A search for the electroweak production of pairs of charged sleptons or charginos decaying into two-lepton final states with missing transverse momentum is presented. Two simplified models of $R$-parity-conserving supersymmetry are considered: direct pair-production of sleptons ($\tilde{\ell}\tilde{\ell}$), with each decaying into a charged lepton and a $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ neutralino, and direct pair-production of the lightest charginos $(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^\mp)$, with each decaying into a $W$-boson and a $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_1^0$) is assumed to be the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP). The analyses target the experimentally challenging mass regions where $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm)-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ are close to the $W$-boson mass (`moderately compressed' regions). The search uses 139 fb$^{-1}$ of $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV proton-proton collisions recorded by the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider. No significant excesses over the expected background are observed. Exclusion limits on the simplified models under study are reported in the ($\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0$) and ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0$) mass planes at 95% confidence level (CL). Sleptons with masses up to 150 GeV are excluded at 95% CL for the case of a mass-splitting between sleptons and the LSP of 50 GeV. Chargino masses up to 140 GeV are excluded at 95% CL for the case of a mass-splitting between the chargino and the LSP down to about 100 GeV.
<b>- - - - - - - - Overview of HEPData Record - - - - - - - -</b> <b>Title: </b><em>Search for direct pair production of sleptons and charginos decaying to two leptons and neutralinos with mass splittings near the $W$ boson mass in $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV $pp$ collisions with the ATLAS detector</em> <b>Paper website:</b> <a href="https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PAPERS/SUSY-2019-02/">SUSY-2019-02</a> <b>Exclusion contours</b> <ul><li><b>Sleptons:</b> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_nominal>Combined Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_up>Combined Observed Up</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_down>Combined Observed Down</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_nominal>Combined Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_up>Combined Expected Up</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_down>Combined Expected Down</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_nominal_dM>Combined Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_up_dM>Combined Observed Up $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_down_dM>Combined Observed Down $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_nominal_dM>Combined Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_up_dM>Combined Expected Up $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_down_dM>Combined Expected Down $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_ee_obs_nominal>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_ee_exp_nominal>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_eLeL_obs_nominal>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L}$ Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_eLeL_exp_nominal>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L}$ Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_eReR_obs_nominal>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{R}$ Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_eReR_exp_nominal>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{R}$ Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_ee_obs_nominal_dM>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_ee_exp_nominal_dM>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_eLeL_obs_nominal_dM>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L}$ Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_eLeL_exp_nominal_dM>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L}$ Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_eReR_obs_nominal_dM>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{R}$ Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_eReR_exp_nominal_dM>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{R}$ Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_mm_obs_nominal>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_mm_exp_nominal>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_mLmL_obs_nominal>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L}$ Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_mLmL_exp_nominal>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L}$ Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_mRmR_obs_nominal>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{R}$ Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_mRmR_exp_nominal>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{R}$ Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_mm_obs_nominal_dM>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_mm_exp_nominal_dM>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_mLmL_obs_nominal_dM>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L}$ Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_mLmL_exp_nominal_dM>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L}$ Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_mRmR_obs_nominal_dM>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{R}$ Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_mRmR_exp_nominal_dM>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{R}$ Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_nominal_SR0j>Combined Observed Nominal SR-0j</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_nominal_SR0j>Combined Expected Nominal SR-0j</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_nominal_SR1j>Combined Observed Nominal SR-1j</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_nominal_SR1j>Combined Expected Nominal SR-1j</a> <li><b>Charginos:</b> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_obs_nominal>Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_obs_up>Observed Up</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_obs_down>Observed Down</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_exp_nominal>Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_exp_nominal>Expected Up</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_exp_nominal>Expected Down</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_obs_nominal_dM>Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_obs_up_dM>Observed Up $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_obs_down_dM>Observed Down $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_exp_nominal_dM>Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_exp_nominal_dM>Expected Up $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_exp_nominal_dM>Expected Down $(\Delta m)$</a> </ul> <b>Upper Limits</b> <ul><li><b>Sleptons:</b> <a href=?table=UL_slep>ULs</a> <li><b>Charginos:</b> <a href=?table=UL_c1c1>ULs</a> </ul> <b>Pull Plots</b> <ul><li><b>Sleptons:</b> <a href=?table=pullplot_slep>SRs summary plot</a> <li><b>Charginos:</b> <a href=?table=pullplot_c1c1>SRs summary plot</a> </ul> <b>Cutflows</b> <ul><li><b>Sleptons:</b> <a href=?table=Cutflow_slep_SR0j>Towards SR-0J</a> <a href=?table=Cutflow_slep_SR1j>Towards SR-1J</a> <li><b>Charginos:</b> <a href=?table=Cutflow_SRs>Towards SRs</a> </ul> <b>Acceptance and Efficiencies</b> <ul><li><b>Sleptons:</b> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_100_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_100_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_110_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_110_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_120_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_120_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_130_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_130_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_100_105>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_100_105>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_105_110>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_105_110>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_110_115>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_110_115>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_115_120>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_115_120>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_120_125>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,125)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_125_130>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[125,130)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_130_140>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_130_140>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_140_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_140_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_100_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_100_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_110_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_110_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_120_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_120_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_130_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_130_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_100_105>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_100_105>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_105_110>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_105_110>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_110_115>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_110_115>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_115_120>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_115_120>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_120_125>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,125)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_125_130>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[125,130)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_130_140>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_130_140>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_140_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_140_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <li><b>Charginos:</b> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_81_1_SF_77_1>SR$^{\text{-DF