Showing 10 of 54 results
A search for supersymmetry through the pair production of electroweakinos with mass splittings near the electroweak scale and decaying via on-shell $W$ and $Z$ bosons is presented for a three-lepton final state. The analyzed proton-proton collision data taken at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV were collected between 2015 and 2018 by the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. A search, emulating the recursive jigsaw reconstruction technique with easily reproducible laboratory-frame variables, is performed. The two excesses observed in the 2015-2016 data recursive jigsaw analysis in the low-mass three-lepton phase space are reproduced. Results with the full dataset are in agreement with the Standard Model expectations. They are interpreted to set exclusion limits at 95% confidence level on simplified models of chargino-neutralino pair production for masses up to 345 GeV.
Observed exclusion contour on C1N2 production assuming on-shell $W/Z$ decays as a function of the C1/N2 and N1 masses, and derived from the combined fit of low-mass and ISR regions.
Observed exclusion contour on C1N2 production assuming on-shell $W/Z$ decays as a function of the C1/N2 and N1 masses, and derived from the combined fit of low-mass and ISR regions.
Expected exclusion contour on C1N2 production assuming on-shell $W/Z$ decays as a function of the C1/N2 and N1 masses, and derived from the combined fit of low-mass and ISR regions.
Expected exclusion contour on C1N2 production assuming on-shell $W/Z$ decays as a function of the C1/N2 and N1 masses, and derived from the combined fit of low-mass and ISR regions.
Plus 1$\sigma$ uncertainty, varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty, on the observed exclusion contour on C1N2 production assuming on-shell $W/Z$ decays as a function of the C1/N2 and N1 masses, and derived from the combined fit of low-mass and ISR regions.
Plus 1$\sigma$ uncertainty, varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty, on the observed exclusion contour on C1N2 production assuming on-shell $W/Z$ decays as a function of the C1/N2 and N1 masses, and derived from the combined fit of low-mass and ISR regions.
Minus 1$\sigma$ uncertainty, varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty, on the observed exclusion contour on C1N2 production assuming on-shell $W/Z$ decays as a function of the C1/N2 and N1 masses, and derived from the combined fit of low-mass and ISR regions.
Minus 1$\sigma$ uncertainty, varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty, on the observed exclusion contour on C1N2 production assuming on-shell $W/Z$ decays as a function of the C1/N2 and N1 masses, and derived from the combined fit of low-mass and ISR regions.
Plus 1$\sigma$ uncertainty, due to uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties affecting the signal, on the expected exclusion contour on C1N2 production assuming on-shell $W/Z$ decays as a function of the C1/N2 and N1 masses, and derived from the combined fit of low-mass and ISR regions.
Plus 1$\sigma$ uncertainty, due to uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties affecting the signal, on the expected exclusion contour on C1N2 production assuming on-shell $W/Z$ decays as a function of the C1/N2 and N1 masses, and derived from the combined fit of low-mass and ISR regions.
Minus 1$\sigma$ uncertainty, due to uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties affecting the signal, on the expected exclusion contour on C1N2 production assuming on-shell $W/Z$ decays as a function of the C1/N2 and N1 masses, and derived from the combined fit of low-mass and ISR regions.
Minus 1$\sigma$ uncertainty, due to uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties affecting the signal, on the expected exclusion contour on C1N2 production assuming on-shell $W/Z$ decays as a function of the C1/N2 and N1 masses, and derived from the combined fit of low-mass and ISR regions.
Upper limits on observed wino-bino simplified model signal cross section $\sigma_\text{obs}^\text{95}$.
Upper limits on observed wino-bino simplified model signal cross section $\sigma_\text{obs}^\text{95}$.
Upper limits on expected wino-bino simplified model signal cross section $\sigma_\text{exp}^\text{95}$.
Upper limits on expected wino-bino simplified model signal cross section $\sigma_\text{exp}^\text{95}$.
Signal acceptance in SR-low, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \geq 100$ GeV.
Signal acceptance in SR-low, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \geq 100$ GeV.
Signal efficiency in SR-low, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \geq 100$ GeV.
Signal efficiency in SR-low, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \geq 100$ GeV.
Signal acceptance in SR-ISR, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \geq 100$ GeV.
Signal acceptance in SR-ISR, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \geq 100$ GeV.
Signal efficiency in SR-ISR, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \geq 100$ GeV.
Signal efficiency in SR-ISR, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \geq 100$ GeV.
Signal acceptance in SR-low, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} < 100$ GeV.
Signal acceptance in SR-low, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} < 100$ GeV.
Signal efficiency in SR-low, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} < 100$ GeV.
Signal efficiency in SR-low, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} < 100$ GeV.
Signal acceptance in SR-ISR, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} < 100$ GeV.
Signal acceptance in SR-ISR, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} < 100$ GeV.
Signal efficiency in SR-ISR, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} < 100$ GeV.
Signal efficiency in SR-ISR, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} < 100$ GeV.
Upper limits on observed (expected) wino-bino simplified model signal cross section $\sigma_\text{obs(exp)}^\text{95}$.
Upper limits on observed (expected) wino-bino simplified model signal cross section $\sigma_\text{obs(exp)}^\text{95}$.
A search for the direct production of the supersymmetric partners of $\tau$-leptons (staus) in final states with two hadronically decaying $\tau$-leptons is presented. The analysis uses a dataset of $pp$ collisions corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $139$ fb$^{-1}$, recorded with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. No significant deviation from the expected Standard Model background is observed. Limits are derived in scenarios of direct production of stau pairs with each stau decaying into the stable lightest neutralino and one $\tau$-lepton in simplified models where the two stau mass eigenstates are degenerate. Stau masses from 120 GeV to 390 GeV are excluded at 95% confidence level for a massless lightest neutralino.
The observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb for simplified models with combined ${\tilde{\tau}}^{+}_{R,L} {\tilde{\tau}}^{-}_{R,L}$ production. Three points at ${M({\tilde{\chi}}^{0}_{1})}=200GeV$ were removed from the plot but kept in the table because they overlapped with the plot's legend and are far from the exclusion contour.
The observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb for simplified models with combined ${\tilde{\tau}}^{+}_{R,L} {\tilde{\tau}}^{-}_{R,L}$ production. Three points at ${M({\tilde{\chi}}^{0}_{1})}=200GeV$ were removed from the plot but kept in the table because they overlapped with the plot's legend and are far from the exclusion contour.
The observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb for simplified models with ${\tilde{\tau}}_L {\tilde{\tau}}_L$ only production. Three points at $M({\tilde{\chi}}^{0}_{1})=200GeV$ were removed from the plot but kept in the table because they overlapped with the plot's legend and are far from the exclusion contour.
The observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb for simplified models with ${\tilde{\tau}}_L {\tilde{\tau}}_L$ only production. Three points at $M({\tilde{\chi}}^{0}_{1})=200GeV$ were removed from the plot but kept in the table because they overlapped with the plot's legend and are far from the exclusion contour.
The observed 95\% CL exclusion contours for the combined fit of SR-lowMass and SR-highMass for simplified models with combined ${\tilde{\tau}}^{+}_{R,L} {\tilde{\tau}}^{-}_{R,L}$ production.
The observed 95\% CL exclusion contours for the combined fit of SR-lowMass and SR-highMass for simplified models with combined ${\tilde{\tau}}^{+}_{R,L} {\tilde{\tau}}^{-}_{R,L}$ production.
The expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the combined fit of SR-lowMass and SR-highMass for simplified models with combined ${\tilde{\tau}}^{+}_{R,L} {\tilde{\tau}}^{-}_{R,L}$ production.
The expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the combined fit of SR-lowMass and SR-highMass for simplified models with combined ${\tilde{\tau}}^{+}_{R,L} {\tilde{\tau}}^{-}_{R,L}$ production.
The observed 95% CL exclusion contours for the combined fit of SR-lowMass and SR-highMass for simplified models with ${\tilde{\tau}}_L {\tilde{\tau}}_L$ only production.
The observed 95% CL exclusion contours for the combined fit of SR-lowMass and SR-highMass for simplified models with ${\tilde{\tau}}_L {\tilde{\tau}}_L$ only production.
The expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the combined fit of SR-lowMass and SR-highMass for simplified models with ${\tilde{\tau}}_L {\tilde{\tau}}_L$ only production.
The expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the combined fit of SR-lowMass and SR-highMass for simplified models with ${\tilde{\tau}}_L {\tilde{\tau}}_L$ only production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion limits for simplified models with direct stau pair production in SR-lowMass.
Observed 95% CL exclusion limits for simplified models with direct stau pair production in SR-lowMass.
Expected 95% CL exclusion limits for simplified models with direct stau pair production in SR-lowMass.
Expected 95% CL exclusion limits for simplified models with direct stau pair production in SR-lowMass.
Observed 95% CL exclusion limits for simplified models with direct stau pair production in SR-highMass.
Observed 95% CL exclusion limits for simplified models with direct stau pair production in SR-highMass.
Expected 95% CL exclusion limits for simplified models with direct stau pair production in SR-highMass.
Expected 95% CL exclusion limits for simplified models with direct stau pair production in SR-highMass.
Signal acceptance in SR highMass for combined stau final states
Signal acceptance in SR highMass for combined stau final states
Signal acceptance in SR lowMass for combined stau final states
Signal acceptance in SR lowMass for combined stau final states
Signal efficiency in SR highMass for combined stau final states
Signal efficiency in SR highMass for combined stau final states
Signal efficiency in SR lowMass for combined stau final states
Signal efficiency in SR lowMass for combined stau final states
Signal acceptance*efficiency in SR highMass for combined stau final states
Signal acceptance*efficiency in SR highMass for combined stau final states
Signal acceptance*efficiency in SR lowMass for combined stau final states
Signal acceptance*efficiency in SR lowMass for combined stau final states
Cutflow for two reference points (${\tilde{\tau}}^{+}_{R,L} {\tilde{\tau}}^{-}_{R,L}$ production) in SR. The column labelled $N_{weighted}$ shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$, while $N_{raw}$ in brackets shows the results for the generated number of events. The quoted uncertainties are statistical only. The "Generator filter" includes the requirements that two $\tau$ in the event have ${p}_{T} > 15$ GeV and $|\eta| <$ 2.6. The "Baseline Cut" includes the requirement of two baseline $\tau$ with a minimum value at 0.01 of the boosted decision tree discriminant (JetBDTSigTransMin $>$ 0.01) and ${p}_{T, \tau_{1}} > 50$ GeV and ${p}_{T, \tau_{2}} > 40$ GeV. At the step "Trigger & offline cuts", the following requirements are applied: the event is recorded using the asymmetric di-$\tau$ trigger (di-$\tau$ $E_{T}^{miss}$ trigger) in SR-lowMass (SR-highMass), and the lepton $p_{T}$ and $E_{T}^{miss}$ are required at plateau.
Cutflow for two reference points (${\tilde{\tau}}^{+}_{R,L} {\tilde{\tau}}^{-}_{R,L}$ production) in SR. The column labelled $N_{weighted}$ shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$, while $N_{raw}$ in brackets shows the results for the generated number of events. The quoted uncertainties are statistical only. The "Generator filter" includes the requirements that two $\tau$ in the event have ${p}_{T} > 15$ GeV and $|\eta| <$ 2.6. The "Baseline Cut" includes the requirement of two baseline $\tau$ with a minimum value at 0.01 of the boosted decision tree discriminant (JetBDTSigTransMin $>$ 0.01) and ${p}_{T, \tau_{1}} > 50$ GeV and ${p}_{T, \tau_{2}} > 40$ GeV. At the step "Trigger & offline cuts", the following requirements are applied: the event is recorded using the asymmetric di-$\tau$ trigger (di-$\tau$ $E_{T}^{miss}$ trigger) in SR-lowMass (SR-highMass), and the lepton $p_{T}$ and $E_{T}^{miss}$ are required at plateau.
Observed and expected numbers of events in the control and signal regions where all control and signal region bins are included as constraints in the likelihood. The expected event yields of SM processes are given after the background-only fit. The entries marked as "--" are negligible. The uncertainties correspond to the sum in quadrature of statistical and systematic uncertainties. The correlation of systematic uncertainties among control regions and among background processes is fully taken into account.
Observed and expected numbers of events in the control and signal regions where all control and signal region bins are included as constraints in the likelihood. The expected event yields of SM processes are given after the background-only fit. The entries marked as "--" are negligible. The uncertainties correspond to the sum in quadrature of statistical and systematic uncertainties. The correlation of systematic uncertainties among control regions and among background processes is fully taken into account.
The post-fit $m_{T2}$ distribution for SR-lowMass. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The multi-jet contribution is estimated from data using the ABCD method. The contributions of multi-jet and $W$+jets events are scaled with the corresponding normalization factors derived from the background-only fit. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distributions from the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The last bin includes the overflow events.
