboration performed an angularW analysisIn extensionsW ofg˜ the decay B to the SM µ+ µ F =1FCNCt µW+ µ+“New0 physics” (loop order and at tree level) ? + bsthesebs processes⌫ bs can˜ g˜ → bsg˜ bst bs processes, forbiddenK µ atµ− using the full Run-1 dataW samplethese and determining processes eight can t 0 bs76,71 bs0 t processes, forbiddenindependent,ZCP at-averaged observables. Ã convenient˜ bs observ-˜ bs˜ bsg˜ bsbs+ tt bs t µ receive contributionsd diµ + di t+ H SensitivityH + to the di↵erent+ SM & NP contributions through decay tree level in the SM. µ receive contributionsd˜ µ µ bsµ bs+ µ µ able for comparison with theoryt is the ratio P 0 = S5/ FL(1 FL) µ H ⌫ H + tree level in the SM. 0 µ5 d˜ +WW d˜ + H H + + Z + ,Z from “new”H virtual,Z0 − i µ 0 WWi µ rates,H angularH µ observables0 andµ CP asymmetries. in which the form-factor uncertainty,Z0 cancels. Figure 16 (leftH+ panel)µ H µ µ⌫ µ In extensions to the SM µ+ from “new”p µ virtual µ Z + 2 0 + µ0 0 In extensionsshows to the the distribution SM of P50 versusparticles. the invariantµ mass q of the,Zµ µ H µµ µµ µ “New physics” (loop order and atparticles. tree level) + µ+ these processes canrecoiling dimuon system. The LHCb data points show a tension Figure 15 – Representativeµ + these processes can µ+ µ T. Blake Rare FCNC decays 6 / 43 0 t 2 t Feynman diagrams for Standard receive contributionswithbs the˜ chosenbs theory predictionbsg˜t inbs the q rangebs betweentt 4 and bs 2 bsSensitivity toModel the di (top)↵erent and newSM physics & NP contributions through decay receive contributions8 GeV . The Belle collaborationbs recentlyH performedH+ a measure-+ (bottom) contributions to the ˜ WW˜ H HSensitivity+ to the di↵erent SM & NP contributions through decay from “new” virtual di + di + rates,H angular•H SM:+ observables Flavour+ andchanging+ CP asymmetries. neutral currents only at loop-level ment of that observableµ whichWW is in agreementµ with the LHCb re-µ process b sµ µ−. µ from “new” virtual ⌫ → 0 µ 77 µ rates, angularZ observables0 and CP asymmetries. particles. sult but,Z has lowerµ statistical precisionH0 (seeµ right panel of Fig. 16).µ µ + give aµ unique glimpse to higher scales: + µ + • b →T. s Blake l l Rare+B and D decays 3 / 25 particles. Angular and differential branchingµ fraction analyses wereµ also performed for Bs φµ µ− (also + µ+ T.→ BlakeT. Blake RareRareB and FCNCD decaysdecays 6 / 3 43 / 25 exhibiting a localised tension with the prediction)µ and a differentialexperimentally branching fraction and analy- theoretically clean + + + T. Blake Rare FCNC decays 6 / 43 sis for B K µ µ−. A global fit with an effective new physics parameterisation (Wilson Sensitivity→NP toNP the di↵erent SM & NP contributions through78 decay coefficients• SM:C9 Flavour, C10 ) can changing reproduce the observedneutral discrepancy currents pattern. only at loop-level rates, angular observables and CP asymmetries.13. March 2016 Johannes Albrecht 3/19 Less• plaguedb → bys l hard+l give to estimate a unique theoretical glimpse uncertainties to are higher lepton universalityscales: tests. Such T. Blake Rare B and D decays+ 3 / 25 tests wereexperimentally performed atT. the Blake per-mil andRare level theoreticallyB atand LEPD decays and other cleane e− colliders not showing 3 / 25 any significant discrepancy with the expectationT. Blake of universalRare FCNC lepton decays coupling. The B-factory experiments 6 / 43 and LHCb have measured ratios of semileptonic B decays that have robust Standard Model 79,80,81,71,82 0 predictions.13. March 2016 Figure 17 shows theJohannes various measurements Albrecht of the ratios RD(?) = (B 3/19 (?) 0 (?) + + + + B+ + → D τν)/ (B D `ν) (left panel) and RK = (B K µ µ )/ (B K e e ) B → B → − B → − (right). It includes a new measurement by the Belle experiment83 using semileptonic tagging of the recoil B (as opposed to fully hadronic reconstruction). Belle finds RD? = 0.302 0.030 0.011 ± ± with the first uncertainty being statistical and the second systematic. The Standard Model expectation is 0.252 0.003. Belle also studies additional kinematic distributions that have new ± physics sensitivity. The Heavy Flavour Averaging Group (HFAG) has computed a new combi- 84 nation of RD? that includes the latest Belle result, giving RD? = 0.316 0.016 0.010 which is ± ± 3.3σ away from the Standard Model value. The two-dimensional combination with RD increases the significance to 4.0σ.

17 LHCb BaBar Belle 0.5 0.5 K 2 BaBar, PRL109,101802(2012)

22 R BaBar,Belle, PRD92,072014(2015)PRL109,101802(2012) ∆∆χχ = = 1.0 1.0 LHCb 0.450.45 Belle,LHCb, arXiv:1507.03233 PRL115,111803(2015) R(D*) R(D*) LHCb,Belle, arXiv:1603.06711arXiv:1506.08614 AverageHFAG Average, P(χ2) = 67% 1.5 0.40.4 SM prediction

0.350.35 1 SM HFAG 0.30.3

0.5 EPS 2015 HFAG

0.250.25 Prel.HFAG EPS2015 R(D),SM PRD92,054510(2015) prediction R(D*), PRD85,094025(2012) P(χ2)Prel. = Winter 55% 2016 0.20.2 0 0.20.2 0.30.3 0.40.4 0.50.5 0.60.6 0 5 10 15 20 R(D)R(D) q2 [GeV2/c4]

Figure 17 – Ratios of the semileptonic B decays as measured by the B-factory experiments and LHCb. The left panel shows the two-dimensional plane RD? versus RD, and the right panel shows RK versus the invariant mass of the lepton pair. See text for the deﬁnitions of the variables.

6.6 Charged lepton ﬂavour violation

A very active field of new physics searches looks for decays that do not conserve the charged lepton flavour. The predictions of such processes within the Standard Model and including massive neutrinos are immeasurably small so that any signal would be a clean sign of new physics. Searches for charged lepton flavour violation have a long history. The canonical channels are µ eγ, 3e, µN eN conversion and τ µγ, 3µ reaching down to branching fractions of → 13 8 → → g order 10− (10− ) for the former (latter) channels. Forthcoming µ-to-e conversion experiments planned in Japan and the US have spectacular perspectives with several orders of magnitude improved sensitivity compared to the current state of the art. The NA48/2 experiment at CERN has performed a new preliminary analysis86 of their 2003– 2004 data sample to search for lepton number violation in the decay K+ π µ+µ+. The main → − background in this channel stems from K+ π π+π+ followed by two π+ µ+ν decays. No → − → excess of events was observed giving the strong limit (K+ π µ+µ+) < 8.6 10 11 at 90% CL. B → − · − NA48/2 also studied the dimuon invariant mass spectrum of the opposite-charge K+ π+µ+µ → − data sample for resonances which were not seen. With the new NA62/2 experiment at CERN 12 starting data taking a sensitivity of 10− for charged-lepton flavour violation in this channel is expected. The search for the decay π0 eµ is expected to reach a sensitivity of 10 11. → −

6.7 Rare kaon decays

The NA62 collaboration presented an important preliminary measurement87 using their 2007 dataset of the timelike transition-form-factor (TFF) slope a in F (x) 1+a x+... (c.f. Fig. 18) ≈ · with π0 e+e γ Dalitz decays (1.2% branching fraction), using about 5 billion triggered → − π0 from K π π0 decays and a total of about 20 billion K in the decay region. The ± → ± ± TFF is an input to model the muon g 2 light-by-light scattering contribution. h A challenge − for the F (X) extraction is the proper treatment of the QED radiative corrections that are included in the Monte Carlo (MC) simulation used. A ﬁt using MC-based templates gives a = (3.70 0.53 0.36) 10 2, which exceeds in precision previous measurements by factors. ± ± · − g 85 13 The MEG collaboration just released their ﬁnal limit (µ eγ) < 4.2 10− at 90% CL, based on the full B → · 2009–2013 dataset (totalling 7.5 1014 stopped muons on target). An upgrade programme MEG II is underway. · hOther experimental information relevant for that contribution stems from spacelike measurements of the + + ? ? + 0 process e e− e e−γ γ e e−π by CELLO, CLEO and BABAR. → →

18 Introduction ⇡0 TFF Slope Measurement K + ⇡+⌫⌫¯ Branching Ratio Measurement Summary Spares !

The NA62/2 collaboration presented0 the+ latest e Dalitz87 Decay: ⇡ e e commissioning status on the way to! a ﬁrst measurement of the ultra-rare decay K± π±νν. → 0 0 ⇡ That decay was observed⇡ decay at – BNL kinematic by the variables E949 ex-x, y: + D FF((xx)) e periment with a measured branching2 fraction of + 0 + 11 (pe + pe ) 11 2 p⇡ . (pe pe ) (17 11) 10− withx = (8.4 1.0) 10, −y =predicted. ≈ 1 + a x + … ± · ±m2 · m2 (1 x) (in timelike region) The goal by NA62/2 is a branching⇡0 fraction mea-⇡0 2 2 surement with 10%Differential precision decay (assuming width (r Standard=(2m /m 0 ) x ): e ⇡ ⌘ min Model rate). The experimental requirements are 5 2 0 3 Figure2 18 – FeynmanTransition graph Form Factor of the (TFF) Dalitz decay 1 d (⇡ ) ↵ (1 x) 0 r + trillion K± decays (giving aboutD 50= signal events)(1 +πy 2 + e )(e−1γ +used(x, toy)) determineF(x) 2 the slope of the 0 dxdy 4⇡ x → x | | per year, which could( already⇡2 ) be reached in 2016, timelike transition form factor. and a similar order for the background suppression (dominated by K π π0) to select less F(x) 1 + a x, a : TFF slope parameter± → ± than 10 background events per year⇡ in the signal regions. The most sensitive discriminating ⇡0 TFF slope2 measurement at NA622 (kaon decay experiment) variable is the missing mass m = (pK pπ ) , which is positive and monotonously falling miss0 ± ± 0 K ± ⇡±⇡ decay: source− of tagged ⇡ decays (BR(K ) 21%) for signal while it can• be negative! or peaked for backgrounds. The commissioning2⇡ ⇡ results showed NA62 in 2007: data taking conditions optimized for e± from K ± e±⌫ that the detector performance• is close to the design requirements already. e 0 0 + ! Large and clean sample of K ± ⇡±⇡ ; ⇡ e e decays ! ! !

