Showing 4 of 14 results
A search is presented for particles that decay producing a large jet multiplicity and invisible particles. The event selection applies a veto on the presence of isolated electrons or muons and additional requirements on the number of b-tagged jets and the scalar sum of masses of large-radius jets. Having explored the full ATLAS 2015-2016 dataset of LHC proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13~\mathrm{TeV}$, which corresponds to 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity, no evidence is found for physics beyond the Standard Model. The results are interpreted in the context of simplified models inspired by R-parity-conserving and R-parity-violating supersymmetry, where gluinos are pair-produced. More generic models within the phenomenological minimal supersymmetric Standard Model are also considered.
Post-fit yields for each signal region in the multijets analysis. Summary of all 27 signal regions (post-fit).
Post-fit yields for each signal region in the multijets analysis. Summary of all 27 signal regions (post-fit).
Observed 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.
Observed 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.
Observed 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid when the signal cross section is increased by one standard deviation.
Observed 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid when the signal cross section is increased by one standard deviation.
Observed 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid when the signal cross section is decreased by one standard deviation.
Observed 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid when the signal cross section is decreased by one standard deviation.
Expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.
Expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.
Expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid with an up variation of the uncertainties.
Expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid with an up variation of the uncertainties.
Expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid with a down variation of the uncertainties.
Expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid with a down variation of the uncertainties.
Observed 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.
Observed 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.
Observed 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid when the signal cross section is increased by one standard deviation.
Observed 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid when the signal cross section is increased by one standard deviation.
Observed 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid when the signal cross section is decreased by one standard deviation.
Observed 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid when the signal cross section is decreased by one standard deviation.
Expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.
Expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.
Expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid with an up variation of the uncertainties.
Expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid with an up variation of the uncertainties.
Expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid with a down variation of the uncertainties.
Expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid with a down variation of the uncertainties.
Observed 95% CL limit for the gtt off-shell grid.
Observed 95% CL limit for the gtt off-shell grid.
Observed 95% CL limit for the gtt off-shell grid when the signal cross section is increased by one standard deviation.
Observed 95% CL limit for the gtt off-shell grid when the signal cross section is increased by one standard deviation.
Observed 95% CL limit for the gtt off-shell grid when the signal cross section is decreased by one standard deviation.
Observed 95% CL limit for the gtt off-shell grid when the signal cross section is decreased by one standard deviation.
Expected 95% CL limit for the gtt off-shell grid.
Expected 95% CL limit for the gtt off-shell grid.
Expected 95% CL limit for the gtt off-shell grid with an up variation of the uncertainties.
Expected 95% CL limit for the gtt off-shell grid with an up variation of the uncertainties.
Expected 95% CL limit for the gtt off-shell grid with a down variation of the uncertainties.
Expected 95% CL limit for the gtt off-shell grid with a down variation of the uncertainties.
Observed 95% CL limit for the RPV grid.
Observed 95% CL limit for the RPV grid.
Observed 95% CL limit for the RPV grid when the signal cross section is increased by one standard deviation.
Observed 95% CL limit for the RPV grid when the signal cross section is increased by one standard deviation.
Observed 95% CL limit for the RPV grid when the signal cross section is decreased by one standard deviation.
Observed 95% CL limit for the RPV grid when the signal cross section is decreased by one standard deviation.
Expected 95% CL limit for the RPV grid.
Expected 95% CL limit for the RPV grid.
Expected 95% CL limit for the RPV grid with an up variation of the uncertainties.
Expected 95% CL limit for the RPV grid with an up variation of the uncertainties.
Expected 95% CL limit for the RPV grid with a down variation of the uncertainties.
Expected 95% CL limit for the RPV grid with a down variation of the uncertainties.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-7j80-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-7j80-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-7j80-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-7j80-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-7j80-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-7j80-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j80-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j80-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j80-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j80-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j80-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j80-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j80-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j80-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j80-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j80-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j80-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j80-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j50-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j50-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j50-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j50-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j50-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j50-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j50-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j50-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-10j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-10j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-10j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-10j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-10j50-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-10j50-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-10j50-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-10j50-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-11j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-11j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-11j50-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-11j50-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-11j50-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-11j50-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j50-0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j50-0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j50-1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j50-1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j50-2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j50-2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j50-0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j50-0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j50-1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j50-1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j50-2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j50-2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-10j50-0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-10j50-0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-10j50-1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-10j50-1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-10j50-2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-10j50-2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-11j50-0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-11j50-0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-11j50-1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-11j50-1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-11j50-2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-11j50-2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-7j80-0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-7j80-0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-7j80-1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-7j80-1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-7j80-2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-7j80-2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j80-0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j80-0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j80-1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j80-1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j80-2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j80-2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j80-0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j80-0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j80-1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j80-1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j80-2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j80-2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j50-0b-MJ340. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j50-0b-MJ340. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j50-0b-MJ500. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j50-0b-MJ500. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j50-0b-MJ340. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j50-0b-MJ340. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j50-0b-MJ500. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j50-0b-MJ500. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-10j50-0b-MJ340. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-10j50-0b-MJ340. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-10j50-0b-MJ500. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-10j50-0b-MJ500. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with no b-jet requirement and a minimum transverse momentum of 50 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with no b-jet requirement and a minimum transverse momentum of 50 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with one inclusive b-jet required and a minimum transverse momentum of 50 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with one inclusive b-jet required and a minimum transverse momentum of 50 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with two inclusive b-jets required and a minimum transverse momentum of 50 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with two inclusive b-jets required and a minimum transverse momentum of 50 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with no b-jet requirement and a minimum transverse momentum of 80 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with no b-jet requirement and a minimum transverse momentum of 80 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with one inclusive b-jet required and a minimum transverse momentum of 80 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with one inclusive b-jet required and a minimum transverse momentum of 80 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with two inclusive b-jets required and a minimum transverse momentum of 80 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with two inclusive b-jets required and a minimum transverse momentum of 80 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the fat-jet stream with MJSigma above 340 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the fat-jet stream with MJSigma above 340 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the fat-jet stream with MJSigma above 500 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the fat-jet stream with MJSigma above 500 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the 2Step grid.