The post-fit $m_{T2}$ distribution for SR-lowMass. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The multi-jet contribution is estimated from data using the ABCD method. The contributions of multi-jet and $W$+jets events are scaled with the corresponding normalization factors derived from the background-only fit. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distributions from the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The last bin includes the overflow events.
The post-fit $m_{T2}$ distribution for SR-highMass. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The multi-jet contribution is estimated from data using the ABCD method. The contributions of multi-jet and $W$+jets events are scaled with the corresponding normalization factors derived from the background-only fit. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distributions from the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The last bin includes the overflow events.
The post-fit $m_{T2}$ distribution for SR-highMass. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The multi-jet contribution is estimated from data using the ABCD method. The contributions of multi-jet and $W$+jets events are scaled with the corresponding normalization factors derived from the background-only fit. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distributions from the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The last bin includes the overflow events.
The $m_{T2}$ post-fit distributions in the multi-jet background validation region VR-F (lowMass). The stacked histograms show the contribution of each relevant SM process. The multi-jet shape is taken from VR-E in the ABCD method and the normalization is determined by the transfer factor $T$ and rescaled by a correction factor determined by the fit. The hatched bands represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties in the sum of the SM backgrounds shown. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines.
The $m_{T2}$ post-fit distributions in the multi-jet background validation region VR-F (lowMass). The stacked histograms show the contribution of each relevant SM process. The multi-jet shape is taken from VR-E in the ABCD method and the normalization is determined by the transfer factor $T$ and rescaled by a correction factor determined by the fit. The hatched bands represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties in the sum of the SM backgrounds shown. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines.
The $m_{T2}$ post-fit distributions in the multi-jet background validation VR-F (highMass). The stacked histograms show the contribution of each relevant SM process. The multi-jet shape is taken from VR-E in the ABCD method and the normalization is determined by the transfer factor $T$ and rescaled by a correction factor determined by the fit. The hatched bands represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties in the sum of the SM backgrounds shown. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines.
The $m_{T2}$ post-fit distributions in the multi-jet background validation VR-F (highMass). The stacked histograms show the contribution of each relevant SM process. The multi-jet shape is taken from VR-E in the ABCD method and the normalization is determined by the transfer factor $T$ and rescaled by a correction factor determined by the fit. The hatched bands represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties in the sum of the SM backgrounds shown. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines.
The $E_{T}^{miss}$ post-fit distributions in the multi-jet background validation region VR-F (lowMass). The stacked histograms show the contribution of each relevant SM process. The multi-jet shape is taken from VR-E in the ABCD method and the normalization is determined by the transfer factor $T$ and rescaled by a correction factor determined by the fit. The hatched bands represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties in the sum of the SM backgrounds shown. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines.
The $E_{T}^{miss}$ post-fit distributions in the multi-jet background validation region VR-F (lowMass). The stacked histograms show the contribution of each relevant SM process. The multi-jet shape is taken from VR-E in the ABCD method and the normalization is determined by the transfer factor $T$ and rescaled by a correction factor determined by the fit. The hatched bands represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties in the sum of the SM backgrounds shown. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines.
The $E_{T}^{miss}$ post-fit distributions in the multi-jet background validation region VR-F (highMass). The stacked histograms show the contribution of each relevant SM process. The multi-jet shape is taken from VR-E in the ABCD method and the normalization is determined by the transfer factor $T$ and rescaled by a correction factor determined by the fit. The hatched bands represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties in the sum of the SM backgrounds shown. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines.
The $E_{T}^{miss}$ post-fit distributions in the multi-jet background validation region VR-F (highMass). The stacked histograms show the contribution of each relevant SM process. The multi-jet shape is taken from VR-E in the ABCD method and the normalization is determined by the transfer factor $T$ and rescaled by a correction factor determined by the fit. The hatched bands represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties in the sum of the SM backgrounds shown. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines.
The pre-fit $m_{T2}$ distribution in the $WCR$. The SM backgrounds other than multi-jet production are estimated from MC simulation. The multi-jet contribution is estimated from data using the OS--SS method. The hatched bands represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines.
The pre-fit $m_{T2}$ distribution in the $WCR$. The SM backgrounds other than multi-jet production are estimated from MC simulation. The multi-jet contribution is estimated from data using the OS--SS method. The hatched bands represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines.
The post-fit yields in the $WVR$, $TVRs$, $ZVRs$ and $VVVRs$. The SM backgrounds other than multi-jet production are estimated from MC simulation. The multi-jet contribution is negligible and is estimated from data using the ABCD method, using CRs obtained with the same technique used for the SRs. The hatched bands represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the SM background estimate.
The post-fit yields in the $WVR$, $TVRs$, $ZVRs$ and $VVVRs$. The SM backgrounds other than multi-jet production are estimated from MC simulation. The multi-jet contribution is negligible and is estimated from data using the ABCD method, using CRs obtained with the same technique used for the SRs. The hatched bands represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the SM background estimate.
The factor of four increase in the LHC luminosity, from $0.5\times 10^{34}\,\textrm{cm}^{-2}\textrm{s}^{-1}$ to $2.0\times 10^{34}\textrm{cm}^{-2}\textrm{s}^{-1}$, and the corresponding increase in pile-up collisions during the 2015-2018 data-taking period, presented a challenge for ATLAS to trigger on missing transverse momentum. The output data rate at fixed threshold typically increases exponentially with the number of pile-up collisions, so the legacy algorithms from previous LHC data-taking periods had to be tuned and new approaches developed to maintain the high trigger efficiency achieved in earlier operations. A study of the trigger performance and comparisons with simulations show that these changes resulted in event selection efficiencies of >98% for this period, meeting and in some cases exceeding the performance of similar triggers in earlier run periods, while at the same time keeping the necessary bandwidth within acceptable limits.
A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 25$.
A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 25$.
A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 25$.
A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 25$.
A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 25$.
A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 55$.
A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 55$.
A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 55$.
A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 55$.
A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 55$.
The $E_T^{miss}$ model predicted trigger rate as a function of $\mu$ for the cell $E_T^{miss}$ algorithm with a threshold of $80\,$GeV and $120\,$GeV, assuming no additional pile-up mitigation.
The L1 $E_T^{miss}$ trigger efficiency, shown as a function of $p_T(\mu\mu)$ in $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events.