7 ElectroweakNA62 precision Results and Perspectives physics M. Koval - La Thuile 2016 4

High precision measurements of electroweak observables and the global fit to these were a mas- terpiece of the LEP era. It led to constraints on the top-quark and Higgs-boson masses before these particles were discovered at, respectively, the Tevatron and the LHC. The direct mass measurements were then found in agreement with the indirect constraints. The discovery of the Higgs boson overconstrains the electroweak fit and dramatically improves its pre- dictability. The fit has thus turned into a powerful test of the Standard Model. The current predictions of the observables most benefiting from the known Higgs boson mass, split into 88 the various uncertainty terms, are : mW = 80.3584 0.0046mt 0.0030δtheomt 0.0026mZ ± 2 ±` ± ± 0.0018∆α 0.0020α 0.0001m 0.0040δ m GeV, and sin θ = 0.231488 0.000024m had ± S ± H ± theo W eff ± t ± 0.000016δtheomt 0.000015mZ 0.000035∆αhad 0.000010αS 0.000001mH 0.000047δ sin2θf . ± ± ± ± ± theo eff Their total uncertainties of 8 MeV and 7 10 5, respectively, undercut the (world average) · − experimental errors of 89,90 15 MeV and 16 10 5, respectively. · − The LHC experiments, as do CDF and D0 since long and continuing, are investing efforts into 2 eff precision measurements of the electroweak observables mW , mtop, and sin θW . All are extremely challenging. In this respect, it is worth pointing out that the LHC Run-1 is not over yet. It represents a high-quality, very well understood data sample for precision measurements.

7.1 Top-quark mass

There has been significant progress on the top-quark mass measurements at the LHC achieving similar precision as those performed by the Tevatron experiments. The currently most accurate 91 LHC number is the CMS combination giving mtop = 172.44 0.13 0.47 GeV, where the first ± ± uncertainty is statistical and the second systematic. The most recent Tevatron combination 92 gives mtop = 174.34 0.37 0.52 GeV with a tension of 2.4σ or more with the CMS result. ± ± While these kinematic mass measurements provide the best current precision on mtop and must be continued, it is also apparent that they approach a difficult systematic uncertainty regime from, mostly, the b-quark fragmentation. A way to improve93 could be to choose more robust observables with respect to the leading systematic effects at the possible price of loosing statistical power. The dilepton kinematic endpoint is an experimentally clean observable, which has however large theoretical uncertainties. More robust could be the selection of charmonium

19 states94 or charmed mesons originating from a b-hadron produced in one of the b-jets. A clean but rare signature. ATLAS and CMS have also invested work into the indirect determination of the top mass from inclusive and differential cross-section measurements. These are promising approaches benefiting from theoretically well defined observables, which are however not yet competitive with the kinematic methods. They also stronger depend on the assumption that no new physics contributes to the measured cross sections. The currently best top pole mass determination from CMS using a precise Run-1 eµ-based cross-section measurement is95 +1.7 173.8 1.8 GeV in agreement with the direct (kinematic) measurements. −

7.2 Weak mixing angle

The CDF, D0,99 and LHC experiments96,97,98 have extracted the weak mixing angle from Z/γ? 100,101 2 eﬀ polarisation measurements. The total uncertainty on sin θW at the Tevatron are dominated by statistical eﬀects, that of LHCb has similar statistical and systematic contributions, while for ATLAS and CMS parton density function (PDF) uncertainties are dominant. A data- driven “PDF replica rejection” method applied by CDF allows to reduce the sensitivity to PDF and to update the measurement when improved PDF sets are available. Overall, these are complex measurements (in particular with respect to the physics modelling) that are important to pursue also in view of a better understanding of Z/γ? production at hadron colliders. The precision obtained is however not yet competitive with that of LEP/SLD.

7.3 W boson mass

-1 ATLAS, CMS and LHCb have presented CMS Preliminary =7 TeV (4.7 fbs ) progress towards a ﬁrst measurement of W-like PDG p M Z -M Z T the W mass at the LHC using the lep- Total unc. Stat. unc. tonic W boson decay, which relies on mT Exp. unc. an excellent understanding of the ﬁnal

102 positive W-like E PDG state. The observables used to probe T M Z unc. mW are the transverse momentum of the p T lepton (pT,`), the transverse momentum of the neutrino (pT,ν), measured from the mT transverse recoil of the event, and the

transverse mass of the lepton-neutrino negative W-like E T system (mT ). The measurement requires −150 −100 −50 0 50 100 150 a high-precision momentum and energy W-like PDG M Z - M Z (MeV) scale calibration (including the hadronic recoil) obtained from Z, J/ψ and Υ data, Figure 19 – Difference between the fitted W -like Z mass and and excellent control of the signal effi- the LEP measurement for each mW probe and W charge. ciency and background modelling. The biggest challenge is posed by the physics modelling. The production is governed by PDF and initial state interactions (perturbative and non-perturbative), that can be constrained by W +, W −, Z, and W + c data, and the use of NNLO QCD calculations including soft gluon resummation. The experimental mW probes are very sensitive to the W polarisation (and hence to PDF, including its strange density). Electroweak corrections are sufficiently well known. The experiments are in a thriving process of addressing the above issues. Many precision measurements (differential Z, W + X cross sections, polarisation analysis, calibration performance, etc.) are produced on the way with benefits for the entire physics programme. Theoretical developments are also mandatory. Altogether this is a long-term effort.

20 + CMS presented for the first time a mZ measurement using a W -like Z µ µ analysis where → − one muon is replaced by a neutrino that contributes to the missing transverse momentum in the 103,102 event. It represents a proof-of-principle, although differences with the full mW analysis remain in the event selection, the background treatment and most of the theory uncertainties, (. . . ). CMS used the 7 TeV dataset to take benefit from the lower number of pileup interactions. The momentum scale and resolution calibration for that measurement relies on J/ψ and Υ data. Track-based missing transverse momentum is used and the W transverse recoil is calibrated using Z + jets events. The results for the different probes and the positive and negative W -like cases are shown in Fig. 19. Agreement with the LEP measurement is found. The uncertainties, depending on the probe used, are: statistical: 35–46 MeV, total systematic: 28–34 MeV, QED radiation: 23 MeV (dominant), lepton calibration: 12–15 MeV. ∼

8 The LHC at 13 TeV — Standard Model physics

A huge milestone was achieved in 2015 with a record proton–proton collision energy of 13 TeV and high-energy lead–lead collision. After a rocky start, the LHC delivered an integrated proton– 1 33 2 1 proton luminosity of 4.2 fb− with a peak instantaneous luminosity of 5.2 10 cm s . The · − − majority of the data were produced with 25 ns bunch crossing distance (as opposed to 50 ns at the beginning of the run). This amount of data already improves the reach for many new physics searches. The year 2015 has also been rewarding for the experiments with many results available for the summer conferences, a huge amount of results released for the CERN end-of- year seminars, and many more at this conference. LHC running in 2016 has already started and 104 1 is expected to reach up to 25 fb− integrated luminosity over the year with peak luminosity 34 2 1 of about 10 cm− s− . The integrated luminosity collected by the experiments in 2015 for physics analysis amounts to 1 1 3.3–3.6 fb− for ATLAS (depending on the data quality requirements applied), 2.2–3.3 fb− for 1 1 CMS (0.8 fb− was taken in a solenoid-oﬀ conﬁguration), and 0.32 fb− for LHCb after luminosity levelling to suppress pileup interactions. The luminosity monitors of the experiments were calibrated with dedicated beam-separation scans to preliminary 5.0% (ATLAS), 2.7% (CMS), 3.8% (LHCb) relative precision. The average number of pileup interactions in ATLAS and CMS were µ 50 ns 20, µ 25 ns 13 (for comparison µ 8 TeV 21), and in LHCb µ levelled 1.7. h i ' h i ' h i ' h i '

8.1 Inclusive W and Z production

Inclusive W and Z boson events represent a rich physics laboratory with strong PDF dependence + (the W /W − ratio is sensitive to low-x up and down valence quarks, the W ±/Z ratio constrains the strange density), and as probes for QCD and electroweak physics. Their leptonic decays also serve as standard candles to calibrate the electron and muon performance of the detectors. ATLAS, CMS and LHCb have studied single gauge boson production at 7, 8 and 13 TeV, where LHCb covers a complementary phase space in x, Q2 owing to its forward acceptance (2.0 < η < 4.5). Initial 13 TeV inclusive Z (W ) cross section measurements were performed | | ± by all three experiments (ATLAS and CMS), who ﬁnd overall agreement with the Standard Model predictions.101,105,106,107 Figure 20 shows ratios of cross sections from ATLAS (top panels) and CMS (bottom panels) compared to various PDF sets. Systematic uncertainties cancel to some extent in these ratios so that already a precision of better than 3% is achieved. Similar experiment-versus-theory patterns are observed for both experiments.

108 Among the Run-1 results presented were measurements of pT (Z) at 8 TeV from ATLAS (also 109 110 CMS and LHCb ) showing that soft gluon resummation is needed at low pT to describe

21 ATLAS ATLAS 13 TeV, 81 pb-1 13 TeV, 81 pb-1

fid fid fid fid + - - R W/Z = σW ± / σZ R W /W = σW + / σW data ± total uncertainty data ± total uncertainty data ± stat. uncertainty data ± stat. uncertainty ABM12 ABM12 CT14nnlo CT14nnlo NNPDF3.0 NNPDF3.0 MMHT14nnlo68CL MMHT14nnlo68CL ATLAS-epWZ12nnlo ATLAS-epWZ12nnlo HERAPDF2.0nnlo HERAPDF2.0nnlo 9.4 9.6 9.8 10 10.2 10.4 10.6 10.8 1.2 1.22 1.24 1.26 1.28 1.3 1.32 1.34 fid fid fid fid- σW± / σZ σW+ / σW

CMS Preliminary 43 pb-1 (13 TeV) CMS Preliminary 43 pb-1 (13 TeV)

Observation Theory: FEWZ (NNLO) Observation Theory: FEWZ (NNLO) Uncertainty Observation: NNPDF3.0 Uncertainty Observation: NNPDF3.0

NNPDF3.0 NNPDF3.0 +0.011 +0.07 1.354-0.012 10.55-0.06

CT14 CT14 +0.014 +0.09 1.350-0.014 10.55-0.09

MMHT2014 MMHT2014 +0.011 +0.08 1.348-0.008 10.53-0.09

ABM12LHC ABM12LHC +0.003 +0.04 1.371-0.004 10.56-0.02

HERAPDF15 HERAPDF15 +0.014 +0.11 1.353-0.013 10.61-0.09 (inner uncertainty: PDF only) (inner uncertainty: PDF only) 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.40 10.0 10.5 11.0 tot tot- tot tot σW+/σW σW /σZ

+ Figure 20 – Ratios of measured ﬁducial (top, ATLAS) and total (bottom, CMS) cross sections of W to W − (left) and W ± to Z (right) production compared to predictions using various PDF sets.

