Showing 10 of 888 results
The inclusive and fiducial $t\bar{t}$ production cross-sections are measured in the lepton+jets channel using 20.2 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collision data at a centre-of-mass energy of 8 TeV recorded with the ATLAS detector at the LHC. Major systematic uncertainties due to the modelling of the jet energy scale and $b$-tagging efficiency are constrained by separating selected events into three disjoint regions. In order to reduce systematic uncertainties in the most important background, the W+jets process is modelled using Z+jets events in a data-driven approach. The inclusive $t\bar{t}$ cross-section is measured with a precision of 5.7% to be $\sigma_{\text{inc}}(t\bar{t})$ = 248.3 $\pm$ 0.7 (stat.) $\pm$ 13.4 (syst.) $\pm$ 4.7 (lumi.) pb, assuming a top-quark mass of 172.5 GeV. The result is in agreement with the Standard Model prediction. The cross-section is also measured in a phase space close to that of the selected data. The fiducial cross-section is $\sigma_{\text{fid}}(t\bar{t})$ = 48.8 $\pm$ 0.1 (stat.) $\pm$ 2.0 (syst.) $\pm$ 0.9 (lumi.) pb with a precision of 4.5%.
The measured inclusive cross section. The first systematic uncertainty (sys_1) is the combined systematic uncertainty excluding luminosity, the second (sys_2) is the luminosity
The measured fiducial cross section. The first systematic uncertainty (sys_1) is the combined systematic uncertainty excluding luminosity, the second (sys_2) is the luminosity
Measurements of fiducial and differential cross sections are presented for Higgs boson production in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV. The analysis is performed in the $H \rightarrow \gamma\gamma$ decay channel using 20.3 fb$^{-1}$ of data recorded by the ATLAS experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider. The signal is extracted using a fit to the diphoton invariant mass spectrum assuming that the width of the resonance is much smaller than the experimental resolution. The signal yields are corrected for the effects of detector inefficiency and resolution. The $pp\rightarrow H \rightarrow \gamma\gamma$ fiducial cross section is measured to be $43.2 \pm 9.4 (stat) {}^{+3.2}_{-2.9} (syst) \pm 1.2 (lumi)$ fb for a Higgs boson of mass 125.4 GeV decaying to two isolated photons that have transverse momentum greater than 35% and 25% of the diphoton invariant mass and each with absolute pseudorapidity less than 2.37. Four additional fiducial cross sections and two cross-section limits are presented in phase space regions that test the theoretical modelling of different Higgs boson production mechanisms, or are sensitive to physics beyond the Standard Model. Differential cross sections are also presented, as a function of variables related to the diphoton kinematics and the jet activity produced in the Higgs boson events. The observed spectra are statistically limited but broadly in line with the theoretical expectations.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of transverse momentum of diphoton system. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of transverse momentum of diphoton system. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of absolute rapidity of diphoton system. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of absolute rapidity of diphoton system. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of multiplicity of jets with transverse momentum pT(jet) > 30 GeV. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of multiplicity of jets with transverse momentum pT(jet) > 30 GeV. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of multiplicity of jets with transverse momentum pT(jet) > 30 GeV. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of multiplicity of jets with transverse momentum pT(jet) > 30 GeV. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of transverse momentum of the leading jet. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of transverse momentum of the leading jet. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of absolute rapidity of the leading jet. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of absolute rapidity of the leading jet. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of scalar transverse momentum sum of all jets. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of scalar transverse momentum sum of all jets. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of transverse momentum of second leading jet. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of transverse momentum of second leading jet. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of rapidity separation of leading two jets. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of rapidity separation of leading two jets. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of azimuthal angle between diphoton and dijet systems. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of azimuthal angle between diphoton and dijet systems. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of cosine of the decay angle in the Collins-Soper frame. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of cosine of the decay angle in the Collins-Soper frame. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of cosine of the decay angle in the Collins-Soper frame. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of cosine of the decay angle in the Collins-Soper frame. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of azimuthal angle between the two leading jets. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of azimuthal angle between the two leading jets. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of diphoton thrust pT. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of diphoton thrust pT. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of rapidity separation of the two photons. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of rapidity separation of the two photons. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of tau of highest-tau jet (see paper for description). Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of tau of highest-tau jet (see paper for description). Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of scalar sum of tau for all jets (see paper for description). Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of scalar sum of tau for all jets (see paper for description). Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of absolute rapidity of second leading jet. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of absolute rapidity of second leading jet. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of transverse momentum of third leading jet. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of transverse momentum of third leading jet. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of dijet invariant mass. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of dijet invariant mass. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of transverse momentum of the combined diphoton and dijet system. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of transverse momentum of the combined diphoton and dijet system. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of cosine of the decay angle in the Collins-Soper frame in bins of diphoton transverse momentum. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of cosine of the decay angle in the Collins-Soper frame in bins of diphoton transverse momentum. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of diphoton transverse momentum in jet multiplicity bins. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of diphoton transverse momentum in jet multiplicity bins. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of leading jet transverse momentum for exclusive one-jet events. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of leading jet transverse momentum for exclusive one-jet events. Each systematic uncertainty sources is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.
Diphoton kinematic acceptances in percent for gluon fusion for each fiducial region/variable bin studied in this paper, defined as the probability to fulfil the diphoton kinematic criteria: pT(2gam) < 0.35 (0.25) for the leading (subleading) photon and |eta(gam)|<2.37. The factors are evaluated using the POWHEG event generator with MPI modelling and hadronisation turned off. Consistent results for the diphoton variables are obtained by HRes 2.2. Uncertainties are taken from PDF variations. QCD scale varaitions have a negligible impact on these factors.
Diphoton kinematic acceptances in percent for gluon fusion for each fiducial region/variable bin studied in this paper, defined as the probability to fulfil the diphoton kinematic criteria: pT(2gam) < 0.35 (0.25) for the leading (subleading) photon and |eta(gam)|<2.37. The factors are evaluated using the POWHEG event generator with MPI modelling and hadronisation turned off. Consistent results for the diphoton variables are obtained by HRes 2.2. Uncertainties are taken from PDF variations. QCD scale varaitions have a negligible impact on these factors.
Isolation efficiencies in percent for gluon fusion H -> 2gam for each fiducial region/variable bin measured in this analysis. The isolation efficiency is defined as the probability for both photons to fulfil the isolation criteria (ETiso < 14 GeV as described in the text) for events that pass the diphoton kinematic criteria. Uncertainties are assigned in the same way as for the non-perturbative correction factors: by varying the fragmentation and underlying event modelling. These factors can be multiplied by the kinematic acceptance factors (see table~ ef{tab:fid_acceptance}) to extrapolate an inclusive gluon fusion Higgs prediction to the fiducial volume used in this analysis.
Isolation efficiencies in percent for gluon fusion H -> 2gam for each fiducial region/variable bin measured in this analysis. The isolation efficiency is defined as the probability for both photons to fulfil the isolation criteria (ETiso < 14 GeV as described in the text) for events that pass the diphoton kinematic criteria. Uncertainties are assigned in the same way as for the non-perturbative correction factors: by varying the fragmentation and underlying event modelling. These factors can be multiplied by the kinematic acceptance factors (see table~ ef{tab:fid_acceptance}) to extrapolate an inclusive gluon fusion Higgs prediction to the fiducial volume used in this analysis.
Non-perturbative correction factors in percent accounting for the impact of hadronisation and the underlying event activity for all measured variables and fiducial regions. Uncertainties are evaluated by deriving these factors using different generators and tunes as described in the text.
Non-perturbative correction factors in percent accounting for the impact of hadronisation and the underlying event activity for all measured variables and fiducial regions. Uncertainties are evaluated by deriving these factors using different generators and tunes as described in the text.