The efficiencies in the plot are shown for events satisfying a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection and with $p_T(\mu\mu)$ larger than $150\,$GeV vs pile-up for each of the four years of data taking.
The L1 $E_T^{miss}$ trigger efficiency is shown as a function of mean pile-up for events satisfying a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection and with $p_T(\mu\mu)$ larger than $150\,$GeV in three periods during the year 2017.
Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $0\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 20$.
Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $0\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 20$.
Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $0\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 20$.
Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $0\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 20$.
Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $0\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 20$.
Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $20\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 30$.
Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $20\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 30$.
Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $20\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 30$.
Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $20\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 30$.
Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $20\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 30$.
Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $30\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 40$.
Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $30\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 40$.
Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $30\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 40$.
Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $30\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 40$.
Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $30\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 40$.
Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $40\leq\langle\mu\rangle$.
Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $40\leq\langle\mu\rangle$.
Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $40\leq\langle\mu\rangle$.
Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $40\leq\langle\mu\rangle$.
Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $40\leq\langle\mu\rangle$.
Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.
Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.
Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.
Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.
Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.
Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.
Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.
Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.
Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.
Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.
Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.
Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.
Turn-on efficiency curves are shown for $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events for three algorithms: the cell algorithm alone, the pufit algorithm alone and the combined cell+pufit algorithm. The thresholds are set such that the algorithms have equal rates, and the data were recorded in the year 2018. Here the trigger efficiency is shown with respect to $p_T(\mu\mu)$.
Turn-on efficiency curves are shown for $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events for three algorithms: the cell algorithm alone, the pufit algorithm alone and the combined cell+pufit algorithm. The thresholds are set such that the algorithms have equal rates, and the data were recorded in the year 2018. Here the trigger efficiency is shown with respect to the offline $E_T^{miss}$ calculation with muons treated as being invisible.
Efficiencies for $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events are shown for the L1 $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV trigger and for the complete L1+HLT trigger chain that also requires pufit > 110 GeV. Each is shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for a $p_T(\mu\mu)$ threshold of 150 GeV.
Efficiencies for $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events are shown for the L1 $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV trigger and for the complete L1+HLT trigger chain that also requires pufit > 110 GeV. Each is shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for an offline $E_T^{miss}$ threshold of 150 GeV.
Efficiencies for $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events are shown for the L1 $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV trigger and for the complete L1+HLT trigger chain that also requires pufit > 110 GeV. Each is shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for an $p_T(\mu\mu)$ threshold of 175 GeV.
Efficiencies for $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events are shown for the L1 $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV trigger and for the complete L1+HLT trigger chain that also requires pufit > 110 GeV. Each is shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for an offline $E_T^{miss}$ threshold of 175 GeV.
Full-chain trigger efficiencies for each year as a function of $p_T(\mu\mu)$. The efficiency corresponds to that of the lowest unprescaled trigger that is adjusted throughout each year.
Full-chain trigger efficiencies for 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for $p_T(\mu\mu)>150$ GeV. The efficiency corresponds to that of the lowest unprescaled trigger that is adjusted throughout the year.
Efficiencies for the first-level trigger L1XE50 and the combined L1+HLT trigger chain HLT_xe110_pufit_xe65_L1XE50 in data recorded in the year 2018 are shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for $W\rightarrow e\nu$ and $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selections with offline $E_T^{miss}>150\,$GeV.
Efficiencies for the first-level trigger L1XE50 and the combined L1+HLT trigger chain HLT_xe110_pufit_xe65_L1XE50 in data recorded in the year 2018 are shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for $t\bar t$ with offline $E_T^{miss}>150\,$GeV.
Efficiencies for the first-level trigger L1XE50 and the combined L1+HLT trigger chain HLT_xe110_pufit_xe65_L1XE50 in data recorded in the year 2018 are shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for $W\rightarrow e\nu$ and $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selections with offline $E_T^{miss}>175\,$GeV.
Efficiencies for the first-level trigger L1XE50 and the combined L1+HLT trigger chain HLT_xe110_pufit_xe65_L1XE50 in data recorded in the year 2018 are shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for $t\bar t$ with offline $E_T^{miss}>175\,$GeV.
A search for heavy neutral Higgs bosons is performed using the LHC Run 2 data, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV recorded with the ATLAS detector. The search for heavy resonances is performed over the mass range 0.2-2.5 TeV for the $\tau^+\tau^-$ decay with at least one $\tau$-lepton decaying into final states with hadrons. The data are in good agreement with the background prediction of the Standard Model. In the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model, values of $\tan\beta>8$ and $\tan\beta>21$ are excluded at the 95% confidence level for neutral Higgs boson masses of 1.0 TeV and 1.5 TeV, respectively, where $\tan\beta$ is the ratio of the vacuum expectation values of the two Higgs doublets.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of the 1l1tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of the 1l1tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of the 1l1tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of the 1l1tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of the 1l1tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of the 1l1tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of the 1l1tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of the 1l1tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of the 2tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of the 2tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of the 2tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of the 2tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of the 2tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of the 2tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of the 2tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of the 2tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the gluon-gluon fusion Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the Higgs boson mass.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the gluon-gluon fusion Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the Higgs boson mass.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the gluon-gluon fusion Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the Higgs boson mass.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the gluon-gluon fusion Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the Higgs boson mass.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the b-associated Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the boson mass.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the b-associated Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the boson mass.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the b-associated Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the boson mass.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the b-associated Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the boson mass.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
Acceptance times efficiency for a scalar boson produced by gluon-gluon fusion as a function of the scalar boson mass.
Acceptance times efficiency for a scalar boson produced by gluon-gluon fusion as a function of the scalar boson mass.
Acceptance times efficiency for a scalar boson produced by gluon-gluon fusion as a function of the scalar boson mass.
Acceptance times efficiency for a scalar boson produced by gluon-gluon fusion as a function of the scalar boson mass.
Acceptance times efficiency for a scalar boson produced by b-associated production as a function of the scalar boson mass.
Acceptance times efficiency for a scalar boson produced by b-associated production as a function of the scalar boson mass.
Acceptance times efficiency for a scalar boson produced by b-associated production as a function of the scalar boson mass.
Acceptance times efficiency for a scalar boson produced by b-associated production as a function of the scalar boson mass.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on the scalar boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the scalar boson mass and the fraction of the b-associated production. The limits are calculated from a statistical combination of the 1l1tau_h and 2tau_h channels.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on the scalar boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the scalar boson mass and the fraction of the b-associated production. The limits are calculated from a statistical combination of the 1l1tau_h and 2tau_h channels.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on the scalar boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the scalar boson mass and the fraction of the b-associated production. The limits are calculated from a statistical combination of the 1l1tau_h and 2tau_h channels.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on the scalar boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the scalar boson mass and the fraction of the b-associated production. The limits are calculated from a statistical combination of the 1l1tau_h and 2tau_h channels.