BDT-signal}\in(0.81,1]}_{\text{-SF BDT-signal}\in(0.77,1]}$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_81_1_SF_77_1>SR$^{\text{-DF BDT-signal}\in(0.81,1]}_{\text{-SF BDT-signal}\in(0.77,1]}$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_81_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_81_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_82_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_82_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_83_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_83_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_84_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.84,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_84_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.84,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_85_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_85_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_81_8125>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,8125]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_81_8125>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,8125]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_8125_815>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8125,815]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_8125_815>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8125,815]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_815_8175>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.815,8175]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_815_8175>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.815,8175]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_8175_82>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8175,82]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_8175_82>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8175,82]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_82_8225>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,8225]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_82_8225>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,8225]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_8225_825>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8225,825]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_8225_825>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8225,825]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_825_8275>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.825,8275]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_825_8275>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.825,8275]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_8275_83>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8275,83]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_8275_83>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8275,83]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_83_8325>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,8325]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_83_8325>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,8325]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_8325_835>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8325,835]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_8325_835>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8325,835]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_835_8375>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.835,8375]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_835_8375>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.835,8375]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_8375_84>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8375,84]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_8375_84>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8375,84]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_84_845>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,845]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_84_845>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,845]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_845_85>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.845,85]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_845_85>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.845,85]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_85_86>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,86]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_85_86>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,86]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_86_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.86,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_86_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.86,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_77_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_77_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_78_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_78_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_79_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_79_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_80_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_80_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_77_775>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,0.775]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_77_775>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,0.775]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_775_78>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.775,0.78]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_775_78>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.775,0.78]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_78_785>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,0.785]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_78_785>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,0.785]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_785_79>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.785,0.79]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_785_79>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.785,0.79]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_79_795>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,0.795]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_79_795>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,0.795]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_795_80>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.795,0.80]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_795_80>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.795,0.80]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_80_81>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,0.81]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_80_81>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,0.81]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_81_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_81_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ Efficiency</a></ul> <b>Truth Code snippets</b>, <b>SLHA</b> and <b>machine learning</b> files are available under "Resources" (purple button on the left)
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
We report a measurement of cumulants and correlation functions of event-by-event proton multiplicity distributions from fixed-target Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV measured by the STAR experiment. Protons are identified within the rapidity ($y$) and transverse momentum ($p_{\rm T}$) region $-0.9 < y<0$ and $0.4 < p_{\rm T} <2.0 $ GeV/$c$ in the center-of-mass frame. A systematic analysis of the proton cumulants and correlation functions up to sixth-order as well as the corresponding ratios as a function of the collision centrality, $p_{\rm T}$, and $y$ are presented. The effect of pileup and initial volume fluctuations on these observables and the respective corrections are discussed in detail. The results are compared to calculations from the hadronic transport UrQMD model as well as a hydrodynamic model. In the most central 5% collisions, the value of proton cumulant ratio $C_4/C_2$ is negative, drastically different from the values observed in Au+Au collisions at higher energies. Compared to model calculations including Lattice QCD, a hadronic transport model, and a hydrodynamic model, the strong suppression in the ratio of $C_4/C_2$ at 3 GeV Au+Au collisions indicates an energy regime dominated by hadronic interactions.
The uncorrected number of charged particles except protons ($N_{\rm ch}$) within the pseudorapidity $−2<\eta<0$ used for the centrality selection for Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV. The centrality classes are expressed in % of the total cross section. The lower boundary of the particle multiplicity ($N_{\rm ch}$) is included for each centrality class. Values are provided for the average number of participants ($\langle N_{\rm part}\rangle$) and pileup fraction. The fraction of pileup for each centrality bin is also shown in the last column. The averaged pileup fraction from the minimum biased collisions is determined to be 0.46%. Values in the parentheses are systematic uncertainty.