the data. NNLO calculations lie systematically below the data at high pT . Charge asymmetry results are found to be well predicted by theory. High-rapidity W and Z cross sections measured by LHCb are well predicted by NNLO theory. A full angular analysis of Z µ+µ production → − and decay at 8 TeV that is sensitive to the Z polarisation and decay structure was performed by CMS.111

8.2 Diboson production

Diboson production is an important sector of LHC physics, intimately related to electroweak symmetry breaking. ATLAS and CMS studied diboson production at 7, 8, 13 TeV. Detailed inclusive, fiducial and differential cross-section analyses were performed at 8 TeV, and first 13 TeV results were released.112 Theoretical predictions at NNLO accuracy are needed to match the data. The ZZ cross section at 13 TeV was measured by ATLAS113 and CMS,114 WZ by CMS115: all agree with the Standard Model predictions (see Fig. 21 for selected detector-level distributions). The WW cross section at 8 TeV, measured by both experiments,116,117 agrees with the NNLO prediction improved by soft pT resummation. A detailed recent analysis of WZ production at 8 TeV by ATLAS118 shows deviations from the NLO prediction, which is not unexpected. A recent NNLO calculation moves the theory towards the data.119 Measurements of Zγ cross sections at 8 TeV by ATLAS120 and CMS121 are matched by NNLO predictions. First evidence for vector-boson scattering (VBS) was reported in 2014 by ATLAS122 and by CMS123 in the 124 W ±W ±qq channel. New 8 TeV VBS searches were released in the (W/Z)γqq (CMS ) and W Zqq (ATLAS118) modes, not yet leading to an observation of this process. The triboson

22 18 ATLAS 16 s = 13 TeV, 3.2 fb-1 14 Data qq ZZ 4l 12 → → gg→ZZ→ 4l

Events / 20 GeV 10 Prediction uncertainty Expected background: 0.62+1.08 8 -0.11 6 4 2 0 200 300 400 500 600 700 Mass of four-lepton system m4l [GeV]

2.3 fb-1 (13 TeV) 18 ATLAS 100 CMS 16 s = 13 TeV, 3.2 fb-1 Preliminary Data 14 Data WZ 80 ZZ qq ZZ 4l 12 → → VVV gg→ZZ→ 4l Z Events/40 GeV γ Events / 20 GeV 10 Prediction uncertainty 60 ttV Expected background: 0.62+1.08 Non-Prompt 8 -0.11 40 6 4 20 2 0 0 200 300 400 500 600 700 1.5 Mass of four-lepton system m [GeV] m3l+MET (GeV) 4l 1 T 0.5 -1 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

2.3 fb (13 TeV) Data/MC 3l+MET mT (GeV) 100 CMS Preliminary Data 113 Figure 21 – Detector level distributionsWZ of the four-lepton invariant mass (left, ATLAS ) and the three-lepton plus80 missing transverse momentum transverseZZ mass (right, CMS115) after corresponding diboson selections. VVV Z Events/40 GeV γ 60 ttV process Zγγ was observed by CMS,Non-Prompt125 evidence for W γγ was reported by ATLAS126 and CMS.125 The40 various diboson analyses provide a large set of anomalous coupling limits.

20 8.3 Top-quark physics 0 1.5 m3l+MET (GeV) 1 T 0.5 The0 cross100 section200 of top-antitop300 400 quark500 pair600 production at 13 TeV is

Data/MC 3l+MET predicted in the Standard Modelm toT increase (GeV) by a factor of 3.3 over that at 8 TeV. ATLAS and CMS have already studied top production in many ways127 at 13 TeV benefiting from a fast analysis turn around in 2015. The robust dilepton eµ final state provides the most precise inclusive results at all proton–proton centre-of-mass energies. The inclusive tt production cross sections as measured by ATLAS, Figure 22 – Feynman dia- CMS and the Tevatron experiments versus centre-of-mass energy (see gram for electroweak single Refs.128,129 for the 13 TeV results), and compared to theory predic- top quark production. tions are shown in the left panel of Fig. 24 Differential cross-section measurements at 13 TeV show reasonable modelling, though some deviations at large jet multiplicity are seen.130,131 ATLAS and CMS have also measured t-channel single top-quark production132,133 (see Fig. 22) that is predicted to increase in rate by a factor of 2.5 at 13 TeV over 8 TeV. The cross-section measurements are consistent with this prediction within still sizable experimental uncertainties.127 A summary of the measurements and comparison to theory is given in Fig. 24 (right panel).

Of particular interest is the measurement g Z ¯ of top-pair production in association with t q¯ bosons (ttZ and ttW , see Fig. 23 for rep- t resentative leading order Feynman graphs). t¯ These channels are important in their own q right (in particular ttZ, which directly probes the top coupling to the Z boson), but they t q W also represent irreducible backgrounds in ttH g 0 and many new physics searches. Because of Figure 23 – Feynman diagram for top pair production in diﬀerent production processes their respec- association with a Z (left) or a W boson (right). tive 13 TeV to 8 TeV cross-section ratios are

1 m density functionsandthestrong coupling.Themeasurementscalculationare andthetheory quotedat bandrepresents(top++2.0). Thetheory duetorenormalisationandfactorisationscale,parton uncertainties centre-of-mass energycompared totheNNLOQCDcalculationcomplementedwithNNLLresummation ofLHCandTevatronSummary measurements ofthetop-pairproduction cross-section asafunctionofthe top =172.5 GeV. Measurements madeatthesamecentre-of-mass energyare slightlyoffset forclarity. Update ofLHCtopWGttbarcross-sectionplotvssqrt(s) summary itoscmue tNO ihthe with NLO, prediction. at computed Model dictions Standard the with and consistent (ATLAS), are: TeV found 13 and for results observed preliminary were processes the measured in both (the measured TeV, predictions be 8 must which At misidentification prompt-lepton data. to due background reducible the TA n M ihn inlseen. supersym- signal “stealth” no on with CMS bounds and put ATLAS stop. to or ATLAS D0. squarks by by top used presented so-called were partners, and top LHC metric the at established been expected. CP measure- new of a released ment has experiment D0 predictions. The Model in Standard found measured the are The with LHC agreement the at 25 ). asymmetries Fig. charge top (see tension observable previous this the in to- resolving other converged each have wards prediction Model Standard asymme- In- forward-backward measurements, try from top and Tevatron Run-1. is TeV presented. The were LHC 8 data experiments Tevatron at the proper- the measurements TeV decay of new top those stead, 13 probe beyond to of ties sufficient yet amount not current The states. final multilepton ( 3.6 NNLO+NNLL at predictions Model Standard the are predictions. shown theoretical Also order. energy. perturbative centre-of-mass versus experiments – 24 Figure Inclusive tt cross section [pb] 10 10 odoewsfudcmail ihzr as zero with compatible found was one -odd 10 ttZ 2 3 Changes: newAtlas13TeV emuresult, finalCMS7&8TeV numbers

2 Not reviewed, for internal circulation only n . ( 2.4 and ) P 140 ATLAS l+jets 13 TeV (L = 85 pb 85 = (L 13 TeVl+jets CMS TeV (L pb 42 = 13 l+jets ATLAS ee/ ATLAS CMS e e ATLAS LHC combinede CMS e e fb ATLAS 8.8 = (L TeV CMS e 1.96 e ATLAS combined Tevatron Left: and µ µ µ o-nio pncreain have correlations spin Top-antitop 13 TeV (L = 43pb 8 TeV (L = 19.7fb 7 TeV (L = 5fb µ µ µ 13 TeV (L = 3.2fb 8 TeV (L = 20.3fb 7 TeV (L = 4.6fb µ 4 µ inclusive σ 13 TeV (L = 85pb CP µ 142 ( Right: 8 TeV (L = 5.3-20.3 fb ttZ 138 m Fiedler, Czakon, Mitov,PRL 110252004 (2013) NNLO+NNLL(p NNLO+NNLL (pp) ttW top -1 odosrals hr the where observables, -odd ) ihysprse CCpoesssc as such processes FCNC suppressed Highly =172.5 GeV, PDF , -1 -1 1 = ) -1 ) ) 139 ) -1 -1 -1 6 ) ) ) -1 pp .ALSadCSsoe rt1 e eut htcmieseveral combine that results TeV 13 ﬁrst showed CMS and ATLAS ). -1 ) ) 134 igetppouto esrdb TA n M in CMS and ATLAS by measured production single-top A ( p 4 p -1 ttW , ) FB -1 . ) p 135 ) 07 ) → ( ⊕ 8 , ATLAS+CMS Preliminary ATLAS+CMS − +0 t 136

α t rs eto a bu 1 about was section cross S 0 t uncertaintiesaccordingtoPDF4LHC ,adisNNLO its and ), . . t 31 5+0 35 LHC rdcincosscina esrdb TA,CSadteTevatron the and CMS ATLAS, by measured as section cross production h otcalnigpr fteaayi steetmt of estimate the is analysis the of part challenging most The 1000 σ 600 800 − top ( 0 10 ttZ . . WG 14 17 ttW b(M) hyarewt h tnadMdlpre- Model Standard the with agree They (CMS). pb 0 = ) 136 13 12 esrmn en gi ntehg ieo the of side high the on again being measurement , 137 . 92 24 Mar 2016 s s [TeV] [TeV] − ± 6.5 0.5 141 D n 0cmae oteSadr oe pre- Model Standard the to diction. compared D0 and CDF iue2 umr of Summary – 25 Figure 0 14 D0 note6445-CONF(2014) D0 Dileptons(9.7fb PRD 90,072011(2014) D0 Lepton+jets(9.7fb CDF PublicNote11161 CDF Combination(9.4fb CDF PublicNote11161 CDF Dilepton(9.1fb PRD 87,092002(2013) CDF Lepton+jets(9.4fb . 30 Tevatron A 4.2 A ± Inclusive cross-section [pb] 10 σ 10 0 2 1 − . ihi ohALSadCS.The CMS). and ATLAS both in high 1pb, 11 20 σ Single top-quarkproduction ATLAS+CMS Preliminary March 2016 NNLO SM,M.Czakon,P.FiedlerandA.Mitov,arXiv:1411.3007 NLO SM,W.BernreutherandZ.-G.Si,PRD86,034026(2012) 7 vdnefrsi orltoswas correlations spin for evidence FB t t t σ Asymmetry (%) → 8 -1 ( -1 ) ttW ) -1 q q Hq Zq, gq, ) 0 s-channel t-channel -1 -1 ) Wt ) 1 = ) A LHC pp FB top 13 olsoscmae to compared collisions ( . t 38 WG t esrmnsby measurements ) 20 eepoe by probed were ± All exp.resultsarew.r.t.m scale scale uncertainty and Wt: p CT10nlo, MSTW2008nlo,NNPDF2.3nlo(PDF4LHC) m NLO scale Wt: t m PRD82 NLO scale uncertainty m NNLO arXiv:1603.02555 95%C. CMS s-channel arXiv:1511.05980 ATLAS-CONF-2011-118 95%C. ATLAS s-channel ATLAS-CONF-2014-052, CMS-PAS-TOP-14-009 LHC combination,Wt PRL110 CMS Wt PLB716 ATLAS Wt CMS-PAS-TOP-15-004 JHEP12 CMS t-channel ATLAS-CONF-2015-079 PRD90 ATLAS t-channel 0 top top top = 172.5 = 172.5 = 172.5 t .