Expected 95% CL upper limits on the scalar boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the scalar boson mass and the fraction of the b-associated production. The limits are calculated from a statistical combination of the 1l1tau_h and 2tau_h channels.
Expected 95% CL upper limits on the scalar boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the scalar boson mass and the fraction of the b-associated production. The limits are calculated from a statistical combination of the 1l1tau_h and 2tau_h channels.
Expected 95% CL upper limits on the scalar boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the scalar boson mass and the fraction of the b-associated production. The limits are calculated from a statistical combination of the 1l1tau_h and 2tau_h channels.
Expected 95% CL upper limits on the scalar boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the scalar boson mass and the fraction of the b-associated production. The limits are calculated from a statistical combination of the 1l1tau_h and 2tau_h channels.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 250 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 250 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 250 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 250 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 300 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 300 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 300 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 300 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 350 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 350 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 350 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 350 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 400 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 400 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 400 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 400 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 600 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 600 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 600 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 600 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 700 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 700 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 700 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 700 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 800 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 800 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 800 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 800 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 250 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 250 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 250 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 300 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 300 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 300 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 350 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 350 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 350 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 400 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 400 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 400 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 600 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 600 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 600 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 700 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 700 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 700 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 800 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 800 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 800 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The observed 95% CL upper limits with one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 1.0. The highest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 20.0. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 1.0. The highest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 20.0. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 1.0. The highest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 20.0. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 1.0. The highest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 20.0. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 1.0. The highest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 20.0. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 1.0. The highest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 20.0. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The results of a search for direct pair production of top squarks and for dark matter in events with two opposite-charge leptons (electrons or muons), jets and missing transverse momentum are reported, using 139 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity from proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV, collected by the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider during Run 2 (2015-2018). This search considers the pair production of top squarks and is sensitive across a wide range of mass differences between the top squark and the lightest neutralino. Additionally, spin-0 mediator dark-matter models are considered, in which the mediator is produced in association with a pair of top quarks. The mediator subsequently decays to a pair of dark-matter particles. No significant excess of events is observed above the Standard Model background, and limits are set at 95% confidence level. The results exclude top squark masses up to about 1 TeV, and masses of the lightest neutralino up to about 500 GeV. Limits on dark-matter production are set for scalar (pseudoscalar) mediator masses up to about 250 (300) GeV.
Two-body selection. Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in $SR^{2-body}_{110,\infty}$ for (a) different-flavour and (b) same-flavour events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference dark-matter signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panels indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction.
Two-body selection. Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in $SR^{2-body}_{110,\infty}$ for (a) different-flavour and (b) same-flavour events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference dark-matter signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panels indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction.
Three-body selection. Distributions of $M_{\Delta}^R$ in (a,b) $SR_{W}^{3-body}$ and (c,d) $SR_{T}^{3-body}$ for (left) same-flavour and (right) different-flavour events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panels indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.
Three-body selection. Distributions of $M_{\Delta}^R$ in (a,b) $SR_{W}^{3-body}$ and (c,d) $SR_{T}^{3-body}$ for (left) same-flavour and (right) different-flavour events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panels indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.
Three-body selection. Distributions of $M_{\Delta}^R$ in (a,b) $SR_{W}^{3-body}$ and (c,d) $SR_{T}^{3-body}$ for (left) same-flavour and (right) different-flavour events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panels indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.
Three-body selection. Distributions of $M_{\Delta}^R$ in (a,b) $SR_{W}^{3-body}$ and (c,d) $SR_{T}^{3-body}$ for (left) same-flavour and (right) different-flavour events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panels indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.
Four-body selection. (a) distributions of $E_{T}^{miss}$ in $SR^{4-body}_{Small\,\Delta m}$ and (b) distribution of $R_{2\ell 4j}$ in $SR^{4-body}_{Large\,\Delta m}$ for events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panel indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.
Four-body selection. (a) distributions of $E_{T}^{miss}$ in $SR^{4-body}_{Small\,\Delta m}$ and (b) distribution of $R_{2\ell 4j}$ in $SR^{4-body}_{Large\,\Delta m}$ for events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panel indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the Observed limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the mediator mass for a DM particle mass of $m(\chi)=1$ GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.
Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the mediator mass for a DM particle mass of $m(\chi)=1$ GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.
Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the mediator mass for a DM particle mass of $m(\chi)=1$ GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.
Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the mediator mass for a DM particle mass of $m(\chi)=1$ GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.
Two-body selection. Background fit results for $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$, $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t}Z}$, $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t}, DF}$, $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t}, SF}$ and $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t} Z}$. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Entries marked `--' indicate a negligible background contribution (less than 0.001 events). The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.
Three-body selection. Background fit results for $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{3-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$, $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{3-body}}_{VV}$, $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t}Z}$, $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{3-body}}_{VV}$, $\mathrm{VR(1)}^{\mathrm{3-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$ and $\mathrm{VR(2)}^{\mathrm{3-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Entries marked `--' indicate a negligible background contribution (less than 0.001 events). The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.
Four-body selection. Background fit results for $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$,$\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{VV}$, $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$, $VR^{4-body}_{VV}$ and $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{VV,lll}$. The ''Others'' category contains the contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Entries marked `--' indicate a negligible background contribution (less than 0.001 events). The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.
Two-body selection. Background fit results for the different-flavour leptons binned SRs. The ''Others'' category contains the contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Entries marked `--' indicate a negligible background contribution (less than 0.001 events). The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.
Two-body selection. Background fit results for the same-flavour leptons binned SRs. The ''Others'' category contains the contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.
Three-body selection. Observed event yields and background fit results for the three-body selection SRs. The ''Others'' category contains contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Entries marked `--' indicate a negligible background contribution (less than 0.001 events). The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.
Four-body selection. Observed event yields and background fit results for SR$^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{\mathrm{Small}\,\Delta m}$ and SR$^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{\mathrm{Large}\,\Delta m}$. The ''Others'' category contains the contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.
Exclusion limits contours (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with 100% branching ratio in $\tilde{t}_1--\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ masses planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm 1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The exclusion limits contours for the two-body, three-body and four-body selections are respectively shown in blue, green and red.