The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the 2Step grid.
The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the 2Step grid.
The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the 2Step grid.
The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the 2Step grid.
The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the 2Step grid.
The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the pMSSM grid.
The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the pMSSM grid.
The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the pMSSM grid.
The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the pMSSM grid.
The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the pMSSM grid.
The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the pMSSM grid.
The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the RPV grid.
The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the RPV grid.
The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the RPV grid.
The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the RPV grid.
The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the RPV grid.
The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the RPV grid.
The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the gtt off-shell grid.
The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the gtt off-shell grid.
The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the gtt off-shell grid.
The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the gtt off-shell grid.
The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the gtt off-shell grid.
The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the gtt off-shell grid.
95% CLs observed upper limit on model cross-section (in fb) for 2Step signal points for the best-expected signal region.
95% CLs observed upper limit on model cross-section (in fb) for 2Step signal points for the best-expected signal region.
95% CLs observed upper limit on model cross-section (in fb) for RPV signal points for the best-expected signal region.
95% CLs observed upper limit on model cross-section (in fb) for RPV signal points for the best-expected signal region.
95% CLs observed upper limit on model cross-section (in fb) for gtt off-shell signal points for the best-expected signal region.
95% CLs observed upper limit on model cross-section (in fb) for gtt off-shell signal points for the best-expected signal region.
Performance of the SR-8j50-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-8j50-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-8j50-0b-MJ340 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-8j50-0b-MJ340 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-8j50-0b-MJ500 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-8j50-0b-MJ500 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-8j50-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-8j50-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-8j50-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-8j50-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-9j50-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-9j50-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-9j50-0b-MJ340 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-9j50-0b-MJ340 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-9j50-0b-MJ500 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-9j50-0b-MJ500 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-9j50-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-9j50-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-9j50-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-9j50-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-10j50-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-10j50-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-10j50-0b-MJ340 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-10j50-0b-MJ340 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-10j50-0b-MJ500 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-10j50-0b-MJ500 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-10j50-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-10j50-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-10j50-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-10j50-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-11j50-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-11j50-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-11j50-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-11j50-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-11j50-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-11j50-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-7j80-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-7j80-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-7j80-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-7j80-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-7j80-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-7j80-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-8j80-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-8j80-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-8j80-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-8j80-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-8j80-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-8j80-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-9j80-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-9j80-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-9j80-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-9j80-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-9j80-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-9j80-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
A search for strongly produced supersymmetric particles using signatures involving multiple energetic jets and either two isolated same-sign leptons ($e$ or $\mu$), or at least three isolated leptons, is presented. The analysis relies on the identification of $b$-jets and high missing transverse momentum to achieve good sensitivity. A data sample of proton--proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}= 13$ TeV recorded with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider in 2015 and 2016, corresponding to a total integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$, is used for the search. No significant excess over the Standard Model prediction is observed. The results are interpreted in several simplified supersymmetric models featuring $R$-parity conservation or $R$-parity violation, extending the exclusion limits from previous searches. In models considering gluino pair production, gluino masses are excluded up to 1.87 TeV at 95% confidence level. When bottom squarks are pair-produced and decay to a chargino and a top quark, models with bottom squark masses below 700 GeV and light neutralinos are excluded at 95% confidence level. In addition, model-independent limits are set on a possible contribution of new phenomena to the signal region yields.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino via an offshell top squark, $\tilde g\to t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino via an offshell top squark, $\tilde g\to t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino via an offshell top squark, $\tilde g\to t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino via an offshell top squark, $\tilde g\to t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade involving sleptons, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu$ and $\tilde\ell/\tilde\nu\to \ell/\nu\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade involving sleptons, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu$ and $\tilde\ell/\tilde\nu\to \ell/\nu\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade involving sleptons, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu$ and $\tilde\ell/\tilde\nu\to \ell/\nu\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade involving sleptons, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu$ and $\tilde\ell/\tilde\nu\to \ell/\nu\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours on the lightest bottom squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours on the lightest bottom squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours on the lightest bottom squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours on the lightest bottom squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest top squark masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an antitop squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$ or $\lambda^{''}_{323}$, $\tilde g\to \bar{t}\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to \bar b\bar