Fiducial cross sections in fb from WH, ZH and ttH combined, in each variable bin and fiducial region.
Fiducial cross sections in fb from WH, ZH and ttH combined, in each variable bin and fiducial region.
Statistical bin-to-bin correlations between the 24 bins used in the analysis described in Phys.Lett. B753 (2016) 69-85 (arXiv:1508.02507). See Figure 3 of this paper for the bins used.
Measurements of differential cross sections of top quark pair production in association with jets by the ATLAS experiment at the LHC are presented. The measurements are performed as functions of the top quark transverse momentum, the transverse momentum of the top quark-antitop quark system and the out-of-plane transverse momentum using data from $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV collected by the ATLAS detector at the LHC in 2015 and corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 3.2 fb$^{-1}$. The top quark pair events are selected in the lepton (electron or muon) + jets channel. The measured cross sections, which are compared to several predictions, allow a detailed study of top quark production.
Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 6-jet inclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 6-jet inclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 6-jet inclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 6-jet inclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 6-jet inclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 6-jet inclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 6-jet inclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 5-jet exclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 5-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 5-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 5-jet exclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration and $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Statistical correlation matrix between |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet inclusive configuration and |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet inclusive configuration, obtained through the Bootstrap Method.
Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet inclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet inclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Correlation matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Correlation matrix of the relative cross-section as function of |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Correlation matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Correlation matrix of the relative cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Correlation matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Correlation matrix of the relative cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Correlation matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Correlation matrix of the relative cross-section as function of |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Correlation matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Correlation matrix of the relative cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Correlation matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Correlation matrix of the relative cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Correlation matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Correlation matrix of the relative cross-section as function of |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Correlation matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Correlation matrix of the relative cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Correlation matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Correlation matrix of the relative cross-section as function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Correlation matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet inclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Correlation matrix of the relative cross-section as function of |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet inclusive configuration, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Systematic uncertanties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle-level for |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet exclusive configuration. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Systematic uncertanties for the relative differential cross-section at particle-level for |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet exclusive configuration. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Systematic uncertanties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle-level for $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Systematic uncertanties for the relative differential cross-section at particle-level for $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Systematic uncertanties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle-level for $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Systematic uncertanties for the relative differential cross-section at particle-level for $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 4-jet exclusive configuration. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Systematic uncertanties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle-level for |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 6-jet inclusive configuration. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Systematic uncertanties for the relative differential cross-section at particle-level for |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 6-jet inclusive configuration. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Systematic uncertanties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle-level for $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Systematic uncertanties for the relative differential cross-section at particle-level for $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Systematic uncertanties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle-level for $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Systematic uncertanties for the relative differential cross-section at particle-level for $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 6-jet inclusive configuration. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Systematic uncertanties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle-level for |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 5-jet exclusive configuration. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Systematic uncertanties for the relative differential cross-section at particle-level for |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 5-jet exclusive configuration. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Systematic uncertanties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle-level for $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Systematic uncertanties for the relative differential cross-section at particle-level for $p_{T}^{t,had}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Systematic uncertanties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle-level for $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Systematic uncertanties for the relative differential cross-section at particle-level for $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ in the 5-jet exclusive configuration. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Systematic uncertanties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle-level for |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet inclusive configuration. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Systematic uncertanties for the relative differential cross-section at particle-level for |$p_{out}^{t\bar{t}}$| in the 4-jet inclusive configuration. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
This paper presents cross sections for the production of a W boson in association with jets, measured in proton--proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV with the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider. With an integrated luminosity of $4.6 fb^{-1}$, this data set allows for an exploration of a large kinematic range, including jet production up to a transverse momentum of 1 TeV and multiplicities up to seven associated jets. The production cross sections for W bosons are measured in both the electron and muon decay channels. Differential cross sections for many observables are also presented including measurements of the jet observables such as the rapidities and the transverse momenta as well as measurements of event observables such as the scalar sums of the transverse momenta of the jets. The measurements are compared to numerous QCD predictions including next-to-leading-order perturbative calculations, resummation calculations and Monte Carlo generators.
Distribution of inclusive jet multiplicity.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in inclusive jet multiplicity in the electron channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in inclusive jet multiplicity in the muon channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Distribution of exclusive jet multiplicity.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in exclusive jet multiplicity in the electron channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in exclusive jet multiplicity in the muon channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Distribution of pT (leading jet) [GeV] with at least one jet in the event.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in pT (leading jet) [GeV] with at least one jet in the event in the electron channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in pT (leading jet) [GeV] with at least one jet in the event in the muon channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Distribution of pT (leading jet) [GeV] with exactly one jet in the event.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in pT (leading jet) [GeV] with exactly one jet in the event in the electron channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in pT (leading jet) [GeV] with exactly one jet in the event in the muon channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Distribution of pT (leading jet) [GeV] with at least two jets in the event.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in pT (leading jet) [GeV] with at least two jets in the event in the electron channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in pT (leading jet) [GeV] with at least two jets in the event in the muon channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Distribution of pT (leading jet) [GeV] with at least three jets in the event.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in pT (leading jet) [GeV] with at least three jets in the event in the electron channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in pT (leading jet) [GeV] with at least three jets in the event in the muon channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Distribution of pT (2nd jet) [GeV] with at least two jets in the event.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in pT (2nd jet) [GeV] with at least two jets in the event in the electron channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in pT (2nd jet) [GeV] with at least two jets in the event in the muon channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Distribution of pT (3rd jet) [GeV] with at least three jets in the event.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in pT (3rd jet) [GeV] with at least three jets in the event in the electron channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in pT (3rd jet) [GeV] with at least three jets in the event in the muon channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Distribution of pT (4th jet) [GeV] with at least four jets in the event.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in pT (4th jet) [GeV] with at least four jets in the event in the electron channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in pT (4th jet) [GeV] with at least four jets in the event in the muon channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Distribution of pT (5th jet) [GeV] with at least five jets in the event.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in pT (5th jet) [GeV] with at least five jets in the event in the electron channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in pT (5th jet) [GeV] with at least five jets in the event in the muon channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Distribution of leading jet rapidity with at least one jet in the event.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in leading jet rapidity with at least one jet in the event in the electron channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in leading jet rapidity with at least one jet in the event in the muon channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Distribution of 2nd jet rapidity with at least two jets in the event.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in 2nd jet rapidity with at least two jets in the event in the electron channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in 2nd jet rapidity with at least two jets in the event in the muon channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Distribution of HT [GeV] with at least one jet in the event.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in HT [GeV] with at least one jet in the event in the electron channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in HT [GeV] with at least one jet in the event in the muon channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Distribution of HT [GeV] with exactly one jet in the event.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in HT [GeV] with exactly one jet in the event in the electron channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in HT [GeV] with exactly one jet in the event in the muon channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Distribution of HT [GeV] with at least two jets in the event.