Exclusion limits contours (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with 100% branching ratio in $\tilde{t}_1--\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ masses planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm 1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The exclusion limits contours for the two-body, three-body and four-body selections are respectively shown in blue, green and red.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b W \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b W \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b W \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm 1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b W \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty.The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty.The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the DM particle mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.
Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the DM particle mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.
Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the DM particle mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.
Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the DM particle mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Three-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Three-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Three-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Three-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Four-body selection Efficiency (a) SR$^{4-body}_{Small \Delta m}$ , (b) $SR^{4-body}_{Large \Delta m}$ for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Four-body selection Efficiency (a) SR$^{4-body}_{Small \Delta m}$ , (b) $SR^{4-body}_{Large \Delta\ m}$ for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Three-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Three-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Three-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Three-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Four-body selection acceptance (a) SR$^{4-body}_{Small \Delta m}$ , (b) $SR^{4-body}_{Large \Delta m}$ for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Four-body selection acceptance (a) SR$^{4-body}_{Small \Delta m}$ , (b) $SR^{4-body}_{Large \Delta m}$ for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection The numbers indicate the observed upper limits on the signal strenght for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Two-body selection The numbers indicate the observed upper limits on the signal strenght for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Two-body selection The numbers indicate the observed upper limits on the signal strenght for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Three-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal strenght for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production. For comparison, the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Four-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal strenght for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production. For comparison, the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Two-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal cross-section for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Two-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal cross-section for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Two-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal cross-section for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Three-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal cross-section for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production. For comparison, the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Four-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal cross-section for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production. For comparison, the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Two-body selection. Background fit results for the $inclusive$ SRs. The Others category contains the contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Note that the individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up quadratically to the total background uncertainty.
Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=600~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=400~ GeV$ in the SRs for the two-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the scalar signal model $t\bar{t} + \phi $ with $m(\phi)=150~ GeV$ and $m(\chi)=1~ GeV$ in the SRs for the two-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the pseudoscalar signal model $t\bar{t} + a $ with $m(a)=150~ GeV$ and $m(\chi)=1~ GeV$ in the SRs for the two-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow bW\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=550~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=385~ GeV$ in the SRs for the three-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow bW\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=550~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=400~ GeV$ in the SRs for the three-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow bW\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=550~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=430~ GeV$ in the SRs for the three-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow bW\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=550~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=460~ GeV$ in the SRs for the three-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=400~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=380~ GeV$ in the SRs for the four-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=460~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=415~ GeV$ in the SRs for the four-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=400~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=320~ GeV$ in the SRs for the four-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
This paper describes a search for beyond the Standard Model decays of the Higgs boson into a pair of new spin-0 particles subsequently decaying into $b$-quark pairs, $H \rightarrow aa \rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b})$, using proton-proton collision data collected by the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider at center-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV. This search focuses on the regime where the decay products are collimated and in the range $15 \leq m_a \leq 30$ GeV and is complementary to a previous search in the same final state targeting the regime where the decay products are well separated and in the range $20 \leq m_a \leq 60$ GeV. A novel strategy for the identification of the $a \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ decays is deployed to enhance the efficiency for topologies with small separation angles. The search is performed with 36 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity collected in 2015 and 2016 and sets upper limits on the production cross-section of $H \rightarrow aa \rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b})$, where the Higgs boson is produced in association with a $Z$ boson.
Summary of the 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{ZH} BR(H\rightarrow aa \rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b}))$. Both observed and expected limits are listed. In the case of the expected limits, one- and two-standard-deviation uncertainty bands are also listed.
Summary of the 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{ZH} BR(H\rightarrow aa \rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b}))$. Both observed and expected limits are listed. In the case of the expected limits, one- and two-standard-deviation uncertainty bands are also listed.
Summary of the 95% C.L. upper limits on $\sigma_{ZH} BR(H\rightarrow aa \rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b}))$ for the dilepton channel in the resolved analysis. The observed limits are shown, together with the expected limits (dotted black lines). In the case of the expected limits, one- and two-standard-deviation uncertainty bands are also displayed. The data was published in JHEP 10 (2018) 031.
Summary of the observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{ZH} BR(H\rightarrow aa \rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b}))$ for the resolved analysis.
Efficiency and acceptance for simulated $ZH(\rightarrow aa\rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b}))$ samples in two signal regions (SR) of the analysis, one with two $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the High Purity Category (HPC), and the other with one $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidate in the High Purity Category (HPC) and one in the Low Purity Category (LPC).
Efficiency and acceptance for simulated $ZH(\rightarrow aa\rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b}))$ samples in two signal regions (SR) of the analysis, one with two $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the High Purity Category (HPC), and the other with one $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidate in the High Purity Category (HPC) and one in the Low Purity Category (LPC).
Event yields for a simulated $ZH(\rightarrow aa\rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b}))$ sample with $m_a = 17.5\,\text{GeV}$. The signal sample is produced with cross section equals to the standard model $pp\to ZH$, i.e. $0.88\,\text{pb}$. Cut 0 corresponds to the initial number of events. Cut 1 requires the single lepton trigger. Cut 2 requires 2 identified leptons. Cut 3 requires the Z-boson mass window. Cut 4 requires 2 reconstructed $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates. Cut 5a requires 2 identified $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 1HPC1LPC region. Cut 6a requires the 2 $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 1HPC1LPC region to be inside the Higgs mass window. Cut 5b requires 2 identified $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 2HPC region. Cut 6b requires the 2 $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 2HPC region to be inside the Higgs mass window.
Event yields for a simulated $ZH(\rightarrow aa\rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b}))$ sample with $m_a = 17.5\,\text{GeV}$. The signal sample is produced with cross section equals to the standard model $pp\to ZH$, i.e. $0.88\,\text{pb}$. Cut 0 corresponds to the initial number of events. Cut 1 requires the single lepton trigger. Cut 2 requires 2 identified leptons. Cut 3 requires the Z-boson mass window. Cut 4 requires 2 reconstructed $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates. Cut 5a requires 2 identified $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 1HPC1LPC region. Cut 6a requires the 2 $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 1HPC1LPC region to be inside the Higgs mass window. Cut 5b requires 2 identified $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 2HPC region. Cut 6b requires the 2 $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 2HPC region to be inside the Higgs mass window.