d / \bar b \bar s$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest top squark masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an antitop squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$ or $\lambda^{''}_{323}$, $\tilde g\to \bar{t}\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to \bar b\bar d / \bar b \bar s$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest top squark masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an antitop squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$ or $\lambda^{''}_{323}$, $\tilde g\to \bar{t}\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to \bar b\bar d / \bar b \bar s$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest top squark masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an antitop squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$ or $\lambda^{''}_{323}$, $\tilde g\to \bar{t}\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to \bar b\bar d / \bar b \bar s$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest top squark masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an antitop squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{321}$, $\lambda^{''}_{311}$ or $\lambda^{''}_{322}$, $\tilde g\to \bar{t}\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to \bar s\bar d /\bar d \bar d/\bar s \bar s$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest top squark masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an antitop squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{321}$, $\lambda^{''}_{311}$ or $\lambda^{''}_{322}$, $\tilde g\to \bar{t}\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to \bar s\bar d /\bar d \bar d/\bar s \bar s$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest top squark masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an antitop squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{321}$, $\lambda^{''}_{311}$ or $\lambda^{''}_{322}$, $\tilde g\to \bar{t}\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to \bar s\bar d /\bar d \bar d/\bar s \bar s$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest top squark masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an antitop squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{321}$, $\lambda^{''}_{311}$ or $\lambda^{''}_{322}$, $\tilde g\to \bar{t}\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to \bar s\bar d /\bar d \bar d/\bar s \bar s$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon- and lepton-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{'}_{ijk}$, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^0\to q\bar{q}^{'}\ell$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon- and lepton-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{'}_{ijk}$, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^0\to q\bar{q}^{'}\ell$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon- and lepton-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{'}_{ijk}$, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^0\to q\bar{q}^{'}\ell$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon- and lepton-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{'}_{ijk}$, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^0\to q\bar{q}^{'}\ell$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into a pair of top-antitop quarks and the lightest neutralino, which in turn decays into light quarks via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{ijk}$, $\tilde g\to t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^0\to qqq$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into a pair of top-antitop quarks and the lightest neutralino, which in turn decays into light quarks via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{ijk}$, $\tilde g\to t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^0\to qqq$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into a pair of top-antitop quarks and the lightest neutralino, which in turn decays into light quarks via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{ijk}$, $\tilde g\to t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^0\to qqq$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into a pair of top-antitop quarks and the lightest neutralino, which in turn decays into light quarks via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{ijk}$, $\tilde g\to t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^0\to qqq$.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino via an offshell top squark, $\tilde g\to t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The table also shows the signal acceptance and reconstruction efficiency for the signal region(s) with sensitivity to this scenario.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino via an offshell top squark, $\tilde g\to t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The table also shows the signal acceptance and reconstruction efficiency for the signal region(s) with sensitivity to this scenario.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The table also shows the signal acceptance and reconstruction efficiency for the signal region(s) with sensitivity to this scenario.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The table also shows the signal acceptance and reconstruction efficiency for the signal region(s) with sensitivity to this scenario.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade involving sleptons, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu$ and $\tilde\ell/\tilde\nu\to \ell/\nu\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The table also shows the signal acceptance and reconstruction efficiency for the signal region(s) with sensitivity to this scenario.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade involving sleptons, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu$ and $\tilde\ell/\tilde\nu\to \ell/\nu\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The table also shows the signal acceptance and reconstruction efficiency for the signal region(s) with sensitivity to this scenario.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The table also shows the signal acceptance and reconstruction efficiency for the signal region(s) with sensitivity to this scenario.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The table also shows the signal acceptance and reconstruction efficiency for the signal region(s) with sensitivity to this scenario.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an antitop squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$ or $\lambda^{''}_{323}$, $\tilde g\to \bar{t}\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to \bar b\bar d / \bar b \bar s$. The table also shows the signal acceptance and reconstruction efficiency for the signal region(s) with sensitivity to this scenario.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an antitop squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$ or $\lambda^{''}_{323}$, $\tilde g\to \bar{t}\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to \bar b\bar d / \bar b \bar s$. The table also shows the signal acceptance and reconstruction efficiency for the signal region(s) with sensitivity to this scenario.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an antitop squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{321}$, $\lambda^{''}_{311}$ or $\lambda^{''}_{322}$, $\tilde g\to \bar{t}\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to \bar s\bar d /\bar d \bar d/\bar s \bar s$. The table also shows the signal acceptance and reconstruction efficiency for the signal region(s) with sensitivity to this scenario.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an antitop squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{321}$, $\lambda^{''}_{311}$ or $\lambda^{''}_{322}$, $\tilde g\to \bar{t}\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to \bar s\bar d /\bar d \bar d/\bar s \bar s$. The table also shows the signal acceptance and reconstruction efficiency for the signal region(s) with sensitivity to this scenario.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon- and lepton-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{'}_{ijk}$, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^0\to q\bar{q}^{'}\ell$. The table also shows the signal acceptance and reconstruction efficiency for the signal region(s) with sensitivity to this scenario.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon- and lepton-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{'}_{ijk}$, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^0\to q\bar{q}^{'}\ell$. The table also shows the signal acceptance and reconstruction efficiency for the signal region(s) with sensitivity to this scenario.