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in HT [GeV] with at least two jets in the event in the electron channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in HT [GeV] with at least two jets in the event in the muon channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Distribution of HT [GeV] with exactly two jets in the event.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in HT [GeV] with exactly two jets in the event in the electron channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in HT [GeV] with exactly two jets in the event in the muon channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Distribution of HT [GeV] with at least three jets in the event.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in HT [GeV] with at least three jets in the event in the electron channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in HT [GeV] with at least three jets in the event in the muon channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Distribution of HT [GeV] with exactly three jets in the event.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in HT [GeV] with exactly three jets in the event in the electron channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in HT [GeV] with exactly three jets in the event in the muon channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Distribution of HT [GeV] with at least four jets in the event.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in HT [GeV] with at least four jets in the event in the electron channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in HT [GeV] with at least four jets in the event in the muon channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Distribution of HT [GeV] with at least five jets in the event.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in HT [GeV] with at least five jets in the event in the electron channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in HT [GeV] with at least five jets in the event in the muon channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Distribution of DPhi(jj) [GeV] with at least two jets in the event.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in DPhi(jj) [GeV] with at least two jets in the event in the electron channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in DPhi(jj) [GeV] with at least two jets in the event in the muon channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Distribution of Dy(jj) [GeV] with at least two jets in the event.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in Dy(jj) [GeV] with at least two jets in the event in the electron channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in Dy(jj) [GeV] with at least two jets in the event in the muon channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Distribution of DR(jj) [GeV] with at least two jets in the event.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in DR(jj) [GeV] with at least two jets in the event in the electron channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in DR(jj) [GeV] with at least two jets in the event in the muon channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Distribution of m(jj) [GeV] with at least two jets in the event.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in m(jj) [GeV] with at least two jets in the event in the electron channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in m(jj) [GeV] with at least two jets in the event in the muon channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Distribution of 3rd jet rapidity with at least three jets in the event.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in 3rd jet rapidity with at least three jets in the event in the electron channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in 3rd jet rapidity with at least three jets in the event in the muon channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Distribution of 4th jet rapidity with at least four jets in the event.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in 4th jet rapidity with at least four jets in the event in the electron channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in 4th jet rapidity with at least four jets in the event in the muon channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Distribution of 5th jet rapidity with at least five jets in the event.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in 5th jet rapidity with at least five jets in the event in the electron channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in 5th jet rapidity with at least five jets in the event in the muon channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Distribution of ST [GeV] with at least one jet in the event.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in ST [GeV] with at least one jet in the event in the electron channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in ST [GeV] with at least one jet in the event in the muon channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Distribution of ST [GeV] with at least two jets in the event.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in ST [GeV] with at least two jets in the event in the electron channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in ST [GeV] with at least two jets in the event in the muon channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Distribution of ST [GeV] with exactly two jets in the event.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in ST [GeV] with exactly two jets in the event in the electron channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in ST [GeV] with exactly two jets in the event in the muon channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Distribution of ST [GeV] with at least three jets in the event.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in ST [GeV] with at least three jets in the event in the electron channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in ST [GeV] with at least three jets in the event in the muon channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Distribution of ST [GeV] with exactly three jets in the event.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in ST [GeV] with exactly three jets in the event in the electron channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in ST [GeV] with exactly three jets in the event in the muon channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Distribution of ST [GeV] with at least four jets in the event.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in ST [GeV] with at least four jets in the event in the electron channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in ST [GeV] with at least four jets in the event in the muon channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Distribution of ST [GeV] with at least five jets in the event.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in ST [GeV] with at least five jets in the event in the electron channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
Breakdown of systematic uncertainties in percent in ST [GeV] with at least five jets in the event in the muon channel.Uncertainties have been symmetrised and the sign denotes the sign of the original up-variation.
A search for new phenomena in final states containing an $e^+e^-$ or $\mu^+\mu^-$ pair, jets, and large missing transverse momentum is presented. This analysis makes use of proton--proton collision data with an integrated luminosity of $36.1 \; \mathrm{fb}^{-1}$, collected during 2015 and 2016 at a centre-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider. The search targets the pair production of supersymmetric coloured particles (squarks or gluinos) and their decays into final states containing an $e^+e^-$ or $\mu^+\mu^-$ pair and the lightest neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_1^0$) via one of two next-to-lightest neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_2^0$) decay mechanisms: $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, where the $Z$ boson decays leptonically leading to a peak in the dilepton invariant mass distribution around the $Z$ boson mass; and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \rightarrow \ell^+\ell^- \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with no intermediate $\ell^+\ell^-$ resonance, yielding a kinematic endpoint in the dilepton invariant mass spectrum. The data are found to be consistent with the Standard Model expectation. Results are interpreted using simplified models, and exclude gluinos and squarks with masses as large as 1.85 TeV and 1.3 TeV at 95% confidence level, respectively.
Observed and expected dilepton mass distributions, with the bin boundaries considered for the interpretation, in SR-low. All statistical and systematic uncertainties of the expected background are included in the hatched band. An example signal from the slepton model with m(gluino) = 1200 GeV and m(neutralino1) = 900 GeV is overlaid.
Observed and expected dilepton mass distributions, with the bin boundaries considered for the interpretation, in SR-med. All statistical and systematic uncertainties of the expected background are included in the hatched band. An example signal from the slepton model with m(gluino) = 1600 GeV and m(neutralino1) = 900 GeV, and from an on-$Z$ model with m(gluino) = 1640 GeV and m(neutralino1) = 1160 GeV, is overlaid.
Observed and expected dilepton mass distributions, with the bin boundaries considered for the interpretation, in SR-high. All statistical and systematic uncertainties of the expected background are included in the hatched band. An example signal from the slepton model with m(gluino) = 1800 GeV and m(neutralino1) = 500 GeV, and from an on-$Z$ model with m(gluino) = 1650 GeV and m(neutralino1) = 550 GeV, is overlaid.
Observed and expected dilepton mass distributions, with the bin boundaries considered for the interpretation, in SRC of the low-pT edge search. All statistical and systematic uncertainties of the expected background are included in the hatched band. An example signal from the $Z^{*}$ model with m(gluino) = 1000 GeV and m(neutralino1) = 900 GeV is overlaid.
Observed and expected dilepton mass distributions, with the bin boundaries considered for the interpretation, in SRC-MET of the low-pT edge search. All statistical and systematic uncertainties of the expected background are included in the hatched band. An example signal from the $Z^{*}$ model with m(gluino) = 1000 GeV and m(neutralino1) = 900 GeV is overlaid.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from the low-p$_{T}$ signal regions on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from the low-p$_{T}$ signal regions on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on- or off-shell $Z$ boson and the lightest neutralino.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on- or off-shell $Z$ boson and the lightest neutralino.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from the low-p$_{T}$ signal regions on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on- or off-shell $Z$ boson and the lightest neutralino.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from the low-p$_{T}$ signal regions on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on- or off-shell $Z$ boson and the lightest neutralino.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from the on-Z signal regions on the gluino and next-to-lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and a 1 GeV lightest neutralino.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from the on-Z signal regions on the gluino and next-to-lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and a 1 GeV lightest neutralino.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from the on-Z signal regions on the squark and next-to-lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and a 1 GeV lightest neutralino.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from the on-Z signal regions on the squark and next-to-lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and a 1 GeV lightest neutralino.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from the on-Z signal regions on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson the lightest neutralino.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from the on-Z signal regions on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and the lightest neutralino.
Acceptance and efficiency in the on-Z bin for SR-medium for the SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and a 1 GeV lightest neutralino.
Acceptance and efficiency in the on-Z bin for SR-high for the SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and a 1 GeV lightest neutralino.
Acceptance and efficiency over the full $m_{ll}$ range for SR-low for a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino.
Acceptance and efficiency over the full $m_{ll}$ range for SR-medium for a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino.
Acceptance and efficiency over the full $m_{ll}$ range for SR-high for a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino.
Acceptance and efficiency over the full $m_{ll}$ range for SRC for a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino.
Acceptance and efficiency over the full $m_{ll}$ range for SRC-MET for a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino.
The grey numbers show the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section at each model point, derived from the best expected combination of results in the on-Z $m_{ll}$ windows of SR-medium and SR-high, SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and a 1 GeV lightest neutralino.
The grey numbers show the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section at each model point, derived from the best expected combination of results in the on-Z $m_{ll}$ windows of SR-medium and SR-high, SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and a 1 GeV lightest neutralino.