Background yield table for Z+jets, $t\bar{t}$, and rare sources. Observed data yield. Signal $ZH(\rightarrow aa\rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b}))$ yield with $m_a = 20\,\text{GeV}$. The signal sample is produced with cross section equals to the standard model $pp\to ZH$, i.e. $0.88\,\text{pb}$. The table includes the yields in two signal regions with leptons consistent with an on-shell Z-boson decay, one with 2 $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 2HPC region and one with 2 $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 1HPC1LPC region. The table also includes the yields in four control regions, one with leptons consistent with an on-shell Z-boson decay and 2 $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the Low Purity Category (LPC), and three others where the leptons are not consistent an on-shell Z-boson decay.
Background yield table for Z+jets, $t\bar{t}$, and rare sources. Observed data yield. Signal $ZH(\rightarrow aa\rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b}))$ yield with $m_a = 20\,\text{GeV}$. The signal sample is produced with cross section equals to the standard model $pp\to ZH$, i.e. $0.88\,\text{pb}$, with a branching ratio set to 1 for the $H \rightarrow aa$ decay, whereas the ATLAS figure attached to this entry instead uses the upper-limit branching ratio (smaller than 1). The table includes the yields in two signal regions with leptons consistent with an on-shell Z-boson decay, one with 2 $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 2HPC region and one with 2 $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 1HPC1LPC region. The table also includes the yields in four control regions, one with leptons consistent with an on-shell Z-boson decay and 2 $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the Low Purity Category (LPC), and three others where the leptons are not consistent an on-shell Z-boson decay.
Several extensions of the Standard Model predict the production of dark matter particles at the LHC. An uncharted signature of dark matter particles produced in association with $VV=W^\pm W^\mp$ or $ZZ$ pairs from a decay of a dark Higgs boson $s$ is searched for using 139 fb$^{-1}$ of $pp$ collisions recorded by the ATLAS detector at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. The $s\to V(q\bar q)V(q\bar q)$ decays are reconstructed with a novel technique aimed at resolving the dense topology from boosted $VV$ pairs using jets in the calorimeter and tracking information. Dark Higgs scenarios with $m_s > 160$ GeV are excluded.
The ratios (μ) of the 95% C.L. upper limits on the combined s→ W<sup>±</sup>W<sup>∓</sup> and s→ ZZ cross section to simplified model expectations for the m<sub>Z'</sub>=0.5 TeV scenario, for various m<sub>s</sub> hypotheses. The observed limits (solid line) are consistent with the expectation under the SM-only hypothesis (dashed line) within uncertainties (filled band), except for a small excess for m<sub>s</sub>=160 GeV, discussed in the text.
The ratios (μ) of the 95% C.L. upper limits on the combined s→ W<sup>±</sup>W<sup>∓</sup> and s→ ZZ cross section to simplified model expectations for the m<sub>Z'</sub>=1 TeV scenario, for various m<sub>s</sub> hypotheses. The observed limits (solid line) are consistent with the expectation under the SM-only hypothesis (dashed line) within uncertainties (filled band), except for a small excess for m<sub>s</sub>=160 GeV, discussed in the text.
The ratios (μ) of the 95% C.L. upper limits on the combined s→ W<sup>±</sup>W<sup>∓</sup> and s→ ZZ cross section to simplified model expectations for the m<sub>Z'</sub>=1.7 TeV scenario, for various m<sub>s</sub> hypotheses. The observed limits (solid line) are consistent with the expectation under the SM-only hypothesis (dashed line) within uncertainties (filled band), except for a small excess for m<sub>s</sub>=160 GeV, discussed in the text.
Observed upper limits at 95% C.L. on σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s→ VV) for m<sub>Z'</sub>=0.5 TeV signal points. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s→ VV) process for m<sub>Z'</sub>=0.5 TeV, shown in dashed blue.
Observed upper limits at 95% C.L. on σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s→ VV) for m<sub>Z'</sub>=1 TeV signal points. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s→ VV) process for m<sub>Z'</sub>=1 TeV, shown in dashed blue.
Observed upper limits at 95% C.L. on σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s→ VV) for m<sub>Z'</sub>=1.7 TeV signal points. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s→ VV) process for m<sub>Z'</sub>=1.7 TeV, shown in dashed blue.
Cumulative efficiencies for the merged category for signal samples with m<sub>s</sub>=160 GeV (a), m<sub>s</sub>=235 GeV (b) and m<sub>s</sub>=310 GeV (c), each with m<sub>Z'</sub>=1 TeV. The dark Higgs candidate selection includes stringent jet substructure requirements and typically at most one candidate is present in signal events. Here, Δ φ<sub>jets<sub>1,2,3</sub> E<sub>T</sub><sup>miss</sup></sub> is the smallest azimuthal angle between the E<sub>T</sub><sup>miss</sup> and any of the three highest-p<sub>T</sub> (leading) small-R jets.
Cumulative efficiencies for the intermediate category for signal samples with m<sub>s</sub>=160 GeV (a), m<sub>s</sub>=235 GeV (b) and m<sub>s</sub>=310 GeV (c), each with m<sub>Z'</sub>=1 TeV. The TAR+Comb algorithm reconstructs the dark Higgs candidate from a TAR jet with m<sup>TAR</sup>>60 GeV that is supplemented by up to two additional small-R jets within ΔR<sub>cone</sub>=2.5 of the TAR jet. Here, Δ φ<sub>jets<sub>1,2,3</sub> E<sub>T</sub><sup>miss</sup></sub> is the smallest azimuthal angle between the E<sub>T</sub><sup>miss</sup> and any of the three highest-p<sub>T</sub> (leading) small-R jets. For details see text.
The product of acceptance and efficiency (A × ϵ), defined as the number of signal events satisfying the full set of selection criteria in the merged or intermediate signal regions, divided by the total number of generated signal events, for the s(W<sup>±</sup>W<sup>∓</sup>) dark Higgs signal points with dark Higgs boson mass m<sub>s</sub> and Z' boson mass m<sub>Z'</sub>.
The product of acceptance and efficiency (A × ϵ), defined as the number of signal events satisfying the full set of selection criteria in the merged or intermediate signal regions, divided by the total number of generated signal events, for the s(ZZ) dark Higgs signal points with dark Higgs boson mass m<sub>s</sub> and Z' boson mass m<sub>Z'</sub>.