The centrality definition determined by $N_{\rm part}$ in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 3 GeV from the UrQMD model. The centrality definition is only used in the UrQMD calculation.
Main contributors to systematic uncertainty to the proton cumulant ratios: $C_2/C_1$, $C_3/C_2$,and $C_4/C_2$ from 0–5% central 3 GeV Au+Au collisions. The first row shows the values and statistical uncertainties of those ratios. The corresponding values of these ratios along with the statistical uncertainties are listed in the table. The final total value is the quadratic sum of uncertainties from centrality, pileup, and the dominant contribution from TPC hits, DCA, TOF $m^2$, and detector efficiency. Clearly, this analysis is systematically dominant.
A search for Higgs boson pair production in events with two $b$-jets and two $\tau$-leptons is presented, using a proton-proton collision dataset with an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$ collected at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV by the ATLAS experiment at the LHC. Higgs boson pairs produced non-resonantly or in the decay of a narrow scalar resonance in the mass range from 251 to 1600 GeV are targeted. Events in which at least one $\tau$-lepton decays hadronically are considered, and multivariate discriminants are used to reject the backgrounds. No significant excess of events above the expected background is observed in the non-resonant search. The largest excess in the resonant search is observed at a resonance mass of 1 TeV, with a local (global) significance of $3.1\sigma$ ($2.0\sigma$). Observed (expected) 95% confidence-level upper limits are set on the non-resonant Higgs boson pair-production cross-section at 4.7 (3.9) times the Standard Model prediction, assuming Standard Model kinematics, and on the resonant Higgs boson pair-production cross-section at between 21 and 900 fb (12 and 840 fb), depending on the mass of the narrow scalar resonance.
Breakdown of the relative contributions to the uncertainty in the extracted signal cross-sections, as determined in the likelihood fit (described in Section 8) to data. These are obtained by fixing the relevant nuisance parameters in the likelihood fit, and subtracting the obtained uncertainty on the fitted signal cross-sections in quadrature from the total uncertainty, and then dividing the result by the total uncertainty. The sum in quadrature of the individual components differs from the total uncertainty due to correlations between uncertainties in the different groups.
Post-fit expected number of signal and background events and observed number of data events in the last two bins of the non-resonant BDT score distribution of the SM signal after applying the selection criteria and requiring exactly 2 b-tagged jets and assuming a background-only hypothesis
Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the cross-section of non-resonant HH production according to SM-like kinematics, and on the cross-section of non-resonant HH production divided by the SM prediction. The 1 sigma and 2 sigma variations around the expected limit are also shown.
A measurement of single top-quark production in the s-channel is performed in proton$-$proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the CERN Large Hadron Collider. The dataset corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. The analysis is performed on events with an electron or muon, missing transverse momentum and exactly two $b$-tagged jets in the final state. A discriminant based on matrix element calculations is used to separate single-top-quark s-channel events from the main background contributions, which are top-quark pair production and $W$-boson production in association with jets. The observed (expected) signal significance over the background-only hypothesis is 3.3 (3.9) standard deviations, and the measured cross-section is $\sigma=8.2^{+3.5}_{-2.9}$ pb, consistent with the Standard Model prediction of $\sigma^{\mathrm{SM}}=10.32^{+0.40}_{-0.36}$ pb.
Result of the s-channel single-top cross-section measurement, in pb. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are given, as well as the total uncertainty. The normalisation factors for the $t\bar{t}$ and $W$+jets backgrounds are also shown, with their total uncertainties.
Distribution of ${E}_{T}^{miss}$ after the fit of the multijet backgrounds, in the electron channel, in the signal region, without applying the cut on ${E}_{T}^{miss}$. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty, the normalisation uncertainties for different processes ($40$ % for $W$+jets production, $30$ % for multijet background and $6$ % for top-quark processes) and the multijet background shape uncertainty in each bin, summed in quadrature. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.
Distribution of ${E}_{T}^{miss}$ after the fit of the multijet backgrounds, in the electron channel, in the $W$+jets VR, without applying the cut on ${E}_{T}^{miss}$. Simulated events are normalised to the expected number of events given the integrated luminosity, after applying the normalisation factors obtained in the multijet fit. The last bin includes the overflow. The uncertainty band indicates the simulation's statistical uncertainty, the normalisation uncertainties for different processes ($40$ % for $W$+jets production, $30$ % for multijet background and $6$ % for top-quark processes) and the multijet background shape uncertainty in each bin, summed in quadrature. The lower panel of the figure shows the ratio of the data to the prediction.