The grey numbers show the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section at each model point, derived from the best expected combination of results in the on-Z $m_{ll}$ windows of SR-medium and SR-high, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson the lightest neutralino.
The grey numbers show the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section at each model point, derived from the best expected combination of results in the signal regions, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino.
The grey numbers show the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section at each model point, derived from the best expected combination of results in the low-p$_{T}$ signal regions, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino.
The grey numbers show the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section at each model point, derived from the best expected combination of results in the signal regions, in a SUSYscenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on- or off-shell $Z$ boson.
The grey numbers show the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section at each model point, derived from the best expected combination of results in the low-p$_{T}$ signal regions, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on- or off-shell $Z$ boson.
Cutflow table for three benchmark signal points from the SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and a 1 GeV lightest neutralino, with m(gluino) = 1395 GeV and m(neutralino2) = 505 GeV, m(gluino) = 920 GeV and m(neutralino2) = 230 GeV and m(gluino) = 940 GeV and m(neutralino2) = 660 GeV, in the on-$Z$ $m_{ll}$ bins of SR-medium and SR-high for the electron and muon channels separately. The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.
Cutflow table for a signal point from the SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino, with m(gluino) = 1000 GeV and m(neutralino1) = 800 GeV, m(gluino) = 1200 GeV and m(neutralino1) = 500 GeV and m(gluino) = 1400 GeV and m(neutralino1) = 100 GeV, in all m_{ll}$ bins of SR-low, SR-medium and SR-high for the electron and muon channels separately. The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.
Cutflow table for a signal point from the SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on- or off-shell $Z$ boson, with m(gluino) = 600 GeV and m(neutralino1) = 560 GeV and m(gluino) = 1000 GeV and m(neutralino1) = 960 GeV, in all $m_{ll}$ bins of SRC and SRC-MET for the electron and muon channels separately. The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.
Signal region used to derive the exclusion limit for the SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and a 1 GeV lightest neutralino, corresponding to the SR determined to give the best expected limit for a given signal point.
Signal region used to derive the exclusion limit for the SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and a 1 GeV lightest neutralino, corresponding to the SR determined to give the best expected limit for a given signal point.
Signal region used to derive the exclusion limit for the SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson the lightest neutralino, corresponding to the SR determined to give the best expected limit for a given signal point.
Signal region used to derive the exclusion limit for the SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on- or off-shell $Z$ boson, corresponding to the SR determined to give the best expected limit for a given signal point.
Low-$p_{T}$ signal region used to derive the exclusion limit in the compressed region for the SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on- or off-shell $Z$ boson, corresponding to the SR determined to give the best expected limit for a given signal point.
Signal region used to derive the exclusion limit for the SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino, corresponding to the SR determined to give the best expected limit for a given signal point.
Low-$p_{T}$ signal region used to derive the exclusion limit for the SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino, corresponding to the SR determined to give the best expected limit for a given signal point.
A search for direct pair production of top squarks in final states with two tau leptons, $b$-jets, and missing transverse momentum is presented. The analysis is based on proton-proton collision data at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ recorded with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider in 2015 and 2016. Two exclusive channels with either two hadronically decaying tau leptons or one hadronically and one leptonically decaying tau lepton are considered. No significant deviation from the Standard Model predictions is observed in the data. The analysis results are interpreted in terms of model-independent limits and used to derive exclusion limits on the masses of the top squark $\tilde t_1$ and the tau slepton $\tilde \tau_1$ in a simplified model of supersymmetry with a nearly massless gravitino. In this model, masses up to $m(\tilde t_1) = 1.16$ TeV and $m(\tilde \tau_1) = 1.00$ TeV are excluded at 95% confidence level.
Distribution of m<sub>T2</sub> in the signal region of the lep-had channel before the respective selection requirements, indicated by the vertical line and arrow, are applied. The stacked histograms show the various SM background contributions. The total background from events with a fake tau lepton in the lep-had channel (fake τ<sub>had</sub> + e /μ) is obtained from the fake-factor method. The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainty in the SM background. The error bars on the black data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data yields. The dashed line shows the expected additional yields from a benchmark signal model. The rightmost bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of E<sub>T</sub><sup>miss</sup> in the signal region of the lep-had channel before the respective selection requirements, indicated by the vertical line and arrow, are applied. The stacked histograms show the various SM background contributions. The total background from events with a fake tau lepton in the lep-had channel (fake τ<sub>had</sub> + e /μ) is obtained from the fake-factor method. The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainty in the SM background. The error bars on the black data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data yields. The dashed line shows the expected additional yields from a benchmark signal model. The rightmost bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of m<sub>T2</sub> in the signal region of the had-had channel before the respective selection requirements, indicated by the vertical line and arrow, are applied. Here, τ<sub>1</sub> (τ<sub>2</sub>) refers to the leading (subleading) τ<sub>had</sub>. The stacked histograms show the various SM background contributions. The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainty in the SM background. The error bars on the black data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data yields. The dashed line shows the expected additional yields from a benchmark signal model. The rightmost bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of E<sub>T</sub><sup>miss</sup> in the signal region of the had-had channel before the respective selection requirements, indicated by the vertical line and arrow, are applied. Here, τ<sub>1</sub> (τ<sub>2</sub>) refers to the leading (subleading) τ<sub>had</sub>. The stacked histograms show the various SM background contributions. The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainty in the SM background. The error bars on the black data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data yields. The dashed line shows the expected additional yields from a benchmark signal model. The rightmost bin includes the overflow.
<b>Exclusion contour (obs)</b> Expected (solid blue line) and observed (solid red line) exclusion-limit contours at 95% confidence level in the plane of top-squark and tau-slepton mass for the simplified model, obtained from the statistical combination of the lep-had and had-had channels, using full experimental and theory systematic uncertainties except the theoretical uncertainty in the signal cross section. The yellow band shows one-standard-deviation variations around the expected limit contour. The dotted red lines indicate how the observed limit moves when varying the signal cross section up or down by the corresponding uncertainty in the theoretical value. For comparison, the plot also shows the observed exclusion contour from the ATLAS Run-1 analysis as the area shaded in gray and the limit on the mass of the tau slepton (for a massless LSP) from the LEP experiments as a green band.
<b>Exclusion contour (exp)</b> Expected (solid blue line) and observed (solid red line) exclusion-limit contours at 95% confidence level in the plane of top-squark and tau-slepton mass for the simplified model, obtained from the statistical combination of the lep-had and had-had channels, using full experimental and theory systematic uncertainties except the theoretical uncertainty in the signal cross section. The yellow band shows one-standard-deviation variations around the expected limit contour. The dotted red lines indicate how the observed limit moves when varying the signal cross section up or down by the corresponding uncertainty in the theoretical value. For comparison, the plot also shows the observed exclusion contour from the ATLAS Run-1 analysis as the area shaded in gray and the limit on the mass of the tau slepton (for a massless LSP) from the LEP experiments as a green band.
Expected numbers of events from the SM background processes from the background fit and observed event yield in data for the signal regions in the lep-had and had-had channel, given for an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb<sup>-1</sup>. The expected yield for the signal model with m(t̃<sub>1</sub>)=1100 GeV and m(τ̃<sub>1</sub>)=590 GeV is shown for comparison. The uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic uncertainties and are truncated at zero. The total background from events with a fake tau lepton in the lep-had channel (fake τ<sub>had</sub> + e /μ) is obtained from the fake-factor method.
Normalization factors obtained from the background-only fit. The normalization factor for tt̄ events with fake tau leptons is only relevant for the had-had channel.