T b contributionremoved ⊕ ⊕ + vetofort NPPS205

70 (2010) (2014) PDF PDF

NNLL PLB736 (2012) (2013) (2012)

18.0 10.6 16.0 12 16.4 G G G ⊕ e ⊕ e e

054018, PRD81 112006, ATLAS-CONF-2014-007, V V V

142, JHEP01 022003, PRL112 035, JHEP06 t PRD83 α α

, , MSTW2008nnlo , MSTW2008nnlo removal (2010) (2014) s s µ ± uncertainty uncertainty R = top µ = 172.5

F (2011) µ 10, CPC191 58 = m

F =

± = 0 L.

60 65 ± ± ± ± top

(2016) (2014)

G , G G 091503, . (2010) 8.6 3.0 4.5 4.7 e e e

V (2014) V V L., 3pb 33 40

064 (2015) 090,

054028

231802 s

74 [T e syst stat V ] Higgs production processes ATLAS and CMS Preliminary ATLAS Higgs decay processes LHC Run 1 CMS ATLAS+CMS ATLAS and CMS Preliminary ATLAS LHC Run 1 ± 1σ CMS µ ± 2σ ggF ATLAS+CMS ± 1σ µγγ µ VBF µZZ µ WH

WW µ µ ZH

µ µττ ttH

µ µbb

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Parameter value Parameter value

Figure 27 – Higgs boson production signal strengths (left panel) and decay signal strengths (right panel) from the preliminary Run-1 combination of ATLAS and CMS Higgs coupling measurements.143 Also shown are the results for each experiment. The error bars indicate the 1σ (thick lines) and 2σ (thin lines on the left panel) intervals. The measurements of the global signal strength µ are also shown.

8.4 Higgs boson physics

In 2015 ATLAS and CMS ac- complished a preliminary combination of their Run-1 Higgs boson measurements.143,144 Among improved constraints on all couplings it established the observation with more than 5σ significance of the decay H ττ and the Higgs → boson production through vector- boson fusion (VBF). The resulting ratios of measured to predicted signal strengths are shown for the production and decay channels in Fig. 27, where for the production (decay) channels the corresponding Figure 26 – Display of a H eeµµ candidate from 13 TeV proton– → decay (production) modes are as- proton collisions measured by ATLAS. The invariant mass of the four lepton system is 129 GeV, the dielectron (dimuon) invariant sumed to be Standard Model like. mass is 91 (29) GeV, the pseudorapidity difference between the two No significant deviation from one is jets is 6.4, the di-jet invariant mass is 2 TeV. This event is consistent observed, albeit a somewhat higher with VBF production of a Higgs boson decaying to four leptons. than expected ttH cross section is seen. The expected increase in Higgs boson cross section at 13 TeV compared to 8 TeV is 1 between 2 and 2.4 for VH, ggH and VBF, but 3.9 for ttH. A luminosity of 3.3 fb− at 13 TeV already attains roughly 80% of the Run-1 sensitivity for the latter mode.

Both ATLAS and CMS have finalised their Run-1 searches for lepton flavour violation in Higgs boson decays.145,146 While H µe is severely bound from other flavour physics measurements, → H τµ, τe are only weakly constrained. CMS released early 2015 a H τµ result with a → → slight (2.4σ) excess. ATLAS has completed its full analysis (including a search for H τe) for →

25 CMS ZZ: Cross Section

[pb] ATLAS Preliminary σpp H mH = 125.09 GeV

→

H 80 QCD scale uncertainty

→ H→γ γ H→ZZ *→4l (scale PDF+ ) Isolation pp Tot. uncert. ⊕ α 70 comb. data syst. unc. s σ 60 50 40 30 20

10 s = 7 TeV, 4.5 fb-1 -1 0 s = 8 TeV, 20.3 fb s = 13 TeV, 3.2 fb-1 −10 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 s [TeV]

Figure 28 – Left: combined inclusive H 4`, γγ cross sections7+8 versus TeV: proton–proton HIG-14-028 CM accepted energy asfor measured → by ATLAS and compared to the NNLO theoretical prediction. Right: CMSpublication ﬁducial H in JHEP4` cross section versus → CM energy.

S. Zenz - Scalar to Bosons - Moriond EW - 16 March 2016 19 this conference. The results for (H τµ) are 0.53 0.51% (< 1.43% at 95% CL) for ATLAS, +0.39 B → ± 0.84 0.37%(< 1.51%) for CMS, and (H τe) = 0.3 0.6% (< 1.04%) for ATLAS. − B → − ± Although the sensitivity is yet marginal for inclusive Higgs boson production, ATLAS and CMS have looked in their 13 TeV datasets for H 4` and H γγ events.147,148,149 The observed → → signal yields are consistent with the theoretical predictions. Figure 28 shows the measured inclusive Higgs boson production cross sections versus the proton–proton centre-of-mass energy for ATLAS (left) and CMS (right).

The CMS collaboration released in record time first 13 TeV results g t for ttH production searches,150,151 which is the only currently ac- cessible channel that directly measures the top–Higgs coupling (c.f. Feynman graph in Fig. 29). All major Higgs boson decay channels, H γγ, multileptons, and bb, were analysed. In particular the latter two channels represent highly complex analyses. The multilepton mode targets Higgs boson decays to ττ, WW 2`2ν, and ZZ 2`2ν, 4` → → g ¯ together with at least one top-quark decaying leptonically. It re- t quires at least two leptons with the same charge, which greatly re- Figure 29 – Feynman diagram duces Standard Model backgrounds. The dominant remaining back- for Higgs boson production grounds are misidentified prompt leptons and ttV production. The in association with two top quarks probing the top–Higgs H bb mode is analysed in the one and two lepton channels. Here, → coupling strength. the biggest challenge represents tt production associated with heavy flavour quarks (c or b) originating mostly from gluon splitting, which is poorly known and needs to be constrained from data simultaneously with the signal. Figure150 shows representative plots +4.5 for the three ttH channels. The results for the relative signal strengths are: µttH( γγ) = 3.8 3.6, +1.4 → − µttH( leptons) = 0.6 1.1, and µttH( ,bb) = 2.0 1.8. No significant excess was observed. → − → − ±

9 The LHC at 13 TeV — Searches for new physics

Many of the high mass and higher cross section searches for new physics already beneﬁt from the 2015 13 TeV data sample to extend their sensitivity. It represents thus a fresh start after the negative beyond the Standard Model searches from Run-1. The legacy of Run-1 also contained a small number of anomalies that needed to be veriﬁed in the Run-2 data. Only 13 TeV searches are discussed in the following.

26 -1 -1 -1 CMS Preliminary 2.7 fb (13 TeV) CMS Preliminary 2.3 fb (13 TeV) CMS Preliminary 2.7 fb (13 TeV) 10 18 Data H→γγ TTH Hadronic Tag ttH trilepton

mH=125.09 GeV, µ=0.7 16 TTW -- Data Events TTZ 8 S+B fit sum 14 Rares Lepton+Jets B component Fakes

Events / GeV 12 6 ±1 σ ±2 σ 10 4 8

6 Dilepton 2 4 0 2 8 B component subtracted 6 30 4 Combined 2 2 0 1 -2 Data/Pred. 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 −10 −5 0 5 mγγ (GeV) MVA (ttH,tt/ttV) bin Best fit µ = σ/σ at m = 125 GeV SM H

Figure 30 – CMS analyses in the search for ttH production at 13 TeV. The left panel shows the diphoton invariant mass in the hadronic channel with at least 5 jets and on b-tag, the middle panel the BDT output in the trilepton channel of the multilepton search, and the right panel shows the relative signal strengths obtained in the single and dilepton analyses targeting ttH( bb), and their combination. →

9.1 Additional Higgs bosons

The observed 125 GeV Higgs boson completes the four degrees of freedom of the Standard Model BEH doublet. Nature may have chosen a more complex scalar sector of, e.g., two BEH doublets, which extends the scalar sector by four more Higgs bosons, of which two are neutral (one CP -even and one CP -odd) and the other two are charged. Both ATLAS and CMS have searched152 for such additional Higgs bosons in Run-1 and Run-2. For H τν (H/A ττ), the → → sensitivity of the new data exceeds that of Run-1 for masses larger than 250 GeV (700 GeV). The search for A Z( ``, νν)h125( bb) features improved sensitivity beyond about 800 GeV. → → → Searches for H ZZ( ``qq, ννqq, 4`) and WW ( `νqq) target the > 1 TeV mass range → → → where the bosons are boosted and their hadronic decays are reconstructed with jet substructure techniques. The search for a resonance decaying to hh125( bbγγ) had a small excess in Run-1 → at about 300 GeV, which could not yet be excluded at 13 TeV. Also performed were searches for resonant and non-resonant hh125( bbττ) production. None of these many searches exhibited → an anomaly so far in the 13 TeV data.

9.2 New phenomena with high-transverse-momentum jets and leptons

Among the first searches performed at any significant increase of collision energy are those for heavy strongly interacting new phenomena.153 Figure 31 shows on the left panel the ATLAS dijet 154,155 invariant mass spectrum and on the right panel the CMS multijet ST (defined as the scalar sum of the jet transverse momenta) distribution.156,157 The measured spectra are compared to phenomenological fits using smoothly falling functions as expected from the QCD continuum. No significant deviation from these fits is seen in the data. The experiments have also looked at dijet angular distributions versus the dijet mass which add further sensitivity to phenomena described by effective contact interactions. An ATLAS analysis158 looked for new physics in the pT spectrum of events with at least one high-pT lepton and jets. ATLAS and CMS have also looked for resonances decaying to heavy-flavour quarks,159,160,162 X bb, tt. None P → of these searches exhibited an anomaly. Second generation scalar lepto-quark i pair production was searched for by CMS161 in the (µq–µq) final state excluding such particles below a mass of 1.2 TeV in case of 100% branching fraction to µq.

iLepto-quarks are hypothetical particles carrying both lepton and baryon numbers.