A measurement of observables sensitive to effects of colour reconnection in top-quark pair-production events is presented using 139 fb$^{-1}$ of 13$\,$TeV proton-proton collision data collected by the ATLAS detector at the LHC. Events are selected by requiring exactly one isolated electron and one isolated muon with opposite charge and two or three jets, where exactly two jets are required to be $b$-tagged. For the selected events, measurements are presented for the charged-particle multiplicity, the scalar sum of the transverse momenta of the charged particles, and the same scalar sum in bins of charged-particle multiplicity. These observables are unfolded to the stable-particle level, thereby correcting for migration effects due to finite detector resolution, acceptance and efficiency effects. The particle-level measurements are compared with different colour reconnection models in Monte Carlo generators. These measurements disfavour some of the colour reconnection models and provide inputs to future optimisation of the parameters in Monte Carlo generators.
Binning used for the measured $\sum_{n_{\text{ch}}} p_{\text{T}}$ in bins of $n_\text{ch}$ observable.
Event yields obtained after the event selection. The expected event yields from $t\bar{t}$ production and the various background processes are compared with the observed event yield. The fractional contributions from $t\bar{t}$ production and the background processes to the expected event yield is given in %. The processes labelled by `Others' include production of $Z$+jets and diboson background events. The uncertainties include the MC statistical uncertainty and the normalisation uncertainty.
Summary of the estimated pile-up scale factors $c_{\text{PU}}$, parameterisd in $\mu$ and $n_{\text{trk,out}}$. All values have a statistical precision of 0.01.
We report the triton ($t$) production in mid-rapidity ($|y| <$ 0.5) Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$= 7.7--200 GeV measured by the STAR experiment from the first phase of the beam energy scan at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC). The nuclear compound yield ratio ($\mathrm{N}_t \times \mathrm{N}_p/\mathrm{N}_d^2$), which is predicted to be sensitive to the fluctuation of local neutron density, is observed to decrease monotonically with increasing charged-particle multiplicity ($dN_{ch}/d\eta$) and follows a scaling behavior. The $dN_{ch}/d\eta$ dependence of the yield ratio is compared to calculations from coalescence and thermal models. Enhancements in the yield ratios relative to the coalescence baseline are observed in the 0%-10% most central collisions at 19.6 and 27 GeV, with a significance of 2.3$\sigma$ and 3.4$\sigma$, respectively, giving a combined significance of 4.1$\sigma$. The enhancements are not observed in peripheral collisions or model calculations without critical fluctuation, and decreases with a smaller $p_{T}$ acceptance. The physics implications of these results on the QCD phase structure and the production mechanism of light nuclei in heavy-ion collisions are discussed.
Invariant yields of tritons at 7.7 GeV, all centralities. The first uncertainty is statistical uncertainty, the second is systematic uncertainty.
Invariant yields of tritons at 11.5 GeV, all centralities. The first uncertainty is statistical uncertainty, the second is systematic uncertainty.
Invariant yields of tritons at 14.5 GeV, all centralities. The first uncertainty is statistical uncertainty, the second is systematic uncertainty.
A search is presented for vector-like T and B quark-antiquark pairs produced in proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. Data were collected by the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC in 2016-2018, with an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$. Events are separated into single-lepton, same-sign charge dilepton, and multilepton channels. In the analysis of the single-lepton channel a multilayer neural network and jet identification techniques are employed to select signal events, while the same-sign dilepton and multilepton channels rely on the high-energy signature of the signal to distinguish it from standard model backgrounds. The data are consistent with standard model background predictions, and the production of vector-like quark pairs is excluded at 95% confidence level for T quark masses up to 1.54 TeV and B quark masses up to 1.56 TeV, depending on the branching fractions assumed, with maximal sensitivity to decay modes that include multiple top quarks. The limits obtained in this search are the strongest limits to date for $\mathrm{T\overline{T}}$ production, excluding masses below 1.48 TeV for all decays to third generation quarks, and are the strongest limits to date for $\mathrm{B\overline{B}}$ production with B quark decays to tW.
Distribution of ST in the training region for the $T\overline{T}$ MLP. The observed data are shown along with the predicted $T\overline{T}$ signal with mass of 1.2 (1.5) TeV in the singlet scenario and the background. Statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction before performing the fit to data are also shown. The signal predictions of 1.2 TeV and 1.5 TeV signals have been scaled by factors of x300 and x600, respectively, for visibility.