Left to right: observed 95% CL upper limits on the visible cross section (⟨ A ε σ ⟩<sub>obs</sub><sup>95</sup>) and on the number of signal events (S<sub>obs</sub><sup>95</sup> ). The third column (S<sub>exp</sub><sup>95</sup>) shows the expected 95% CL upper limit on the number of signal events, given the expected number (and ± 1σ excursions on the expectation) of background events. The last two columns indicate the CL<sub>b</sub> value, i.e. the confidence level observed for the background-only hypothesis, and the discovery p-value (p(s = 0)) and the corresponding significance (Z).
Signal acceptance A in percent for the signal region of the lep-had channel. The signal acceptance A is determined from a generator-level implementation of the analysis. It includes the branching ratios for the decays of the tau leptons. The selection efficiency ε is calculated using reconstructed objects, i.e. including all detector effects, and defined such that the event yields in the signal regions are given by the product A · ε · N<sub>signal</sub>, where N<sub>signal</sub> = σ · 36.1 fb<sup>-1</sup> and σ is the theoretical prediction for the production cross section of top-squark pairs with the mass given on the horizontal axis.
Signal acceptance A in percent for the signal region of the had-had channel. The signal acceptance A is determined from a generator-level implementation of the analysis. It includes the branching ratios for the decays of the tau leptons. The selection efficiency ε is calculated using reconstructed objects, i.e. including all detector effects, and defined such that the event yields in the signal regions are given by the product A · ε · N<sub>signal</sub>, where N<sub>signal</sub> = σ · 36.1 fb<sup>-1</sup> and σ is the theoretical prediction for the production cross section of top-squark pairs with the mass given on the horizontal axis.
Reconstruction efficiency ε in percent for the signal region of the lep-had channel. The signal acceptance A is determined from a generator-level implementation of the analysis. It includes the branching ratios for the decays of the tau leptons. The selection efficiency ε is calculated using reconstructed objects, i.e. including all detector effects, and defined such that the event yields in the signal regions are given by the product A · ε · N<sub>signal</sub>, where N<sub>signal</sub> = σ · 36.1 fb<sup>-1</sup> and σ is the theoretical prediction for the production cross section of top-squark pairs with the mass given on the horizontal axis.
Reconstruction efficiency ε in percent for the signal region of the had-had channel. The signal acceptance A is determined from a generator-level implementation of the analysis. It includes the branching ratios for the decays of the tau leptons. The selection efficiency ε is calculated using reconstructed objects, i.e. including all detector effects, and defined such that the event yields in the signal regions are given by the product A · ε · N<sub>signal</sub>, where N<sub>signal</sub> = σ · 36.1 fb<sup>-1</sup> and σ is the theoretical prediction for the production cross section of top-squark pairs with the mass given on the horizontal axis.
Upper exclusion limits at 95% confidence level on the observed cross section σ<sub>obs</sub><sup>95</sup> for the simplified signal model as function of the top-squark mass m(t̃<sub>1</sub>) and tau-slepton mass m(τ̃<sub>1</sub>) in GeV.
Number of events passing each selection step of SR LH (lep-had channel) before (raw number) and after applying event-based weights (weighted) for signal point m(t̃<sub>1</sub>) = 1100 GeV, m(τ̃<sub>1</sub>) = 590 GeV. The preselection step here does not include the requirements on the tau p<sub>T</sub> and the number of bjets.
Number of events passing each selection step of SR HH (had-had channel) before (raw number) and after applying event-based weights (weighted) for signal point m(t̃<sub>1</sub>) = 1100 GeV, m(τ̃<sub>1</sub>) = 590 GeV. The preselection step here does not include the requirements on the tau p<sub>T</sub> and the number of bjets. Here, τ<sub>1</sub> (τ<sub>2</sub>) refers to the leading (subleading) τ<sub>had</sub>.
Measurements of differential cross-sections of top-quark pair production in fiducial phase-spaces are presented as a function of top-quark and $t\bar{t}$ system kinematic observables in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}$=13 TeV. The data set corresponds to an integrated luminosity of $3.2$ fb${}^{-1}$, recorded in 2015 with the ATLAS detector at the CERN Large Hadron Collider. Events with exactly one electron or muon and at least two jets in the final state are used for the measurement. Two separate selections are applied that each focus on different top-quark momentum regions, referred to as resolved and boosted topologies of the $t\bar{t}$ final state. The measured spectra are corrected for detector effects and are compared to several Monte Carlo simulations by means of calculated $\chi^2$ and $p$-values.
Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the top quark pT, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.
Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the top quark pT, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.
Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of the top quark pT, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.
Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of the top quark pT, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.
Covariance matrix for the absolute cross-section as function of the hadronic top-quark top quark pT, accounting for the statistic and systematic uncertainties in the boosted topology.
Covariance matrix for the absolute cross-section as function of the hadronic top-quark top quark pT, accounting for the statistic and systematic uncertainties in the boosted topology.
Covariance matrix for the relative cross-section as function of the hadronic top-quark top quark pT, accounting for the statistic and systematic uncertainties in the boosted topology.
Covariance matrix for the relative cross-section as function of the hadronic top-quark top quark pT, accounting for the statistic and systematic uncertainties in the boosted topology.
Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the top quark, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.
Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the top quark, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.
Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the top quark, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.
Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the top quark, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.
Covariance matrix for the absolute cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the top quark, accounting for the statistic and systematic uncertainties in the boosted topology.
Covariance matrix for the absolute cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the top quark, accounting for the statistic and systematic uncertainties in the boosted topology.
Covariance matrix for the relative cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the top quark, accounting for the statistic and systematic uncertainties in the boosted topology.
Covariance matrix for the relative cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the top quark, accounting for the statistic and systematic uncertainties in the boosted topology.
Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the mass of the tt̄ system, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.
Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the mass of the tt̄ system, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.
Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of the mass of the tt̄ system, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.
Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of the mass of the tt̄ system, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.
Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the tt̄ system pT, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.
Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the tt̄ system pT, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.
Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of the tt̄ system pT, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.
Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of the tt̄ system pT, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.
Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the tt̄ system, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.
Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the tt̄ system, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.
Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the tt̄ system, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.
Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the tt̄ system, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the top quark transverse momentum in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the top quark transverse momentum in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the top quark transverse momentum in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the top quark transverse momentum in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the top quark rapidity in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the top quark rapidity in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the top quark rapidity in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the top quark rapidity in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the tt̄ system transverse momentum in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the tt̄ system transverse momentum in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the tt̄ system transverse momentum in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the tt̄ system transverse momentum in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the tt̄ system rapidity in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the tt̄ system rapidity in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the tt̄ system rapidity in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the tt̄ system rapidity in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the mass of the tt̄ system in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the mass of the tt̄ system in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the mass of the tt̄ system in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the mass of the tt̄ system in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the top quark transverse momentum in the boosted regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the top quark transverse momentum in the boosted regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the top quark transverse momentum in the boosted regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the top quark transverse momentum in the boosted regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the top quark rapidity in the boosted regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the top quark rapidity in the boosted regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the top quark rapidity in the boosted regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the top quark rapidity in the boosted regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
The results of a search for the direct pair production of top squarks, the supersymmetric partner of the top quark, in final states with one isolated electron or muon, several energetic jets, and missing transverse momentum are reported. The analysis also targets spin-0 mediator models, where the mediator decays into a pair of dark-matter particles and is produced in association with a pair of top quarks. The search uses data from proton-proton collisions delivered by the Large Hadron Collider in 2015 and 2016 at a centre-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV and recorded by the ATLAS detector, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 36 fb$^{-1}$. A wide range of signal scenarios with different mass-splittings between the top squark, the lightest neutralino and possible intermediate supersymmetric particles are considered, including cases where the W bosons or the top quarks produced in the decay chain are off-shell. No significant excess over the Standard Model prediction is observed. The null results are used to set exclusion limits at 95% confidence level in several supersymmetry benchmark models. For pair-produced top-squarks decaying into top quarks, top-squark masses up to 940 GeV are excluded. Stringent exclusion limits are also derived for all other considered top-squark decay scenarios. For the spin-0 mediator models, upper limits are set on the visible cross-section.