MVA (ttH,tt/ttV) bin 2.2 fb-1 (13 TeV)

ATLAS 105 CMS Preliminary Data with multiplicity ≥ 8 5 -1 10 s=13 TeV, 3.6 fb Bkg prediction from data Events Data 4 M = 4 TeV, M = 5 TeV, n=6 10 D BH 4 Background fit M = 4 TeV, M = 6 TeV, n=6 10 D BH BumpHunter interval 3 MD= 4 TeV, M = 7 TeV, n=6 q*, m = 4.0 TeV 10 BH q* MD= 4 TeV, M = 8 TeV, n=6 103 QBH (BM), m = 6.5 TeV BH

th Events / 0.1 TeV 102 102 10 q*, σ × 3 10 QBH (BM) p-value = 0.67 1 Fit Range: 1.1 - 7.1 TeV 1 |y*| < 0.6 10-1

2 2 3 4 5 6 7 -22 0 Reconstructed m [TeV] 101.5 jj 1 −2

Significance data - fit 0.5 -3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 0 JES Uncertainty mjj [TeV] -0.5 0 -1 MC

(Data - Fit)/Fit -1.5-4 Data-MC −1 10-2 2500 30003000 3500 40004000 4500 50005000 5500 60006000 6500 70007000 2 3 4 5 6 7 S [GeV] ST [GeV] mjj [TeV] T

Figure 31 – Dijet invariant mass distribution measured by ATLAS (left) and ST spectrum in multijet events measured by CMS (right). The data are compared to ﬁts using smoothly falling functions. Also shown are distributions for benchmark signal models.

Important canonical searches involve charged and charged–neutral dilepton pairs.163 Excellent high-mass Drell- Yan background modelling is cru- cial here, which requires to pair detailed diﬀerential cross-section measurements with these searches. High- pT muon reconstruction challenges the detector alignment in particular for the complex ATLAS muon spectrometer structure.164 Figure 33 shows the ATLAS dielectron mass distribution165 (left panel) and the CMS166 transverse mass between the muon and the missing transverse mo- Figure 32 – Display of the highest-mass dilepton pair measured by mentum (measuring the neutrino from CMS at 2.9 TeV mass. Each electron candidate has 1.3 TeV ET , and the two candidates are back-to-back in azimuthal angle. For the transverse balancing of the event, comparison, the highest-mass Run-1 events found by CMS were right panel). Figure 32 shows a display at 1.8 TeV (ee), 1.9 TeV (µµ). of the highest-mass dilepton events measured by CMS in the 2015 data. No anomaly was found. Limits for the traditional se- quential Standard Model Z0 (W 0) benchmark are set at 3.4 TeV (4.4 TeV) (for comparison: 2.9 TeV (3.3 TeV) at 8 TeV). ATLAS and CMS also looked into high-mass eµ (lepton ﬂavour violation) production.167,168 The main background here are dilepton top-antitop events. Again, no anomaly was seen.

28 erhsas ontehbtdsrpnisfo h tnadMdlexpectation. Model Standard the from discrepancies exhibit 34 not Figure do also ATLAS sensitivity. enough searches for similar large analysis of not substructure channels is after decay distributions boson mass dijet gauge CMS TeV weak 13 other the the shows in observed not necs feet a ena e nteflyhadronic fully the in TeV 8 at background. seen continuum was searches events strong-interaction CMS. of suppress and excess to ATLAS An by techniques released substructure promptly using were analysed resonance diboson high a for The searches TeV 13 Also ( resonances CMS. Diboson right the ATLAS, shows 9.3 plot left a The to decaying jet. resonance merged heavy a a into for hadronically search the decays in which distributions of mass each invariant Dijet – 34 Figure mass shown Also transverse simulation. muon–neutrino MC the (mostly) from and predictions models. (left) to signal ATLAS compared benchmark are by for data measured distributions The are distribution (right). CMS mass from Dielectron distribution – 33 Figure Pull Events/100 GeV Data / Bkg Events 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.4 10 10 − − -2 1000 1 173 5 6 2 2 3 4 1 1 0 2 -1 1000 2 3 1 90 100 100 170 rgt.Teei ohn fa xesaon e,bttecretsaitclprecision statistical current the but TeV, 2 around excess an of hint no is There (right). ATLAS s p , 1200 =13TeV,3.2fb 171 T 1200 ATLAS Dilepton SearchSelection s 200 ftebsn osstehdoi ea rdcss htjt r egdand merged are jets that so products decay hadronic the boosts bosons the of =13TeV,3.2fb rud2TV(lbly2.5 (globally TeV 2 around Preliminary 1400 Preliminary 300 1400 174 400 1600 -1 oflyecueteaoayse t8TV te ioo resonance diboson Other TeV. 8 at seen anomaly the exclude fully to 1600 -1 V V 1000 1800 1800 Dielectron InvariantMass[GeV] , h V WZ selection Λ Z’ Multi-Jet &W+Jets Diboson Top Quarks Data Z/ , 2000 2000 LL - χ γ 2000 (3TeV) hh =20TeV * Fit exp.statserror Fit bkgestimation Data 2015 ) 3000 2200 2200 σ o TA nthe in ATLAS for m JJ 29 [GeV] 2400 2400 x 10

Data/MC 10 10 10 10 Events10 0.5 1.5 10 − 0 2 2 3 4 5 6 1 1 1 Systematic uncertaintyband Preliminary CMS µ 10

10 Events /10 94.7 GeV10 +E 10

Data-Fit 2 1000 1000 × -1 -3 -2 1 2 3 4 -1 0 2 3 10 T miss σ1 X 2 Z W Preliminary CMS 3 × → 10 1500 2 1500 V V oe,wihwshowever was which mode), ( 2000 2000 V Dijet invariantmass[GeV] = Dijet invariantmass[GeV] 10 10 W'(2 TeV) 2 par.backgroundfit CMS data ,Z W, 3 3 2500 2500 W M | WZ, high-purity η 2.2 fb jj | <2.4,p 172 >1TeV,| n a and → SSM W'3.6TeV SSM W'2.4TeV Diboson Z/ t W Data resonance ) t -1 WZ ( (13TeV) 2 γ → × * lf)and (left) 3000 10 3000 T

2.6 fb µ σ >200GeV 3 =0.029pb) ν ∆ Z η jj 3 | <1.3 -1 M × (13TeV) boson, 10 M T (GeV) T 3 (GeV) 3500 3500 169 105 ATLAS Preliminary Data 2015 Total background s = 13 TeV, 3.3 fb-1 tt 104 Gtt 1-lepton pre-selection Single top tt + W/Z/h Gtt: m~, m 0 = 1600, 200 (σ × 100) g χ∼ Z+jets 3 1 10 Gtt: m~, m 0 = 1400, 800 (σ × 100) W+jets g χ∼ 1 Diboson Events / 200 GeV 102

incl 2 meff [GeV]

1 Data / SM 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 incl meff [GeV]

Figure 35 – Left: eﬀective mass distribution (scalar sum of selected jet transverse momenta and the event’s missing transverse momentum) measured in the search targeting gluino pair production and decay through intermediate top squarks. Data and Standard Model background estimations are shown together with representative signal benchmark distributions. Right: lower limits in the gluino–lightest neutralino mass plane for the four-jet + MET simpliﬁed gluino production models used to interpret the jets plus missing transverse momentum searches.

9.4 Supersymmetry

Both ATLAS and CMS have updated their most sensitive searches for high-cross-section strong supersymmetric squark and gluino production using the 13 TeV data sample175 (c.f. Fig. 36 for representative simplified models). Although the jets plus missing transverse momentum searches benefit from improved background modelling, owing to more accurate MC generatorsq and improved tuning, discrepancies in the extreme phase space regionsp of these searches remain q˜ 0 and are corrected using scale factors determined in data control regions. A total of˜1 seven early hadronic 13 TeV analyses were performed by ATLAS and CMS in time of the conference 176,177 0 selecting up to ten jets and up to three b-tagged jets. None of theseq˜ searches observed˜1 p a significant excess of events in the signal regions. Representative distributions and limits are shown in Fig. 35. In the simplified models used to interpret the searches gluino massesq up to 1.7 TeV could be excluded in case of light or moderate-massq neutralinos, exceeding theq Run-1 limits by up to 300 GeV. p p q q˜ 0 g˜ ˜1 0 Inclusive supersymmetry searches also involved events with leptons, where single lepton, dilepton˜1 0 0 ˜1 (on and off the Z mass resonance) and same-chargeq˜ dilepton˜1 signaturesg˜ with additional jets and missing transverse momentum werep studied.178 Such signaturesp can occur for exampleq when q q

q q t p p q p t q˜ 0 g˜ g˜ ˜1 0 0 ˜1 t˜ ˜1 0 ˜ 0 0 ˜1 t ˜1 q˜ ˜1 g˜ g˜ p p q p t q q t q t Figure 36 – Simplified models for supersymmetric squark and gluino pair production at the LHC. The right-hand q processp can occur if the top squark is lighterp than the first and secondt generation squarks as is possible in models g˜ g˜ with large squark mixing. 0 0 ˜1 t˜ ˜1 ˜0 t˜ ˜0 g˜ 1 1 g˜ 30 p q p t q t t p t g˜ 0 t˜ ˜1 t˜ ˜0 g˜ 1 p t t gluinos (assumed to be Majorana fermions) decay via intermediate charginos or higher neutralino states or via top squarks. These searches benefit from reduced background levels than in the fully hadronic cases, but often also have lower signal efficiencies due to small leptonic branching fractions. A total of eight searches were presented179,180,181,182 with only one (non-significant) anomaly seen. The ATLAS search in Z `` plus jets plus missing transverse momentum final → states180 exhibits a modest excess of 2.2σ in a signal region that had already shown a 3.0σ excess in the corresponding 8 TeV ATLAS analysis.183 Figure 37 shows the observed dilepton mass distribution in data compared to the Standard Model expectation. This excess was not confirmed by CMS at 8 TeV,184 neither at 13 TeV.182 A small excess seen by CMS at 8 TeV (2.6σ) in the off-Z dilepton mass region184 was not confirmed in the 13 TeV data. Direct production of pairs of third generation bot- 35 tom and top squarks was also already studied by ATLAS Preliminary Data 2015 -1 both ATLAS and CMS.185,186,162 The sensitivity s = 13 TeV, 3.2 fb Standard Model (SM) 30 ee+µµ of these searches does only moderately exceed that Z/γ* (from γ+jets) Flavour symmetric of Run-1 due to the relatively low cross sections 25 Rare top of third generation scalar squark production (top- 20 WZ/ZZ squark pair production has an about six times Events / 20 GeV lower cross section as the corresponding top-quark 15 pair production at equal mass). A total of ten 10 13 TeV analyses targeted this production and also that of vector-like quark production. Vector-like 5 quarks are hypothetical fermions that transform as triplets under colour and that have left- and 050 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 m [GeV] right-handed components with same colour and ll electroweak quantum numbers. For these searches, Figure 37 – Dilepton mass distribution observed by signatures for pair or single production and decays ATLAS in a 13 TeV a Z plus jets plus missing trans- to bW , tZ and tH were studied.187,188 Also consid- verse momentum search in the dilepton final state ered were exotic X tW particles. No anomaly compared to the Standard Model expectation. 5/3 → was seen in these searches. ATLAS searched for top squark pair production with R-parity violating decays governed by 189 non-zero λ32300 couplings to a pair of bs quarks that leads to a four-jet final state with no missing transverse momentum. Employing a hadronic trigger and a data-driven background determination, top squark masses between 250 GeV and 345 GeV were excluded at 95% CL. The production of long-lived massive particles as it can occur due to large virtuality, low coupling and/or mass degeneracy in a cascade decay, e.g., via the scale-suppressed colour triplet scalar from unnaturalness presented at this conference,190 is an important part of the LHC search programme.191 ATLAS and CMS presented searches for heavy long-lived supersymmetric particles at 13 TeV using measurements of the specific ionisation loss in the tracking detectors and time-of-flight in the calorimeters and muon systems.192,193 Figure 38 shows on the left the distribution of the reconstructed particle mass in CMS compared to the background expectation determined from data together with the distribution of a signal benchmark. The right plot shows limits on the gluino mass versus its lifetime obtained by ATLAS from several analyses covering the full lifetime spectrum.