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into a pair of top-antitop quarks and the lightest neutralino, which in turn decays into light quarks via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{ijk}$, $\tilde g\to t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^0\to qqq$. The table also shows the signal acceptance and reconstruction efficiency for the signal region(s) with sensitivity to this scenario.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into a pair of top-antitop quarks and the lightest neutralino, which in turn decays into light quarks via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{ijk}$, $\tilde g\to t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^0\to qqq$. The table also shows the signal acceptance and reconstruction efficiency for the signal region(s) with sensitivity to this scenario.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on $pp\to \tilde{t}^{}_\mathrm{1}\tilde{t}^{*}_\mathrm{1}$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate. The table also shows the signal acceptance and reconstruction efficiency for the signal region(s) with sensitivity to this scenario.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on $pp\to \tilde{t}^{}_\mathrm{1}\tilde{t}^{*}_\mathrm{1}$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate. The table also shows the signal acceptance and reconstruction efficiency for the signal region(s) with sensitivity to this scenario.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario with non-universal Higgs masses (NUHM2, see the publication Refs. [31-32]). The table also shows the signal acceptance and reconstruction efficiency for the signal region(s) with sensitivity to this scenario.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario with non-universal Higgs masses (NUHM2, see the publication Refs. [31-32]). The table also shows the signal acceptance and reconstruction efficiency for the signal region(s) with sensitivity to this scenario.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on $pp\to \tilde{d}^{}_\mathrm{R}\tilde{d}^{*}_\mathrm{R}$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an antitop squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$ or $\lambda^{''}_{323}$, $\tilde g\to \bar{t}\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to \bar b\bar d / \bar b \bar s$. The table also shows the signal acceptance and reconstruction efficiency for the signal region(s) with sensitivity to this scenario.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on $pp\to \tilde{d}^{}_\mathrm{R}\tilde{d}^{*}_\mathrm{R}$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an antitop squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$ or $\lambda^{''}_{323}$, $\tilde g\to \bar{t}\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to \bar b\bar d / \bar b \bar s$. The table also shows the signal acceptance and reconstruction efficiency for the signal region(s) with sensitivity to this scenario.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on $pp\to \tilde{d}^{}_\mathrm{R}\tilde{d}^{*}_\mathrm{R}$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an antitop squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{321}$, $\lambda^{''}_{311}$ or $\lambda^{''}_{322}$, $\tilde g\to \bar{t}\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to \bar s\bar d /\bar d \bar d/\bar s \bar s$. The table also shows the signal acceptance and reconstruction efficiency for the signal region(s) with sensitivity to this scenario.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on $pp\to \tilde{d}^{}_\mathrm{R}\tilde{d}^{*}_\mathrm{R}$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an antitop squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{321}$, $\lambda^{''}_{311}$ or $\lambda^{''}_{322}$, $\tilde g\to \bar{t}\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to \bar s\bar d /\bar d \bar d/\bar s \bar s$. The table also shows the signal acceptance and reconstruction efficiency for the signal region(s) with sensitivity to this scenario.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L2bS, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino via an offshell top squark, $\tilde g\to t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1500 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L2bS, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino via an offshell top squark, $\tilde g\to t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1500 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L2bH, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino via an offshell top squark, $\tilde g\to t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1700 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 200 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L2bH, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino via an offshell top squark, $\tilde g\to t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1700 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 200 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2Lsoft1b, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino via offshell top squark and top quark, $\tilde g\to t\bar{b}W^{-}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1200 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 940 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2Lsoft1b, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino via offshell top squark and top quark, $\tilde g\to t\bar{b}W^{-}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1200 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 940 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2Lsoft2b, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino via offshell top squark and top quark, $\tilde g\to t\bar{b}W^{-}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1200 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 900 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2Lsoft2b, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino via offshell top squark and top quark, $\tilde g\to t\bar{b}W^{-}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1200 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 900 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L0bS, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1200 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 1050 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_2^0)$ = 975 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 900 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L0bS, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1200 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 1050 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_2^0)$ = 975 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 900 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L0bH, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1600 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 850 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_2^0)$ = 475 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 100 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L0bH, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1600 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 850 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_2^0)$ = 475 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 100 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc3L0bS, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade involving sleptons, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu$ and $\tilde\ell/\tilde\nu\to \ell/\nu\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1400 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_2^0)$ = 1250 GeV, $m(\tilde\ell)=m(\tilde\nu)$ = 1175 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 1100 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc3L0bS, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade involving sleptons, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu$ and $\tilde\ell/\tilde\nu\to \ell/\nu\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1400 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_2^0)$ = 1250 GeV, $m(\tilde\ell)=m(\tilde\nu)$ = 1175 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 1100 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc3L0bH, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade involving sleptons, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu$ and $\tilde\ell/\tilde\nu\to \ell/\nu\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1800 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_2^0)$ = 950 GeV, $m(\tilde\ell)=m(\tilde\nu)$ = 475 