$\textbf{Distribution 1 } -$ Kinematic distribution of $m_{\rm top}^{\rm reclustered}$ in tN_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 1 } -$ Kinematic distribution of $m_{\rm top}^{\rm reclustered}$ in tN_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 1 } -$ Kinematic distribution of $m_{\rm top}^{\rm reclustered}$ in tN_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 1 } -$ Kinematic distribution of $m_{\rm top}^{\rm reclustered}$ in tN_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 2 } -$ Kinematic distribution of amT2 in bC2x_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 2 } -$ Kinematic distribution of amT2 in bC2x_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 2 } -$ Kinematic distribution of amT2 in bC2x_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 2 } -$ Kinematic distribution of amT2 in bC2x_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 3 } -$ Kinematic distribution of mT in bC2x_diag. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 3 } -$ Kinematic distribution of mT in bC2x_diag. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 3 } -$ Kinematic distribution of mT in bC2x_diag. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 3 } -$ Kinematic distribution of mT in bC2x_diag. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 4 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in bCbv. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 4 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in bCbv. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 4 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in bCbv. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 4 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in bCbv. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 5 } -$ Kinematic distribution of mT in DM_low. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 5 } -$ Kinematic distribution of mT in DM_low. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 5 } -$ Kinematic distribution of mT in DM_low. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 5 } -$ Kinematic distribution of mT in DM_low. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 6 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in DM_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 6 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in DM_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 6 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in DM_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 6 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in DM_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 7 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_low region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.
$\textbf{Distribution 7 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_low region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.
$\textbf{Distribution 7 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_low region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.
$\textbf{Distribution 7 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_low region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.
$\textbf{Distribution 8 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_med region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.
$\textbf{Distribution 8 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_med region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.
$\textbf{Distribution 8 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_med region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.
$\textbf{Distribution 8 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_med region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.
$\textbf{Distribution 9 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_high region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.
$\textbf{Distribution 9 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_high region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.
$\textbf{Distribution 9 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_high region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.
$\textbf{Distribution 9 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_high region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.
$\textbf{Distribution 10 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in tN_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 10 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in tN_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 10 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in tN_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 10 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in tN_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 11 } -$ Kinematic distribution of amT2 in bWN. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 11 } -$ Kinematic distribution of amT2 in bWN. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 11 } -$ Kinematic distribution of amT2 in bWN. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 11 } -$ Kinematic distribution of amT2 in bWN. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 12 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bffN. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 12 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bffN. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 12 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bffN. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 12 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bffN. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 13 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_diag. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 13 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_diag. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 13 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_diag. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 13 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_diag. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 14 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 14 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 14 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 14 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 15 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 15 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 15 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 15 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 1 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 1 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 1 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 1 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 1 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 1 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 1 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 1 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.
$\textbf{Selected SR 1 } -$ Selected signal regions for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(NEUTRALINO) plane.
$\textbf{Selected SR 1 } -$ Selected signal regions for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(NEUTRALINO) plane.
$\textbf{Selected SR 1 } -$ Selected signal regions for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(NEUTRALINO) plane.
$\textbf{Selected SR 1 } -$ Selected signal regions for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(NEUTRALINO) plane.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 2 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 2 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 2 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 2 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 2 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 2 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 2 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 2 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.
$\textbf{Selected SR 2 } -$ Selected signal regions for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) plane.
$\textbf{Selected SR 2 } -$ Selected signal regions for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) plane.
$\textbf{Selected SR 2 } -$ Selected signal regions for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) plane.
$\textbf{Selected SR 2 } -$ Selected signal regions for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) plane.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 3 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 3 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 3 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 3 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 3 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 3 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 3 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 3 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Selected SR 3 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Selected SR 3 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Selected SR 3 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Selected SR 3 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 4 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 4 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 4 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 4 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 4 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 4 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 4 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 4 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Selected SR 4 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Selected SR 4 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Selected SR 4 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Selected SR 4 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 5 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production assuming b C1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%. The chargino mass is assumed to be close to the stop mass, m(C1) = m(STOP) - 10 GeV.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 5 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production assuming b C1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%. The chargino mass is assumed to be close to the stop mass, m(C1) = m(STOP) - 10 GeV.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 5 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production assuming b C1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%. The chargino mass is assumed to be close to the stop mass, m(C1) = m(STOP) - 10 GeV.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 5 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production assuming b C1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%. The chargino mass is assumed to be close to the stop mass, m(C1) = m(STOP) - 10 GeV.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 5 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production assuming b C1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%. The chargino mass is assumed to be close to the stop mass, m(C1) = m(STOP) - 10 GeV.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 5 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production assuming b C1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%. The chargino mass is assumed to be close to the stop mass, m(C1) = m(STOP) - 10 GeV.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 5 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production assuming b C1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%. The chargino mass is assumed to be close to the stop mass, m(C1) = m(STOP) - 10 GeV.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 5 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production assuming b C1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%. The chargino mass is assumed to be close to the stop mass, m(C1) = m(STOP) - 10 GeV.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 6 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 6 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 6 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 6 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 6 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 6 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 6 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 6 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 6 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 6 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 6 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 6 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 7 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 7 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 7 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 7 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 7 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 7 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 7 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 7 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 7 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 7 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 7 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 7 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 8 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 8 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 8 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 8 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 8 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 8 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 8 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 8 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 8 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 8 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 8 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 8 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 9 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 9 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 9 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 9 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 9 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 9 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 9 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 9 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 10 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 10 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 10 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 10 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 10 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 10 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 10 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 10 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 10 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 10 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 10 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 10 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 11 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 11 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 11 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 11 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 11 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 11 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 11 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 11 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 11 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 11 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 11 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 11 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 12 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 12 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 12 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 12 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 12 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 12 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 12 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 12 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 12 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 12 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 12 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 12 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 13 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 13 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 13 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 13 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 13 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 13 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 13 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 13 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.
$\textbf{Selected SR 13 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.
$\textbf{Selected SR 13 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.
$\textbf{Selected SR 13 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.
$\textbf{Selected SR 13 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 14 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 14 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 14 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 14 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 14 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.<br><b>Note:</b> As no observed exclusion is found for this model, the contour is empty.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 14 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.<br><b>Note:</b> As no observed exclusion is found for this model, the contour is empty.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 14 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.<br><b>Note:</b> As no observed exclusion is found for this model, the contour is empty.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 14 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.<br><b>Note:</b> As no observed exclusion is found for this model, the contour is empty.
$\textbf{Selected SR 14 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.
$\textbf{Selected SR 14 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.
$\textbf{Selected SR 14 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.
$\textbf{Selected SR 14 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.
$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 1 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a scalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the mediator mass for a fixed mass of the DM candidate of 1 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.
$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 1 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a scalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the mediator mass for a fixed mass of the DM candidate of 1 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.
$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 1 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a scalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the mediator mass for a fixed mass of the DM candidate of 1 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.
$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 1 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a scalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the mediator mass for a fixed mass of the DM candidate of 1 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.
$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 2 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a pseudoscalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the mediator mass for a fixed mass of the DM candidate of 1 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.
$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 2 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a pseudoscalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the mediator mass for a fixed mass of the DM candidate of 1 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.
$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 2 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a pseudoscalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the mediator mass for a fixed mass of the DM candidate of 1 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.
$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 2 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a pseudoscalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the mediator mass for a fixed mass of the DM candidate of 1 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.
$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 3 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a scalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the DM candidate mass for a fixed mediator mass of 10 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.