Distribution of the leading jet’s DEEPAK8 light quark or gluon score in the training region for the $T\overline{T}$ MLP. The observed data are shown along with the predicted $T\overline{T}$ signal with mass of 1.2 (1.5) TeV in the singlet scenario and the background. Statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction before performing the fit to data are also shown. The signal predictions of 1.2 TeV and 1.5 TeV signals have been scaled by factors of x300 and x600, respectively, for visibility.
Distribution of the MLP T quark score in the SR for the $T\overline{T}$ search. The observed data, predicted $T\overline{T}$ signal with mass of 1.2 (1.5) TeV in the singlet scenario, and the background are all shown. Statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction before performing the fit to data are also shown. The signal predictions of 1.2 TeV and 1.5 TeV signals have been scaled by factors of x10 and x20, respectively, for visibility.
We present the first direct search for exotic Higgs boson decays H $\to$$\mathcal{A}\mathcal{A}$, $\mathcal{A}$$\to$$\gamma\gamma$ in events with two photonlike objects. The hypothetical particle $\mathcal{A}$ is a low-mass spin-0 particle decaying promptly to a merged diphoton reconstructed as a single photonlike object. We analyze the data collected by the CMS experiment at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 136 fb$^{-1}$. No excess above the estimated background is found. We set upper limits on the branching fraction $\mathcal{B}$(H $\to$$\mathcal{A}\mathcal{A}$$\to$ 4$\gamma$) of (0.9-3.3) $\times$ 10$^{-3}$ at 95% confidence level for masses of $\mathcal{A}$ in the range 0.1-1.2 GeV.
Observed and median expected 95% confidence level (CL) upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{H} \rightarrow \mathcal{A}\mathcal{A} \rightarrow 4\gamma)$ as a function of $m_{\mathcal{A}}$ for prompt $\mathcal{A}$ decays. The 68% and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) around the median expected upper limit are also provided.
A sample of 2.8 × 10$^{4}$K$^{+}$ → π$^{+}$μ$^{+}$μ$^{−}$ candidates with negligible background was collected by the NA62 experiment at the CERN SPS in 2017–2018. The model-independent branching fraction is measured to be (9.15 ± 0.08) × 10$^{−8}$, a factor three more precise than previous measurements. The decay form factor is presented as a function of the squared dimuon mass. A measurement of the form factor parameters and their uncertainties is performed using a description based on Chiral Perturbation Theory at $ \mathcal{O} $(p$^{6}$).
Reconstructed $K^+ \to \pi^+ \mu^+ \mu^-$ differential decay width. Only statistical errors are provided. The 4-body differential decay width (shown in green in Figure 3-left) is, in general, required to fit these data points; fitting the squared modulus of the form factor may therefore be preferable.
Reconstructed squared modulus of the $K^+ \to \pi^+ \mu^+ \mu^-$ form factor. Only statistical errors are provided.
The measurement of $\Upsilon$(1S), $\Upsilon$(2S), and $\Upsilon$(3S) yields as a function of the charged-particle multiplicity density, $\textrm{d}N_{\textrm{ch}}/\textrm{d}\eta$, using the ALICE experiment at the LHC, is reported in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV. The $\Upsilon$ meson yields are measured at forward rapidity ($2.5 < y < 4$) in the dimuon decay channel, whereas the charged-particle multiplicity is defined at central rapidity ($|\eta| < 1$). Both quantities are divided by their average value in minimum bias events to compute the self-normalized quantities. The increase of the self-normalized $\Upsilon$(1S), $\Upsilon$(2S), and $\Upsilon$(3S) yields is found to be compatible with a linear scaling with the self-normalized $\textrm{d}N_{\textrm{ch}}/\textrm{d}\eta$, within the uncertainties. The self-normalized yield ratios of excited-to-ground $\Upsilon$ states are compatible with unity within uncertainties. Similarly, the measured double ratio of the self-normalized $\Upsilon$(1S) to the self-normalized J/$\psi$ yields, both measured at forward rapidity, is compatible with unity for self-normalized charged-particle multiplicities beyond one. The measurements are compared with theoretical predictions incorporating initial or final state effects.
Self-normalized Upsilon(1S) yield as a function of the self-normalized charged-particle multiplicity.
Self-normalized Upsilon(2S) yield as a function of the self-normalized charged-particle multiplicity.
Self-normalized Upsilon(3S) yield as a function of the self-normalized charged-particle multiplicity.
Forum