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 100 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc3L0bH, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade involving sleptons, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu$ and $\tilde\ell/\tilde\nu\to \ell/\nu\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1800 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_2^0)$ = 950 GeV, $m(\tilde\ell)=m(\tilde\nu)$ = 475 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 100 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L1bS, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{b}^{}_1)$ = 600 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 350 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 250 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L1bS, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{b}^{}_1)$ = 600 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 350 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 250 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L1bH, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{b}^{}_1)$ = 750 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 200 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 100 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L1bH, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{b}^{}_1)$ = 750 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 200 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 100 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc3LSS1b, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{t}^{}_1)$ = 700 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_2^0)$ = 525 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)\approx m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 425 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc3LSS1b, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{t}^{}_1)$ = 700 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_2^0)$ = 525 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)\approx m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 425 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpv2L1bH, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an antitop squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{321}$, $\lambda^{''}_{311}$ or $\lambda^{''}_{322}$, $\tilde g\to \bar{t}\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to \bar s\bar d /\bar d \bar d/\bar s \bar s$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1400 GeV, $m(\tilde{t}^{}_{1})$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpv2L1bH, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an antitop squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{321}$, $\lambda^{''}_{311}$ or $\lambda^{''}_{322}$, $\tilde g\to \bar{t}\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to \bar s\bar d /\bar d \bar d/\bar s \bar s$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1400 GeV, $m(\tilde{t}^{}_{1})$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpv2L0b, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon- and lepton-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{'}_{ijk}$, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^0\to q\bar{q}^{'}\ell$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1400 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ = 500 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpv2L0b, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon- and lepton-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{'}_{ijk}$, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^0\to q\bar{q}^{'}\ell$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1400 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ = 500 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpv2L2bH, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into a pair of top-antitop quarks and the lightest neutralino, which in turn decays into light quarks via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{ijk}$, $\tilde g\to t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^0\to qqq$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1800 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ = 200 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpv2L2bH, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into a pair of top-antitop quarks and the lightest neutralino, which in turn decays into light quarks via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{ijk}$, $\tilde g\to t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^0\to qqq$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1800 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ = 200 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpv2L2bS, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of down-down squark-rights are produced and decay into a pair of top and bottom quarks via a non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV coupling $\lambda^{''}_{331}$, $\tilde{d}^{}_\mathrm{R}\to \bar t\bar b$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{d}^{}_\mathrm{R})$ = 600 GeV, $m(\tilde g)$ = 2000 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpv2L2bS, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of down-down squark-rights are produced and decay into a pair of top and bottom quarks via a non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV coupling $\lambda^{''}_{331}$, $\tilde{d}^{}_\mathrm{R}\to \bar t\bar b$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{d}^{}_\mathrm{R})$ = 600 GeV, $m(\tilde g)$ = 2000 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpv2L1bS, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of down-down squarks are produced and decay into a pair of top and a light quarks via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{321}$ or $\lambda^{''}_{322}$, $\tilde{d}^{}_\mathrm{R}\to \bar t\bar s/\bar t\bar d$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{d}^{}_\mathrm{R})$ = 600 GeV, $m(\tilde g)$ = 2000 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpv2L1bS, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of down-down squarks are produced and decay into a pair of top and a light quarks via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{321}$ or $\lambda^{''}_{322}$, $\tilde{d}^{}_\mathrm{R}\to \bar t\bar s/\bar t\bar d$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{d}^{}_\mathrm{R})$ = 600 GeV, $m(\tilde g)$ = 2000 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpv2L1bM, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of down-down squarks are produced and decay into a pair of top and a light quarks via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{321}$ or $\lambda^{''}_{322}$, $\tilde{d}^{}_\mathrm{R}\to \bar t\bar s/\bar t\bar d$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{d}^{}_\mathrm{R})$ = 1000 GeV, $m(\tilde g)$ = 2000 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpv2L1bM, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of down-down squarks are produced and decay into a pair of top and a light quarks via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{321}$ or $\lambda^{''}_{322}$, $\tilde{d}^{}_\mathrm{R}\to \bar t\bar s/\bar t\bar d$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{d}^{}_\mathrm{R})$ = 1000 GeV, $m(\tilde g)$ = 2000 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
A search for new phenomena in final states characterized by high jet multiplicity, an isolated lepton (electron or muon) and either zero or at least three $b$-tagged jets is presented. The search uses 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ of $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV proton-proton collision data collected by the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider in 2015 and 2016. The dominant sources of background are estimated using parameterized extrapolations, based on observables at medium jet multiplicity, to predict the $b$-tagged jet multiplicity distribution at the higher jet multiplicities used in the search. No significant excess over the Standard Model expectation is observed and 95% confidence-level limits are extracted constraining four simplified models of $R$-parity-violating supersymmetry that feature either gluino or top-squark pair production. The exclusion limits reach as high as 2.1 TeV in gluino mass and 1.2 TeV in top-squark mass in the models considered. In addition, an upper limit is set on the cross-section for Standard Model $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ production of 60 fb (6.5 $\times$ the Standard Model prediction) at 95% confidence level. Finally, model-independent limits are set on the contribution from new phenomena to the signal-region yields.