A search for pair production of bottom squarks in events with hadronically decaying $\tau$-leptons, $b$-tagged jets and large missing transverse momentum is presented. The analyzed dataset is based on proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV delivered by the Large Hadron Collider and recorded by the ATLAS detector from 2015 to 2018, and corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. The observed data are compatible with the expected Standard Model background. Results are interpreted in a simplified model where each bottom squark is assumed to decay into the second-lightest neutralino $\tilde \chi_2^0$ and a bottom quark, with $\tilde \chi_2^0$ decaying into a Higgs boson and the lightest neutralino $\tilde \chi_1^0$. The search focuses on final states where at least one Higgs boson decays into a pair of hadronically decaying $\tau$-leptons. This allows the acceptance and thus the sensitivity to be significantly improved relative to the previous results at low masses of the $\tilde \chi_2^0$, where bottom-squark masses up to 850 GeV are excluded at the 95% confidence level, assuming a mass difference of 130 GeV between $\tilde \chi_2^0$ and $\tilde \chi_1^0$. Model-independent upper limits are also set on the cross section of processes beyond the Standard Model.
The expected exclusion contour at $95\%$ CL as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Masses within the contour are excluded.
The observed exclusion contour at $95\%$ CL as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Masses within the contour are excluded.
Acceptance in the Single-bin SR as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Keep in mind that the acceptance is given in units of $10^{-4}$.
Efficiency in the Single-bin SR as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta$ M(N2,N1) $= 130$ GeV. Keep in mind that the efficiency is given in units of $10^{-2}$.
Acceptance in the Multi-bin SR, $\min_{\Theta} < 0.5$ bin as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Keep in mind that the acceptance is given in units of $10^{-4}$.
Efficiency in the Multi-bin SR, $\min_{\Theta} < 0.5$ bin as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Keep in mind that the efficiency is given in units of $10^{-2}$.
Acceptance in the Multi-bin SR, $0.5 < \min_{\Theta} < 1.0$ bin as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Keep in mind that the acceptance is given in units of $10^{-4}$.
Efficiency in the Multi-bin SR, $0.5 < \min_{\Theta} < 1.0$ bin as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Keep in mind that the efficiency is given in units of $10^{-2}$.
Acceptance in the Multi-bin SR, $\min_{\Theta} > 1.0$ bin as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Keep in mind that the acceptance is given in units of $10^{-4}$.
Efficiency in the Multi-bin SR, $\min_{\Theta} > 1.0$ bin as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Keep in mind that the efficiency is given in units of $10^{-2}$.
Observed upper limits on the signal cross section as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV.
Expected upper limits on the signal cross section as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV.
Cutflows for the bechmarl signal point M(Sbottom) = 800 GeV, M(N2) = 180 GeV. Weighted event yields are reported starting with the "Preselection" line, normalized to an integrated luminosity of $139$ fb$^{−1}$.
Comparison of the expected and observed event yields in the signal regions. The top-quark and Z(mumu) background contributions are scaled with the normalization factors obtained from the background-only fit. The other contribution includes all the backgrounds not explicitly listed in the legend (V+jets except Z(mumu)+jets, di-/triboson, multijet). The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background. The contributions from three signal models to the signal regions are also displayed, where the masses M(Sbottom) and M(N2) are given in GeV in the legend. The lower panel shows the significance of the deviation of the observed yield from the expected background yield.
Dominant systematic uncertainties in the background prediction for the signal regions after the fit to the control regions. “Other” includes the uncertainties arising from muons, jet-vertex tagging, modeling of pile-up, the $E_{T}^{miss}$ computation, multijet background, and luminosity. The individual uncertainties can be correlated and do not necessarily add up quadratically to the total uncertainty.
A search for the electroweak production of charginos and sleptons decaying into final states with two electrons or muons is presented. The analysis is based on 139 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collisions recorded by the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV. Three $R$-parity-conserving scenarios where the lightest neutralino is the lightest supersymmetric particle are considered: the production of chargino pairs with decays via either $W$ bosons or sleptons, and the direct production of slepton pairs. The analysis is optimised for the first of these scenarios, but the results are also interpreted in the others. No significant deviations from the Standard Model expectations are observed and limits at 95 % confidence level are set on the masses of relevant supersymmetric particles in each of the scenarios. For a massless lightest neutralino, masses up to 420 GeV are excluded for the production of the lightest-chargino pairs assuming $W$-boson-mediated decays and up to 1 TeV for slepton-mediated decays, whereas for slepton-pair production masses up to 700 GeV are excluded assuming three generations of mass-degenerate sleptons.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$ boson mediated decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$ boson mediated decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$ boson mediated decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$ boson mediated decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for chargino-pair production with W -boson-mediated decays.
Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for slepton-pair production.
Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for slepton-pair production.
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[260,inf).
Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_1^{\mp}$ decay via $W^{\pm}W^{\mp}$. The masses of the two charginos are 300 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 50 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.
Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde\ell\tilde\ell$ are produced. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered in this model. The masses of the two sleptons are 400 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 200 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.
The results of a search for electroweakino pair production $pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2$ in which the chargino ($\tilde\chi^\pm_1$) decays into a $W$ boson and the lightest neutralino ($\tilde\chi^0_1$), while the heavier neutralino ($\tilde\chi^0_2$) decays into the Standard Model 125 GeV Higgs boson and a second $\tilde\chi^0_1$ are presented. The signal selection requires a pair of $b$-tagged jets consistent with those from a Higgs boson decay, and either an electron or a muon from the $W$ boson decay, together with missing transverse momentum from the corresponding neutrino and the stable neutralinos. The analysis is based on data corresponding to 139 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ of $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV $pp$ collisions provided by the Large Hadron Collider and recorded by the ATLAS detector. No statistically significant evidence of an excess of events above the Standard Model expectation is found. Limits are set on the direct production of the electroweakinos in simplified models, assuming pure wino cross-sections. Masses of $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ up to 740 GeV are excluded at 95% confidence level for a massless $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onLM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onLM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onLM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onLM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offLM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offLM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offLM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offLM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-HM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-HM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-HM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-HM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-MM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-MM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-MM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-MM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-LM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-LM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-LM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-LM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-HM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection.The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-HM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection.The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-HM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection.The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-HM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection.The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-MM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-MM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-MM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-MM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-LM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-LM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-LM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-LM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The observed exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion up limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion up limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion up limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion up limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion down limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion down limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion down limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion down limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The expected exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The expected exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The expected exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The expected exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
Upper limits on the cross sections for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Upper limits on the cross sections for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Upper limits on the cross sections for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Upper limits on the cross sections for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. 1lb\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. 1lb\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. 1lb\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. 1lb\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-LM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-LM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-LM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-LM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-MM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-MM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-MM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-MM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-HM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-HM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-HM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-HM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
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.