9.5 Dark matter production

If dark matter particles (assumed to be weakly interacting and massive, WIMPs) interact with quarks and/or gluons they can be directly pair produced in the proton collisions at the LHC.194,195 Since the WIMPs remain undetected, to trigger the events a large boost via initial

31 0 -1 ~ ∼ 0 g R-hadron → g/qq χ ; m ∼χ = 100 GeV Status: March 2016 2.4 fb (13 TeV) 1 1 Tracker + TOF ATLAS Preliminary Expected CMS 2400 SUSY 4 95% CL limits. σ not included 104 Preliminary Observed theory Observed [GeV] Displaced vertices Phys. Rev. D92, 072004 g ~ Observed 2200 -1 Data-based SM prediction Stopped gluino Phys. Rev. D88, 112003 18.4-20.3 fb , s=8 TeV Tracks / bin Tracks / bin 103 Data-basedStau (M = 494 SM GeV) prediction Stable charged JHEP 01 (2015) 068 } 3 miss 10 2000 Jets+E ATLAS-CONF-2015-062 Stau (M = 494 GeV) T 3.2 fb-1, s=13 TeV Pixel dE/dx To appear 2 } 10 1800 102

10 1600 Lower limit on m 10 1400 1 1 1200 10−1 1000 10−1 10−2 800 0 1000 2000 −2 10 1 600 Prompt Stable 0 0 1000 2000 −2 −1 2 3 4 Obs / Pred Mass (GeV) 10 10 1 10 10 10 10 (r for η=0, βγ=1) Beampipe Inner Detector Calo MS τ [ns]

10−3 10−2 10−1 1 10 102 103 104 cτ [m]

Figure 38 – Left: distribution of the reconstructed particle mass in CMS compared to the background expectation determined from data. Also shown is the expected distribution of a long-lived tau slepton signal benchmark. Right: limits on the gluino mass versus lifetime obtained by ATLAS. The dots on the left (right) of the plot indicate the limits obtained on promptly decaying (stable) gluinos. Varying searches cover the full lifetime spectrum. state jet or photon radiation (or other recoiling particles) is needed leading to large missing transverse momentum (MET) from the recoiling WIMP pair. The final state signature depends on the unknown details of the proton–WIMP coupling requiring a large range of “X + MET” searches. The most prominent and among the most sensitive of these is the so-called “mono-jet” search, which extends to a couple of high-pT jets recoiling against the MET. Large irreducible Standard Model backgrounds in this channel stem from Z( νν) + jets and W ( `ν) + jets → → events, where in the latter case the charged lepton is either undetected or a hadronically decaying tau lepton. These backgrounds are determined in data control regions requiring accurate input from theory to transfer the measured normalisation scale factors to the signal regions. Several 13 TeV results were already released by ATLAS and CMS: jets + MET,196,197 photon + MET,198 Z/W + MET,199,200 and bb/tt + MET.201 None has so far shown an anomaly. Figure 39 shows missing transverse momentum distributions measured by ATLAS and CMS in jets + MET and bb/tt + MET searches, respectively. Figure 40 shows for a specific benchmark model (see figure caption) ATLAS exclusion regions in the DM versus the model’s mediator mass plane as obtained from the jets + MET and photon + MET analyses as well as from the dijet resonance search. These searches have complementary sensitivity.

9.6 Diphoton resonance

Searches for a new resonance in the diphoton mass spectrum were performed by ATLAS203,204 and CMS205 in Run-1 looking for a low to medium mass scalar resonance, or a medium to high mass spin-two resonance motivated by strong gravity models. Diphoton spectra were also analysed in view of high-mass tail anomalies due to new nonresonant phenomena. Searches involving at least three photons were used during Run-1 to look for new physics in Higgs or 206 putative Z0 decays. Preliminary analyses of the 13 TeV diphoton data presented at the 2015 end-of-year seminars showed enhancements at around 750 GeV invariant diphoton mass in both ATLAS and CMS.

32 h xlso ein,rlcdniycnor,aduiaiycreaentapial oohrcocso coupling of choices other to applicable left. not the upper are the where curve Ref. at plane unitarity triangle See the and shaded in model. the contours, Points by or curve density indicated DM. values dotted relic Between are into A considerations regions, on-shell history. density. unitary exclusion decay perturbative relic thermal The can with the standard tension mediator deplete of in a the model is selection and where simpliﬁed model a density threshold the kinematic by by DM the described axial- cosmological CL indicates processes lepto-phobic the 95% annihilation the with at curves, DM, consistent two excluded and the are plane Model that Standard mass Ref. mass the mass–mediator in mediator between (DM) described interaction matter possible mediator dark one vector for a searches, in DM Regions ATLAS – 40 Figure momentum. transverse missing large with association in produced quarks heavy-ﬂavour for search a in TeV models. 13 benchmark leptonic physics new from for stem backgrounds dominant search.The – 39 Figure Data / SM Events / 50 GeV 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 0.5 1.5 10 1 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 1 p Signal Region ATLAS T s >250 GeV,E =13TeV,3.2fb Left: 0 0 0 0010 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400

DM Mass [TeV] “mono-jet” a in TeV 13 at ATLAS by measured momentum transverse missing of distribution T miss 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2 >250 GeV -1 1 0 DM SimplifiedModelExclusions 202 arXiv:1604.01306 E o oeinformation. more for 0.2 T miss

+ Perturbative unitarity γ 195 13TeV 0.4 Right: ahdcre aeld“hra ei”idct obntoso Mand DM of combinations indicate relic” “thermal labelled curves Dashed Dijet 8 TeV Phys. Rev. D. 91 052007 (2015) W( W( ADD, n=3,M (m t Dibosons Z( W( Standard Model Data 2015 m( Z( t 0.6 +singletop b DM ~ , ll)+jets

e , M

µ 0 itiuino isn rnvremmnu esrdb M at CMS by measured momentum transverse missing of distribution ) =(350,345)GeV ) +jets med ) +jets ) +jets ) +jets )= (150,1000)GeV g Axial-vector mediator,DiracDM D 0.8 q =5600 GeV =0.25,g E T miss

2 [GeV] DM 33 1

× Z =1

arXiv:1604.07773 E DM Mass = Mediator Mass Thermal relic T miss

Thermal relic and 1.2 +jet 13TeV W ATLAS

Ω

c Ω distributions are shown Also events. jets plus 1.4 h Data / Bkg Events 200 300 2 c 100 h 0.3 0.5 1.5 20 30 = 0.12 10 2 200 200 2 3 0 2 1 = 0.12 1 Preliminary Preliminary CMS DM +heavyflavour 1.6 300 300 Mediator Mass[TeV] Data/Bkg =1.030 pre-fit 1.8 400 400 500 500 post-fit ± April2016 2 b-tagcategory 0.065 2 600 600

2.2 Dijet 13 TeV χ 2 Phys. Lett. B 754 302-322 (2016) /ndf =1.03,K-S1.000 Ω 2 c h < 0.12 700 700 scalar mediator DM+bb/tt, m 800 800 2.17 fb m m Bkg. unc. multijet VV, VH single t t W(l Z( Data t Φ Φ ν =1000 GeV =100 GeV ν ν ) +jets ) +jets -1 E E 900 900 χ (13TeV) =1 GeV T T (GeV) (GeV) 1000 1000 This conference featured updated analyses, still preliminary, of the 2015 and for ATLAS also the 8 TeV Run-1 datasets.207,208,210,211

ATLAS207 performed dedicated searches for a spin-zero and a spin-two diphoton resonance. The main difference between these searches are the photon acceptance requirements: for the spin- zero case these are ET (γ1) > 0.4 mγγ, ET (γ2) > 0.3 mγγ, where the indices 1, 2 indicate the · · leading and subleading photon. In the spin-two case, the fixed requirement ET (γ1/2) > 55 GeV is applied. The differences are motivated by the photon decay angle behaviour in the centre-of- mass of the resonance, resulting in more low-ET forward photons in the spin-two case. Photons are tightly identified and isolated giving a typical photon purity of about 94%. The background modelling is empirical in the spin-zero analysis, and theoretical in the spin-two case for the dominant irreducible diphoton contribution (the small misreconstructed photon background is determined from data and extrapolated to high mass). This choice is motivated by the high mass reach of the spin-two search. The top panels of Fig. 41 show the diphoton invariant mass spectra observed with the spin-zero (left) and spin-two (right) selections together with the background estimations. The bottom panels show the local significances obtained when scanning a signal plus background model with varying signal mass and width. The lowest compatibility of the data with the background- only hypothesis is found for the spin-zero case at around 750 GeV and a signal width of about 45 GeV (6% relative to the mass). The p-value of that point is found to correspond to a local significance of Z = 3.9σ. Taking into account the statistical trials factorj inherent in the signal mass and width scan reduces the significance to globally 2.0σ. The corresponding values for the spin-two case are: largest local significance at around 750 GeV and relative width of 7%, local / global significances of 3.6σ / 1.8σ. ATLAS compared the event properties in the excess interval (700–800 GeV) with those in the upper and lower sidebands and did not find statistically significant differences. ATLAS also updated its 8 TeV diphoton resonance searches to the latest photon calibration and 13 TeV analysis methods, finding a modest 1.9σ excess at 750 GeV mass and assuming 6% signal width in the spin-zero analysis, and no excess in the spin-two analysis. Assuming the putative resonance to be produced by gluon fusion the production cross section is expected to increase by a factor of 4.7 between 8 TeV and 13 TeV. The compatibility between the observations in the two datasets is then estimated to be at the 1.2σ level for the spin-zero analysis. Would the resonance be produced by light quark–antiquark annihilation, the cross- section scale factor would reduce k to 2.7 leading to a compatibility at the 2.1σ level between the two datasets. The corresponding numbers for the spin-two analysis and production via gluon fusion / light quark–antiquark annihilation are 2.7σ / 3.3σ. ATLAS also searched for a resonant signal in the Zγ final state209,152 using leptonic and hadronic Z boson decays and empirical background fits. No significant excess was seen in either spectrum.