The expected background and observed data with five jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with five jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with five jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with six jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with six jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with six jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with seven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with seven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with seven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with eight jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with eight jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with eight jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with nine jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with nine jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with nine jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with ten jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with ten jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with ten jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with eleven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with eleven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with eleven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with twelve-or-more jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with twelve-or-more jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with twelve-or-more jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with five jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with five jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with five jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with six jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with six jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with six jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with seven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with seven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with seven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with eight jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with eight jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with eight jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with nine jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with nine jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with nine jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with ten-or-more jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with ten-or-more jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with ten-or-more jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with five jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with five jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with five jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with six jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with six jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with six jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with seven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with seven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with seven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with eight jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with eight jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with eight jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with nine jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with nine jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with nine jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with ten-or-more jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with ten-or-more jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with ten-or-more jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
Observed exclusion contours on the gluino and neutralino masses in a model where the gluino decays via a virtual top squark to two top quarks and the lightest neutralino, with the neutralino decaying to three light quarks (neutralino --> uds) via the RPV coupling lambda''_112.
Observed exclusion contours on the gluino and neutralino masses in a model where the gluino decays via a virtual top squark to two top quarks and the lightest neutralino, with the neutralino decaying to three light quarks (neutralino --> uds) via the RPV coupling lambda''_112.
Observed exclusion contours on the gluino and neutralino masses in a model where the gluino decays via a virtual top squark to two top quarks and the lightest neutralino, with the neutralino decaying to three light quarks (neutralino --> uds) via the RPV coupling lambda''_112.
Expected exclusion contours on the gluino and neutralino masses in a model where the gluino decays via a virtual top squark to two top quarks and the lightest neutralino, with the neutralino decaying to three light quarks (neutralino --> uds) via the RPV coupling lambda''_112.
Expected exclusion contours on the gluino and neutralino masses in a model where the gluino decays via a virtual top squark to two top quarks and the lightest neutralino, with the neutralino decaying to three light quarks (neutralino --> uds) via the RPV coupling lambda''_112.
Expected exclusion contours on the gluino and neutralino masses in a model where the gluino decays via a virtual top squark to two top quarks and the lightest neutralino, with the neutralino decaying to three light quarks (neutralino --> uds) via the RPV coupling lambda''_112.
Observed exclusion contours on the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.
Observed exclusion contours on the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.
Observed exclusion contours on the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.
Expected exclusion contours on the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.
Expected exclusion contours on the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.
Expected exclusion contours on the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.
Observed exclusion contours on the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.
Observed exclusion contours on the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.
Observed exclusion contours on the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.
Expected exclusion contours on the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.
Expected exclusion contours on the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.
Expected exclusion contours on the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.
Observed exclusion contours on the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a third-generation quark and a higgsino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.
Observed exclusion contours on the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a third-generation quark and a higgsino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.
Observed exclusion contours on the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a third-generation quark and a higgsino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.
Expected exclusion contours on the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a third-generation quark and a higgsino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.
Expected exclusion contours on the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a third-generation quark and a higgsino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.
Expected exclusion contours on the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a third-generation quark and a higgsino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.
Observed exclusion contours on the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a top and a bino-like neutralino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.
Observed exclusion contours on the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a top and a bino-like neutralino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.
Observed exclusion contours on the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a top and a bino-like neutralino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.
Expected exclusion contours on the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a top and a bino-like neutralino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.
Expected exclusion contours on the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a top and a bino-like neutralino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.
Expected exclusion contours on the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a top and a bino-like neutralino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.
Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the gluino and neutralino masses in a model where the gluino decays via a virtual top squark to two top quarks and the lightest neutralino, with the neutralino decaying to three light quarks (neutralino --> uds) via the RPV coupling lambda''_112.
Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the gluino and neutralino masses in a model where the gluino decays via a virtual top squark to two top quarks and the lightest neutralino, with the neutralino decaying to three light quarks (neutralino --> uds) via the RPV coupling lambda''_112.
Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the gluino and neutralino masses in a model where the gluino decays via a virtual top squark to two top quarks and the lightest neutralino, with the neutralino decaying to three light quarks (neutralino --> uds) via the RPV coupling lambda''_112.
Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.
Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.
Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.
Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.
Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.
Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.
Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a third-generation quark and a higgsino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.
Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a third-generation quark and a higgsino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.
Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a third-generation quark and a higgsino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.
Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a top and a bino-like neutralino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.
Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a top and a bino-like neutralino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.
Observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb as a function of the stop and neutralino masses in a model where the stop decays to a top and a bino-like neutralino, which decays via the RPV coupling lambda''_323.
Acceptance as a function of the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.
Acceptance as a function of the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.
Acceptance as a function of the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.
Efficiency as a function of the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.
Efficiency as a function of the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.
Efficiency as a function of the gluino and stop masses in a model where the gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s-quark and a b-quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling.
Acceptance as a function of the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.
Acceptance as a function of the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.
Acceptance as a function of the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.
Efficiency as a function of the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.
Efficiency as a function of the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.
Efficiency as a function of the gluino and neutralino masses in a model with a gluino decaying to two light quarks (q=u,d,s,c) and the neutralino, which then decays to two light quarks and a charged lepton or a neutrino.
Cut flow for a model of gluino pair production where the gluino decays to two (u, d, s, c) quarks and the neutralino, which then decays to two (u, d, s, c) quarks and a lepton via a lambda' RPV coupling, where each RPV decay can produce any of the four first and second generation leptons (e, mu, nu_e, nu_mu) with equal probability (m_gluino = 1800 GeV, m_neutralino = 900 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.
Cut flow for a model of gluino pair production where the gluino decays to two (u, d, s, c) quarks and the neutralino, which then decays to two (u, d, s, c) quarks and a lepton via a lambda' RPV coupling, where each RPV decay can produce any of the four first and second generation leptons (e, mu, nu_e, nu_mu) with equal probability (m_gluino = 1800 GeV, m_neutralino = 900 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.
Cut flow for a model of gluino pair production where the gluino decays to two (u, d, s, c) quarks and the neutralino, which then decays to two (u, d, s, c) quarks and a lepton via a lambda' RPV coupling, where each RPV decay can produce any of the four first and second generation leptons (e, mu, nu_e, nu_mu) with equal probability (m_gluino = 1800 GeV, m_neutralino = 900 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.
Cut flow for a model of gluino pair production where each gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s- and a b- quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling (m_gluino = 1600 GeV, m_stop = 1000 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.
Cut flow for a model of gluino pair production where each gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s- and a b- quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling (m_gluino = 1600 GeV, m_stop = 1000 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.
Cut flow for a model of gluino pair production where each gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s- and a b- quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling (m_gluino = 1600 GeV, m_stop = 1000 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.
Cut flow for a model of gluino pair production where each gluino decays via an off-shell top squark to two top quarks and the lightest neutralino, with the neutralino decaying to three light quarks (neutralino -> uds) via the RPV coupling lambda''_112 (m_gluino = 2000 GeV, m_neutralino = 941 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.
Cut flow for a model of gluino pair production where each gluino decays via an off-shell top squark to two top quarks and the lightest neutralino, with the neutralino decaying to three light quarks (neutralino -> uds) via the RPV coupling lambda''_112 (m_gluino = 2000 GeV, m_neutralino = 941 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.
Cut flow for a model of gluino pair production where each gluino decays via an off-shell top squark to two top quarks and the lightest neutralino, with the neutralino decaying to three light quarks (neutralino -> uds) via the RPV coupling lambda''_112 (m_gluino = 2000 GeV, m_neutralino = 941 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.
Cut flow for a model of right-handed top squark pair production with the top squark decaying to the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) which is considered to be purely higgsino. The higgsino-like LSP decays through the non-zero RPV coupling lambda''_323 (m_stop = 975 GeV, m_neutralino = 600 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.
Cut flow for a model of right-handed top squark pair production with the top squark decaying to the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) which is considered to be purely higgsino. The higgsino-like LSP decays through the non-zero RPV coupling lambda''_323 (m_stop = 975 GeV, m_neutralino = 600 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.
Cut flow for a model of right-handed top squark pair production with the top squark decaying to the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) which is considered to be purely higgsino. The higgsino-like LSP decays through the non-zero RPV coupling lambda''_323 (m_stop = 975 GeV, m_neutralino = 600 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.