$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 3 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a scalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the DM candidate mass for a fixed mediator mass of 10 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.
$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 3 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a scalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the DM candidate mass for a fixed mediator mass of 10 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.
$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 3 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a scalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the DM candidate mass for a fixed mediator mass of 10 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.
$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 4 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis a pseudoscalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the DM candidate mass for a fixed mediator mass of 10 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.
$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 4 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis a pseudoscalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the DM candidate mass for a fixed mediator mass of 10 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.
$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 4 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis a pseudoscalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the DM candidate mass for a fixed mediator mass of 10 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.
$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 4 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis a pseudoscalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the DM candidate mass for a fixed mediator mass of 10 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 1 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(NEUTRALINO) plane.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 1 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(NEUTRALINO) plane.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 1 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(NEUTRALINO) plane.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 1 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(NEUTRALINO) plane.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 2 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) plane.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 2 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) plane.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 2 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) plane.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 2 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) plane.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 3 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the wino NLSP model with mu < 0
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 3 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the wino NLSP model with mu < 0
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 3 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the wino NLSP model with mu < 0
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 3 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the wino NLSP model with mu < 0
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 4 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the wino NLSP model with mu > 0
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 4 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the wino NLSP model with mu > 0
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 4 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the wino NLSP model with mu > 0
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 4 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the wino NLSP model with mu > 0
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 5 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with left-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 5 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with left-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 5 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with left-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 5 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with left-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 6 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with right-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 6 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with right-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 6 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with right-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 6 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with right-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 7 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with large tan beta.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 7 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with large tan beta.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 7 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with large tan beta.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 7 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with large tan beta.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 8 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with left-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 8 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with left-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 8 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with left-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 8 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with left-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 9 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with right-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 9 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with right-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 9 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with right-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 9 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with right-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 10 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with large tan beta.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 10 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with large tan beta.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 10 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with large tan beta.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 10 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with large tan beta.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 11 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the simplified model with m(STOP) - m(CHARGINO) = 10 GeV.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 11 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the simplified model with m(STOP) - m(CHARGINO) = 10 GeV.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 11 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the simplified model with m(STOP) - m(CHARGINO) = 10 GeV.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 11 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the simplified model with m(STOP) - m(CHARGINO) = 10 GeV.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 12 } -$ Observed 95% upper cross-section limit in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 12 } -$ Observed 95% upper cross-section limit in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 12 } -$ Observed 95% upper cross-section limit in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 12 } -$ Observed 95% upper cross-section limit in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 13 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the well-tempered neutralino model with left-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 13 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the well-tempered neutralino model with left-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 13 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the well-tempered neutralino model with left-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 13 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the well-tempered neutralino model with left-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 14 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the well-tempered neutralino model with right-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 14 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the well-tempered neutralino model with right-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 14 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the well-tempered neutralino model with right-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 14 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the well-tempered neutralino model with right-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{Cutflow 1 } -$ Cutflow for tN_med for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (600, 300) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 1 } -$ Cutflow for tN_med for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (600, 300) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 1 } -$ Cutflow for tN_med for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (600, 300) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 1 } -$ Cutflow for tN_med for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (600, 300) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 2 } -$ Cutflow for tN_high for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (1000, 1) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 2 } -$ Cutflow for tN_high for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (1000, 1) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 2 } -$ Cutflow for tN_high for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (1000, 1) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 2 } -$ Cutflow for tN_high for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (1000, 1) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 3 } -$ Cutflow for bWN for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (350, 230) GeV in bWN. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 3 } -$ Cutflow for bWN for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (350, 230) GeV in bWN. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 3 } -$ Cutflow for bWN for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (350, 230) GeV in bWN. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 3 } -$ Cutflow for bWN for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (350, 230) GeV in bWN. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 4 } -$ Cutflow for bffN for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (350, 300) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 4 } -$ Cutflow for bffN for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (350, 300) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 4 } -$ Cutflow for bffN for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (350, 300) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 4 } -$ Cutflow for bffN for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (350, 300) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 5 } -$ Cutflow for bC2x_diag for the wino NLSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (737, 500, 250) GeV. Only stop pair production is considered in the cutflow. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 5 } -$ Cutflow for bC2x_diag for the wino NLSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (737, 500, 250) GeV. Only stop pair production is considered in the cutflow. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 5 } -$ Cutflow for bC2x_diag for the wino NLSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (737, 500, 250) GeV. Only stop pair production is considered in the cutflow. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 5 } -$ Cutflow for bC2x_diag for the wino NLSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (737, 500, 250) GeV. Only stop pair production is considered in the cutflow. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 6 } -$ Cutflow for bC2x_med for the wino NLSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (842, 300, 150) GeV. Only stop pair production is considered in the cutflow. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 6 } -$ Cutflow for bC2x_med for the wino NLSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (842, 300, 150) GeV. Only stop pair production is considered in the cutflow. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 6 } -$ Cutflow for bC2x_med for the wino NLSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (842, 300, 150) GeV. Only stop pair production is considered in the cutflow. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 6 } -$ Cutflow for bC2x_med for the wino NLSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (842, 300, 150) GeV. Only stop pair production is considered in the cutflow. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 7 } -$ Cutflow for the simplified signal model with $\Delta m( \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = 10 GeV, considering $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (700, 690, 1). The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 7 } -$ Cutflow for the simplified signal model with $\Delta m( \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = 10 GeV, considering $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (700, 690, 1). The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 7 } -$ Cutflow for the simplified signal model with $\Delta m( \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = 10 GeV, considering $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (700, 690, 1). The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 7 } -$ Cutflow for the simplified signal model with $\Delta m( \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = 10 GeV, considering $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (700, 690, 1). The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 8 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_diag for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (400, 355, 350) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 8 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_diag for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (400, 355, 350) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 8 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_diag for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (400, 355, 350) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 8 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_diag for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (400, 355, 350) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 9 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_med for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (600, 205, 200) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 9 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_med for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (600, 205, 200) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 9 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_med for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (600, 205, 200) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 9 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_med for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (600, 205, 200) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 10 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_high for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (800, 155, 150) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 10 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_high for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (800, 155, 150) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 10 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_high for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (800, 155, 150) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 10 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_high for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (800, 155, 150) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 11 } -$ Cutflow for DM_high for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (300, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 11 } -$ Cutflow for DM_high for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (300, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 11 } -$ Cutflow for DM_high for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (300, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 11 } -$ Cutflow for DM_high for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (300, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 12 } -$ Cutflow for DM_low for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (20, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 12 } -$ Cutflow for DM_low for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (20, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 12 } -$ Cutflow for DM_low for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (20, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 12 } -$ Cutflow for DM_low for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (20, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 13 } -$ Cutflow for DM_low_loose for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (20, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 13 } -$ Cutflow for DM_low_loose for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (20, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 13 } -$ Cutflow for DM_low_loose for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (20, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 13 } -$ Cutflow for DM_low_loose for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (20, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Acceptance 1 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Acceptance 1 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Acceptance 1 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Acceptance 1 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Efficiency 1 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Efficiency 1 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Efficiency 1 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Efficiency 1 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Acceptance 2 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Acceptance 2 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Acceptance 2 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Acceptance 2 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Efficiency 2 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Efficiency 2 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Efficiency 2 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Efficiency 2 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Acceptance 3 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the wino NLSP model with $\mu > 0$.
$\textbf{Acceptance 3 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the wino NLSP model with $\mu > 0$.
$\textbf{Acceptance 3 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the wino NLSP model with $\mu > 0$.
$\textbf{Acceptance 3 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the wino NLSP model with $\mu > 0$.
$\textbf{Efficiency 3 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the wino NLSP model with $\mu > 0$.
$\textbf{Efficiency 3 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the wino NLSP model with $\mu > 0$.