CMS208 searched in an agnostic way for a spin-zero or spin-two resonance. The 13 TeV analysis was updated for this conference with a refined electromagnetic calorimeter calibration leading 1 to an about 30% improved mass resolution above mγγ 500 GeV. CMS also included 0.6 fb ∼ − of solenoid-off data. Photons are selected with ET (γ1/2) > 75 GeV and requiring at least one photon to lie in the barrel (absolute pseudorapidity lower than 1.44). The analysis is split into barrel-barrel and barrel-endcap categories that are fit simultaneously. Dedicated energy and efficiency calibrations were developed for the solenoid-off data giving a slightly lower photon

j We emphasise that the trials factor parametrising the statistical “look-elsewhere eﬀect” is a reality that must be taken into account when interpreting these results. The main results put forward by the experiments are therefore the global signiﬁcance numbers. kAnnihilation of heavy quarks would lead to a larger expected 13 TeV to 8 TeV cross-section ratio of 5.1 for cc and 5.4 for bb.

34 104 104 ATLAS Preliminary ATLAS Preliminary Data Data 103 103 Background-only fit Background-only fit

2 Spin-0 Selection 2 Spin-2 Selection Events / 20 GeV 10 Events / 20 GeV 10 s = 13 TeV, 3.2 fb-1 s = 13 TeV, 3.2 fb-1 10 10

1 1

10−1 10−1

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 15 15 10 10 5 5 0 0 −5 −5 −10 −10 Data - fitted background Data - fitted background 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

mγγ [GeV] mγγ [GeV]

ATLAS Preliminary s = 13 TeV, 3.2 fb-1 Spin-0 Selection ATLAS Preliminary s = 13 TeV, 3.2 fb-1 Spin-2 Selection

4 ] ] Pl

σ 0.3 3.5 σ M [%]

10 / X 3.5 k

/m 0.25 3 X

Γ 3 8 2.5 2.5 0.2 6 2 2 0.15 Local significance [ Local significance [ 4 1.5 1.5 0.1 1 1 2 0.5 0.05 0.5 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 0 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 m [GeV] X mG* [GeV]

Figure 41 – Top panels: diphoton invariant mass spectra observed with the spin-zero (left) and spin-two (right) selections compared to background estimations. The total numbers of selected events entering the plots are 2878 (5066) for the spin-zero (spin-two) cases. The bottom panels show the local significances obtained when scanning a signal plus background model with varying signal mass and width. Left for the spin-zero and right for the spin-two selections. identification efficiency and better energy resolution compared to the solenoid-on data. Also the primary vertex finding probability is reduced, which affects the diphoton mass resolution. The backgrounds in all categories are fit using empirical functions. Figure 42 shows the diphoton invariant mass distributions in the four data categories (barrel/endcap, solenoid-on/off). The resulting p-values versus mass for the narrow-width hypothesis (preferred by the data) are shown in Fig. 43 for the spin-zero (left panel) and spin-two (right panel) cases. In these plots, the red dotted line shows the 13 TeV dataset, the blue dotted line the 8 TeV dataset, and the black solid line their combination computed according to the signal model assumed. The lowest p-values are found at around 750 GeV mass (760 GeV for the 13 TeV data alone). The corresponding local / global significances are 3.4σ / 1.6σ, reducing to 2.9σ / < 1σ for the 13 TeV data alone.

The upcoming restart of the LHC is expected to clarify the current uncertainty in the interpre- tation of these ﬁndings.

35 n pnzr rgt yohss h e bu)dte ie ieteidvda 3TV( e)rslsadthe and (left) results spin-zero TeV) the (8 TeV for 13 CMS individual by the found give as combinations. lines model statistical dotted signal their (blue) narrow-width lines red a solid The black for hypotheses. mass (right) versus spin-zero p-value and Local – 43 Figure data. shown to Also ﬁts categories. the solenoid- (barrel-endcap) from and barrel-barrel panels) obtained the (top show predictions solenoid-on panels background (right) the the left in The are CMS by panels). measured (bottom distributions datasets mass oﬀ invariant Diphoton – 42 Figure

p 10 10 10

10 0 5 -4 -3 -2 -1 × 10 CMS

2 Events / ( 20 GeV ) Events / ( 20 GeV ) (data-fit)/σ 10 (data-fit)/σ 10 stat 10 stat 10 -2 -2 2 2 1 1 0 2 0 2 Preliminary CMS CMS 400 400 Preliminary Preliminary 600 600 10 EBEB EBEB 3 800 800 3.3 fb 2.7 fb -1 1000 1000 (13TeV)+19.7fb 0.6 fb 13TeV 8TeV Combined m Γ =1.4 -1 (13TeV,3.8T) 1200 1200 -1 2 (13TeV,0T) × × 10 10 Fit model Data m ± ± Fit model Data m ± ± 2 1 2 1 3 m γ γ -4 1400 1400

σ σ S σ σ γ γ J=0 (GeV) (GeV) (GeV) -1 (8TeV) 3 1600 1600 × 10 3 2 1 3 σ σ σ 36

p 10 10 10 10 0 Events / ( 20 GeV ) Events / ( 20 GeV ) (data-fit)/σ (data-fit)/σ 10 5 stat 10 stat 10 -4 -3 -2 -1 -2 -2 × 2 1 1 0 2 0 2 10 CMS CMS CMS 2 400 400 Preliminary Preliminary Preliminary 600 600 EBEE EBEE 800 800 10 3 2.7 fb 1000 1000 0.6 fb 3.3 fb -1 (13TeV,3.8T) 1200 1200 -1 -1 (13TeV)+19.7fb (13TeV,0T) 13TeV 8TeV Combined m Γ =1.4 m ± ± Fit model Data m ± ± Fit model Data 2 1 2 1 γ γ 1400 1400

σ σ σ σ γ γ 2 (GeV) (GeV) × × 10 10 m 3 1600 1600 -4 G J=2 (GeV) -1 (8TeV) 3 × 10 3 2 1 3 σ σ σ 10 Conclusions

The 51st edition of the Moriond Electroweak and Uniﬁed Theories conference has been memorable. It exhibited once again the challenges today’s experimental physics takes on and overcomes to perform groundbreaking measurements. The discovery of the Higgs boson required the construction of a huge accelerator and ultra-sophisticated particle detectors to produce Higgs-boson events and ﬁnd them in several channels buried under 1012 times larger backgrounds. The direct observation of gravitational waves required to measure over 4 km length a relative deformation two hundred times smaller than the size of a proton. Similar things can be said about neutrino physics, dark matter searches, etc. Accomplishing these measurements requires great ideas, visionary leadership, long- term support by governments and society, innovative and highest quality hardware and software, computing resources, operational and maintenance support, precise and unbiased analysis, and above all: dedication. Given what we have seen this week, I have no worry. We live in an extraordinary period for fundamental experimental research in physics. Congratulations to the 50th anniversary of the conference. There will be ample material for an exciting next half a century!

I thank the organisers for preparing a fascinating conference week and for giving me the opportunity to present the experimental summary.

37 Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 Neutrino Physics 1 2.1 Results from short-baseline neutrino experiments ...... 2 2.2 Results from long-baseline neutrino experiments ...... 3 2.3 Results from (short-baseline) reactor experiments ...... 5 2.4 Neutrinos from the Sun ...... 7 2.5 Neutrino astronomy ...... 7 2.6 Of which quantum nature are neutrinos? ...... 8

3 Proton decay — GUT messengers9

4 Direct dark matter searches 10

5 Gravitational waves 12

6 Flavour Physics 14 6.1 Tetraquarks? ...... 14 6.2 CKM Matrix ...... 14 6.3 CP violation and mixing in charm decays ...... 15 6.4 Rare B decays ...... 16 6.5 Flavour anomalies ...... 17 6.6 Charged lepton ﬂavour violation ...... 18 6.7 Rare kaon decays ...... 18

7 Electroweak precision physics 19 7.1 Top-quark mass ...... 19 7.2 Weak mixing angle ...... 20 7.3 W boson mass ...... 20

8 The LHC at 13 TeV — Standard Model physics 21 8.1 Inclusive W and Z production ...... 21 8.2 Diboson production ...... 22 8.3 Top-quark physics ...... 23 8.4 Higgs boson physics ...... 25

9 The LHC at 13 TeV — Searches for new physics 26 9.1 Additional Higgs bosons ...... 27 9.2 New phenomena with high-transverse-momentum jets and leptons ...... 27 9.3 Diboson resonances (VV , V h, hh)...... 29 9.4 Supersymmetry ...... 30 9.5 Dark matter production ...... 31 9.6 Diphoton resonance ...... 32

10 Conclusions 37

38 References

1. The Nobel Prize in Physics, 2015. 2. G. Rossi, these proceedings. 3. S. Lockwitz, these proceedings. 4. LSND Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 64, 112007 (2001) [hep-ex/0104049]. 5. MiniBooNE Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 161801 (2013) [1303.2588]. 6. D. Rutherbories, these proceedings. 7. MINERvA Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 081802 (2016) [1509.05729]. 8. A. Timmons, these proceedings. 9. A. Timmons, 1504.04046 (2015). 10. J. Hartnell, these proceedings. 11. NOvA Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 93, 051104 (2016) [1601.05037]. 12. NOvA Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 151806 (2016) [1601.05022]. 13. C. Nielsen, these proceedings. 14. A. Pastore, these proceedings. 15. T2K Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 181801 (2016) [1512.02495]. 16. OPERA Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 121802 (2015) [1507.01417]. 17. Daya Bay Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 111802 (2015) [1505.03456]. 18. Y. Zhang, these proceedings. 19. Daya Bay Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 93, 072011 (2016) [1603.03549]. 20. M. Ishitsuka, these proceedings. 21. Daya Bay Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061801 (2016) [1508.04233]. 22. A. Hayes , these proceedings. 23. Link to articles about the antineutrino reactor anomaly. 24. N. van Remortel, these proceedings. 25. S. Zavatarelli, these proceedings. 26. Borexino Collaboration, Nature 512, 383 (2014). 27. Borexino Collaboration, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 675, 012029 (2016). 28. Borexino Collaboration, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 675, 012025 (2016). 29. J. Auﬀenberg, these proceedings. 30. IceCube Collaboration, PoS (ICRC2015) 1081 (2015). 31. G. de Wasseige, these proceedings. 32. CUORE Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 102502 (2015) [1504.02454]. 33. P. Gorla, these proceedings. 34. EXO-200 Collaboration, Nature 510, 229 (2014) [1402.6956]. 35. EXO-200 Collaboration, Phys. Rev. C 93, 035501 (2016) [1511.04770]. 36. Y.-R. Yen, these proceedings. 37. F.T. Avignone, S.R. Elliott, J. Engel, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 481 (2008) [0708.1033]. 38. V. Takhistov, these proceedings. 39. SuperCDMS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 071301 (2016) [1509.02448]. 40. E. Lopez Asamar, these proceedings. 41. CRESST Collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, (2016) [1509.01515]. 42. F. Pr¨obst,these proceedings. 43. XENON100 Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 181301 (2012). 44. Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 021301 (2013) no.2. 45. C. Hasterok, these proceedings. 46. XENON100 Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 181301 (2012) [1207.5988]. 47. XENON100 Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 091302 (2015) [1507.07748]. 48. P. Beltrame, these proceedings. 49. LUX Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 161301 (2016) [1512.03506]. 50. LUX Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 161302 (2016) [1602.03489]. 51. A. Rocchi, these proceedings. 52. LIGO/VIRGO Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016). 53. R.A. Hulse and J.H. Taylor, Astrophys. J. 195, L51 (1975). 54. J.H. Taylor and J.M. Weisberg, Astrophys. J. 253, 908 (1982). 55. Full list of LIGO papers. 56. D0 Collaboration, 1602.07588 (2016).