A search for squarks and gluinos in final states containing hadronic jets, missing transverse momentum but no electrons or muons is presented. The data were recorded in 2015 by the ATLAS experiment in $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV proton--proton collisions at the Large Hadron Collider. No excess above the Standard Model background expectation was observed in 3.2 fb$^{-1}$ of analyzed data. Results are interpreted within simplified models that assume R-parity is conserved and the neutralino is the lightest supersymmetric particle. An exclusion limit at the 95% confidence level on the mass of the gluino is set at 1.51 TeV for a simplified model incorporating only a gluino octet and the lightest neutralino, assuming the lightest neutralino is massless. For a simplified model involving the strong production of mass-degenerate first- and second-generation squarks, squark masses below 1.03 TeV are excluded for a massless lightest neutralino. These limits substantially extend the region of supersymmetric parameter space excluded by previous measurements with the ATLAS detector.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRgamma for SR4jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRW for SR4jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRT for SR4jt.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR2jl. For signal, a squark direct decay model with $m(\tilde q)=800$ GeV and $m(\tilde\chi^0_1)=400$ GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR2jm. For signal, a gluino direct decay model with $m(\tilde g)=750$ GeV and $m(\tilde\chi^0_1)=660$ GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR2jt. For signal, a squark direct decay model with $m(\tilde q)=1200$ GeV and $m(\tilde\chi^0_1)=0$ GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR4jt. For signal, a gluino direct decay model with $m(\tilde g)=1400$ GeV and $m(\tilde\chi^0_1)=0$ GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR5j. For signal, a gluino one-step decay model with $m(\tilde g)=1265$ GeV, $m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)=945$ GeV and $m(\tilde\chi^0_1)=625$ GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR6jm. For signal, a gluino one-step decay model with $m(\tilde g)=1265$ GeV, $m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)=945$ GeV and $m(\tilde\chi^0_1)=625$ GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR6jt. For signal, a gluino one-step decay model with $m(\tilde g)=1385$ GeV, $m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)=705$ GeV and $m(\tilde\chi^0_1)=25$ GeV is shown.
Expected limit at 95% CL for squark direct decay model grid.
Expected limits at 95% CL +1 sigma excursion due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties for squark direct decay model grid.
Expected limits at 95% CL -1 sigma excursion due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties for squark direct decay model grid.
Observed limits at 95% CL for squark direct decay model grid.
Observed limits at 95% CL +1 sigma excursion due to the signal cross-section uncertainty for squark direct decay model grid.
Observed limits at 95% CL -1 sigma excursion due to the signal cross-section uncertainty for squark direct decay model grid.
Expected limit at 95% CL for gluino direct decay model grid.
Expected limits at 95% CL +1 sigma excursion due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties for gluino direct decay model grid.
Expected limits at 95% CL -1 sigma excursion due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties for gluino direct decay model grid.
Observed limits at 95% CL for gluino direct decay model grid.
Observed limits at 95% CL +1 sigma excursion due to the signal cross-section uncertainty for gluino direct decay model grid.
Observed limits at 95% CL -1 sigma excursion due to the signal cross-section uncertainty for gluino direct decay model grid.
Expected limit at 95% CL for gluino one-step decay model grid.
Expected limits at 95% CL +1 sigma excursion due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties for gluino one-step decay model grid.
Expected limits at 95% CL -1 sigma excursion due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties for gluino one-step decay model grid.
Observed limits at 95% CL for gluino one-step decay model grid.
Observed limits at 95% CL +1 sigma excursion due to the signal cross-section uncertainty for gluino one-step decay model grid.
Observed limits at 95% CL -1 sigma excursion due to the signal cross-section uncertainty for gluino one-step decay model grid.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRgamma for SR2jl.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in validation region VRZ for SR2jl.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRW for SR2jl.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRT for SR2jl.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRgamma for SR2jm.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in validation region VRZ for SR2jm.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRW for SR2jm.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRT for SR2jm.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRgamma for SR2jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in validation region VRZ for SR2jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRW for SR2jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRT for SR2jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRgamma for SR4jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in validation region VRZ for SR4jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRW for SR4jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRT for SR4jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRgamma for SR5j.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in validation region VRZ for SR5j.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRW for SR5j.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRT for SR5j.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRgamma for SR6jm.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in validation region VRZ for SR6jm.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRW for SR6jm.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRT for SR6jm.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRgamma for SR6jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in validation region VRZ for SR6jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRW for SR6jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRT for SR6jt.
Observed and expected event yields in VRZ as a function of signal region.
Observed and expected event yields in VRW as a function of signal region.
Observed and expected event yields in VRWv as a function of signal region.
Observed and expected event yields in VRT as a function of signal region.
Observed and expected event yields in VRTv as a function of signal region.
Observed and expected event yields in VRQa as a function of signal region.
Observed and expected event yields in VRQb as a function of signal region.
Signal acceptance for SR2jl in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jl in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR2jm in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jm in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR2jt in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jt in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR4jt in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR4jt in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR5j in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR5j in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR6jm in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR6jm in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR6jt in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR6jt in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR2jl in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jl in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR2jm in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jm in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR2jt in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jt in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR4jt in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR4jt in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR5j in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR5j in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR6jm in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR6jm in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR6jt in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR6jt in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR2jl in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jl in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR2jm in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jm in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR2j5 in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jt in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR4jt in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR4jt in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR5j in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR5j in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR6jm in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR6jm in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR6jt in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR6jt in gluino one-step decay model grid.
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 on the query string syntax can also be found in the OpenSearch 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.