$\textbf{Efficiency 3 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the wino NLSP model with $\mu > 0$.
$\textbf{Efficiency 3 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the wino NLSP model with $\mu > 0$.
$\textbf{Acceptance 4 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV. The model assumes large $\tan\beta$ and the $\tilde{t}_{1}$ to be mostly $\tilde{t}_{L}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Acceptance 4 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV. The model assumes large $\tan\beta$ and the $\tilde{t}_{1}$ to be mostly $\tilde{t}_{L}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Acceptance 4 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV. The model assumes large $\tan\beta$ and the $\tilde{t}_{1}$ to be mostly $\tilde{t}_{L}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Acceptance 4 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV. The model assumes large $\tan\beta$ and the $\tilde{t}_{1}$ to be mostly $\tilde{t}_{L}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Efficiency 4 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV. The model assumes large $\tan\beta$ and the $\tilde{t}_{1}$ to be mostly $\tilde{t}_{L}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Efficiency 4 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV. The model assumes large $\tan\beta$ and the $\tilde{t}_{1}$ to be mostly $\tilde{t}_{L}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Efficiency 4 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV. The model assumes large $\tan\beta$ and the $\tilde{t}_{1}$ to be mostly $\tilde{t}_{L}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Efficiency 4 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV. The model assumes large $\tan\beta$ and the $\tilde{t}_{1}$ to be mostly $\tilde{t}_{L}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Acceptance 5 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV, in the region where $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) < m_{\textrm{top}}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Acceptance 5 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV, in the region where $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) < m_{\textrm{top}}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Acceptance 5 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV, in the region where $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) < m_{\textrm{top}}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Acceptance 5 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV, in the region where $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) < m_{\textrm{top}}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Efficiency 5 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV, in the region where $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) < m_{\textrm{top}}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Efficiency 5 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV, in the region where $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) < m_{\textrm{top}}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Efficiency 5 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV, in the region where $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) < m_{\textrm{top}}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Efficiency 5 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV, in the region where $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) < m_{\textrm{top}}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Acceptance 6 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the simplified model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}) = 10$ GeV.
$\textbf{Acceptance 6 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the simplified model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}) = 10$ GeV.
$\textbf{Acceptance 6 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the simplified model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}) = 10$ GeV.
$\textbf{Acceptance 6 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the simplified model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}) = 10$ GeV.
$\textbf{Efficiency 6 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the simplified model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}) = 10$ GeV.
$\textbf{Efficiency 6 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the simplified model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}) = 10$ GeV.
$\textbf{Efficiency 6 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the simplified model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}) = 10$ GeV.
$\textbf{Efficiency 6 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the simplified model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}) = 10$ GeV.
$\textbf{Acceptance 7 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the spin-0 mediator model, assuming a scalar mediator. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Acceptance 7 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the spin-0 mediator model, assuming a scalar mediator. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Acceptance 7 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the spin-0 mediator model, assuming a scalar mediator. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Acceptance 7 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the spin-0 mediator model, assuming a scalar mediator. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Efficiency 7 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the spin-0 mediator model, assuming a scalar mediator. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Efficiency 7 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the spin-0 mediator model, assuming a scalar mediator. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Efficiency 7 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the spin-0 mediator model, assuming a scalar mediator. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Efficiency 7 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the spin-0 mediator model, assuming a scalar mediator. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
A detailed study of multi-particle azimuthal correlations is presented using $pp$ data at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ and 13 TeV, and $p$+Pb data at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV, recorded with the ATLAS detector at the LHC. The azimuthal correlations are probed using four-particle cumulants $c_{n}\{4\}$ and flow coefficients $v_n\{4\}=(-c_{n}\{4\})^{1/4}$ for $n=2$ and 3, with the goal of extracting long-range multi-particle azimuthal correlation signals and suppressing the short-range correlations. The values of $c_{n}\{4\}$ are obtained as a function of the average number of charged particles per event, $\left\langle N_{\rm{ch}} \right\rangle$, using the recently proposed two-subevent and three-subevent cumulant methods, and compared with results obtained with the standard cumulant method. The three-subevent method is found to be least sensitive to short-range correlations, which originate mostly from jets with a positive contribution to $c_{n}\{4\}$. The three-subevent method gives a negative $c_{2}\{4\}$, and therefore a well-defined $v_2\{4\}$, nearly independent of $\left\langle N_{\rm{ch}} \right\rangle$, which provides direct evidence that the long-range multi-particle azimuthal correlations persist to events with low multiplicity. Furthermore, $v_2\{4\}$ is found to be smaller than the $v_2\{2\}$ measured using the two-particle correlation method, as expected for long-range collective behavior. Finally, the measured values of $v_2\{4\}$ and $v_2\{2\}$ are used to estimate the number of sources relevant for the initial eccentricity in the collision geometry.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.2 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.4 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.6 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.2 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.4 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.6 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.2 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.4 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.6 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.2 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.4 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.6 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.2 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.4 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.6 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.2 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.4 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.6 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 2-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.
The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.
The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.
The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.
The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.
The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.
The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.
The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.
The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.
The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.
The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.
The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.
The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.
The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.
The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.2 GeV.
The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.4 GeV.
The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.6 GeV.
The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.
The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.2 GeV.
The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.4 GeV.
The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.6 GeV.
The v_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.
The v_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.
The v_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.
The v_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.
The v_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.
The v_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.
The N_s calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.
The N_s values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.
The N_s values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.
The N_s values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.
A search for $W'$-boson production in the $W' \rightarrow t\bar{b} \rightarrow q\bar{q}' b\bar{b}$ decay channel is presented using 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ of 13 TeV proton-proton collision data collected by the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider in 2015 and 2016. The search is interpreted in terms of both a left-handed and a right-handed chiral $W'$ boson within the mass range 1-5 TeV. Identification of the hadronically decaying top quark is performed using jet substructure tagging techniques based on a shower deconstruction algorithm. No significant deviation from the Standard Model prediction is observed and the results are expressed as upper limits on the $W' \rightarrow t\bar{b}$ production cross-section times branching ratio as a function of the $W'$-boson mass. These limits exclude $W'$ bosons with right-handed couplings with masses below 3.0 TeV and $W'$ bosons with left-handed couplings with masses below 2.9 TeV, at the 95% confidence level.
Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the right-handed W'-boson cross-section times branching ratio of W' to tb decay as a function of the corresponding W'-boson mass.
Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the left-handed W'-boson cross-section times branching ratio of W' to tb decay as a function of the corresponding W'-boson mass.
Reconstructed mtb distribution in data and for the background after the fit to the data in the signal region SR1. The statistical uncertainty on data points is calculated using assymetric Poisson confidence intervals.
Reconstructed mtb distribution in data and for the background after the fit to the data in the signal region SR2. The statistical uncertainty on data points is calculated using assymetric Poisson confidence intervals.
Reconstructed mtb distribution in data and for the background after the fit to the data in the signal region SR3. The statistical uncertainty on data points is calculated using assymetric Poisson confidence intervals.
Reconstructed mtb distribution in data and for the background after the fit to the data in the validation region VR. The statistical uncertainty on data points is calculated using assymetric Poisson confidence intervals.
When you search on a word, e.g. 'collisions', we will automatically search across everything we store about a record. But, sometimes you may wish to be more specific. Here we show you how.
Guidance and examples on the query string syntax can be found in the Elasticsearch documentation.
About HEPData Submitting to HEPData HEPData File Formats HEPData Coordinators HEPData Terms of Use HEPData Cookie Policy
Status
Email
Forum
Twitter
GitHub
Copyright ~1975-Present, HEPData | Powered by Invenio, funded by STFC, hosted and originally developed at CERN, supported and further developed at IPPP Durham.