39 57. LHCb Collaboration, LHCb-CONF-2016-004 (2016). 58. J. van Tilburg, these proceedings. 59. LHCb Collaboration, Nature Physics 10, 1038 (2015) [1504.01568]. 60. LHCb Collaboration, 1604.03475 (2016). 61. LHCb Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 031601 (2015) [1503.07089]. 62. LHCb Collaboration, 1603.04804 (2016). 63. M. John, these proceedings. 64. CKMﬁtter Group, updates at http://ckmfitter.in2p3.fr (2015). 65. LHCb Collaboration, 1602.07224 (2016). 66. A. Pearce, these proceedings. 67. LHCb Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 111602 (2012); Erratum Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 129903 (2012) [1112.0938]. 68. LHCb Collaboration, 1602.03160 (2016). 69. LHCb Collaboration, LHCb-CONF-2016-001 (2016). 70. CMS and LHCb Collaborations, Nature 522, 68 (2015) [1411.4413]. 71. J. Albrecht, these proceedings. 72. S.K. Swain, these proceedings. 73. C. Bobeth et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 101801 (2014) [1311.0903]. 74. ATLAS Collaboration, 1604.04263 (2016). 75. S. Palestini, these proceedings. 76. LHCb Collaboration, JHEP 02, 104 (2016) [1512.04442]. 77. Belle Collaboration, 1604.04042 (2016). 78. L. Hofer, these proceedings. 79. BABAR Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 101802 (2012) [1205.5442]. 80. Belle Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 92, 072014 (2015) [1507.03233]. 81. LHCb Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 111803 (2015) [1506.08614]. 82. P. Goldenzweig, these proceedings. 83. Belle Collaboration, 1603.06711 (2016). 84. Heavy Flavour Averaging Group, RD(?) combination (2016). 85. MEG Collaboration, 1605.05081 (2016). 86. K. Massri, these proceedings. 87. G. Ruggiero, these proceedings. 88. M. Baak et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 3046 (2014) [1407.3792]. 89. CDF and D0 Collaborations, Phys. Rev. D 88, 052018 (2013) [1307.7627]. 90. ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, SLD Collaborations, LEP Electroweak Working Group, SLD Elec- troweak and Heavy Flavour Groups, Phys. Rept. 427, 257 (2006) [hep-ex/0509008]; ALEPH, DELPHI, L3, OPAL Collaborations, LEP Electroweak Working Group, Phys. Rept. 532, 119 (2013) [1302.3415]. 91. CMS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 93, 072004 (2016) [1509.04044]. 92. CDF and D0 Collaborations, 1407.2682 (2014). 93. B. Stieger, these proceedings. 94. CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-TOP-15-014 (2015). 95. CMS Collaboration, 1603.02303 (2016). 96. ATLAS Collaboration, JHEP 09, 049 (2015) [1503.03709]. 97. CMS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 84, 112002 (2011) [1110.2682]. 98. LHCb Collaboration, JHEP 1511, 190 (2015) [1509.07645]. 99. A. Bodek, Eur. Phys. J. C, 76, 1 (2016) [1512.08256]. 100. A. Bodek, these proceedings. 101. W.J. Barter, these proceedings. 102. M. D’Alfonso, these proceedings. 103. CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-SMP-14-007 (2016). 104. J. Wenninger, these proceedings. 105. ATLAS Collaboration, 1603.09222 (2016). 106. CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-SMP-15-004 (2016); CMS-PAS-SMP-15-011 (2016). 107. LHCb Collaboration, LHCb-CONF-2016-002 (2016). 108. ATLAS Collaboration, 1512.02192 (2015). 109. CMS Collaboration, 1603.01803 (2016). 110. LHCb Collaboration, JHEP 01, 155 (2016) [1511.08039].

40 111. CMS Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B 750, 154 (2015) [1504.03512]. 112. T. Dai, these proceedings. 113. ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 101801 (2016) [1512.05314]. 114. CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-SMP-16-001 (2016). 115. CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-SMP-16-002 (2016). 116. ATLAS Collaboration, 1604.02997 (2016). 117. CMS Collaboration, 1507.03268 (2015). 118. ATLAS Collaboration, 1603.02151 (2016). 119. M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit, D. Rathlev, M. Wiesemann, 1604.08576 (2016). 120. ATLAS Collaboration, 1604.05232 (2016). 121. CMS Collaboration, JHEP 04, 164 (2015) [1502.05664]. 122. ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 141803 (2014) [1405.6241]. 123. CMS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 051801 (2015) [1410.6315]. 124. CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-SMP-14-011 (2016). 125. CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-SMP-15-008 (2016). 126. ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 031802 (2015) [1503.03243]. 127. P. Ferreira da Silva, these proceedings. 128. ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2016-005 (2016), ATLAS-CONF-2015-049 (2015). 129. CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-TOP-16-005; Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 052002 (2016) [1510.05302]. 130. ATLASCollaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2015-065 (2015). 131. CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-TOP-16-008, CMS-PAS-TOP-16-011 (2016). 132. ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2015-079 (2016). 133. CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-TOP-16-003, CMS-PAS-TOP-16-004 (2016). 134. ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2016-003 (2016). 135. CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-TOP-16-009 (2016). 136. E. Monnier, these proceedings. 137. C. Schwanenberger, these proceedings. 138. CDF Collaboration, CDF Public Note 11161 (2015). 139. D0 Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 90, 072011 (2014) [1405.0421]; D0 note 6445-CONF (2014). 140. D0 Collaboration, D0 Note 6471-CONF (2015). 141. ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 142001 (2015) [1412.4742]. 142. D0 Collaboration, 1512.08818 (2015). 143. ATLAS and CMS Collaborations, ATLAS-CONF-2015-044, CMS-PAS-HIG-15-002 (2015). 144. L. Dell’Asta , these proceedings. 145. ATLAS Collaboration, JHEP 11, 211 (2015) [1508.03372]; 1604.07730 (2016). 146. CMS Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B 749, 337 (2015) [1502.07400]. 147. ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2015-059; ATLAS-CONF-2015-060; ATLAS-CONF-2015-069 (2015). 148. CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-HIG-15-004; CMS-PAS-HIG-15-005 (2016). 149. S. Zenz, these proceedings. 150. CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-HIG-15-008; CMS-PAS-HIG-16-004; CMS-PAS-HIG-15-005 (2016). 151. J.Hauk, these proceedings. 152. A. McCarn, these proceedings. 153. C. Lange, these proceedings. 154. ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B 754, 302 (2016) [1512.01530]. 155. CMS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 071801 (2016) [1512.01224]. 156. ATLAS Collaboration, JHEP 03, 026 (2016) [1512.02586]. 157. CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-EXO-15-007 (2015). 158. ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2016-006 (2016). 159. ATLAS Collaboration, 1603.08791 (2016); ATLAS-CONF-2016-014 (2016). 160. CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-B2G-15-002 (2016). 161. CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-EXO-16-007 (2016). 162. P. Everaerts, these proceedings. 163. J. Catmore, these proceedings. 164. ATLAS Collaboration, 1603.05598 (2016). 165. ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2015-070; ATLAS-CONF-2015-063 (2015). 166. CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-EXO-15-005; CMS-PAS-EXO-15-006 (2015).

41 167. ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2015-072 (2015). 168. CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-EXO-16-001 (2015). 169. M. Bellomo, these proceedings 170. ATLAS Collaboration, JHEP 12, 55 (2015) [1506.00962]. 171. CMS Collaboration, JHEP 08, 173 (2014) [1405.1994]. 172. ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2015-073 (2015). 173. CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-EXO-15-002 (2015). 174. M. Pierini, these proceedings. 175. C. Young, these proceedings. 176. ATLAS Collaboration, 1602.06194 (2016); 1605.03814 (2016); ATLAS-CONF-2015-067 (2015). 177. CMS Collaboration, 1603.04053; 1602.06581 (2016); CMS-PAS-SUS-15-004; CMS-PAS-SUS-15-005 (2015). 178. H. Kirschenmann, these proceedings. 179. ATLAS Collaboration, 1602.09058 (2016); ATLAS-CONF-2015-067; ATLAS-CONF-2015-076 (2015). 180. ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2015-082 (2015). 181. CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-SUS-15-006; CMS-PAS-SUS-15-007; CMS-PAS-SUS-15-008 (2015/16) 182. CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-SUS-15-011 (2015). 183. ATLAS Collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 318 (2015) [1503.03290]. 184. CMS Collaboration, JHEP 04, 124 (2015) [1502.06031]. 185. ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2015-066 (2015); ATLAS-CONF-2016-007; ATLAS-CONF-2016-009 (2016). 186. CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-SUS-16-001; CMS-PAS-SUS-16-002; CMS-PAS-SUS-16-007 (2016). 187. ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2016-013 (2016). 188. CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-B2G-15-006 (2015); CMS-PAS-B2G-15-008; CMS-PAS-B2G-16-002 (2016). 189. ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2016-022 (2016). 190. T. Gherghetta, these proceedings. 191. Revital Kopeliansky, these proceedings. 192. ATLAS Collaboration, 1604.04520 (2016). 193. CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-EXO-15-010 (2015). 194. M. Cremonesi, these proceedings. 195. LHC Dark Matter Forum report, 1507.00966 (2015). 196. ATLAS Collaboration, 1604.07773 (2016). 197. CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-EXO-15-005 (2015); CMS-PAS-EXO-16-013 (2016). 198. ATLAS Collaboration, 1604.01306 (2016). 199. ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2015-080 (2015). 200. CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-EXO-16-013 (2016). 201. CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-B2G-15-007; CMS-PAS-B2G-15-001 (2016) 202. ATLAS Collaboration, Dark Matter searches summary plot. 203. ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 92, 032004 (2015) [1504.05511]. 204. ATLAS Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 171801 (2014) [1407.6583]. 205. CMS Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B 750, 494 (2015) [1506.02301]. 206. ATLAS Collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 1 (2016) [1509.05051]. 207. ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2016-018 (2016). 208. CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-EXO-16-018 (2016). 209. ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2016-010 (2016). 210. M. Delmastro, these proceedings. 211. P. Musella, these proceedings.