Showing 10 of 13 results
An inclusive search for long-lived exotic particles decaying to a pair of muons is presented. The search uses data collected by the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV in 2016 and 2018 and corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 97.6 fb$^{-1}$. The experimental signature is a pair of oppositely charged muons originating from a common secondary vertex spatially separated from the pp interaction point by distances ranging from several hundred $\mu$m to several meters. The results are interpreted in the frameworks of the hidden Abelian Higgs model, in which the Higgs boson decays to a pair of long-lived dark photons Z$_\mathrm{D}$, and of a simplified model, in which long-lived particles are produced in decays of an exotic heavy neutral scalar boson. For the hidden Abelian Higgs model with $m_\mathrm{Z_D}$ greater than 20 GeV and less than half the mass of the Higgs boson, they provide the best limits to date on the branching fraction of the Higgs boson to dark photons for $c\tau$(Z$_\mathrm{D}$) (varying with $m_\mathrm{Z_D}$) between 0.03 and ${\approx}$ 0.5 mm, and above ${\approx}$ 0.5 m. Our results also yield the best constraints on long-lived particles with masses larger than 10 GeV produced in decays of an exotic scalar boson heavier than the Higgs boson and decaying to a pair of muons.
Level-1 muon trigger efficiency in cosmic-ray muon data (blue) and signal simulation (red) as a function of $d_0$, for the Level-1 trigger $p_T$ threshold used in the 2016 analysis triggers. The denominator in the efficiency calculation is the number of STA muons with $|\eta| < 1.2$ and $p_T > 33$ GeV.
Level-1 muon trigger efficiency in cosmic-ray muon data (blue) and signal simulation (red) as a function of $d_0$, for the Level-1 trigger $p_T$ threshold used in the 2016 analysis triggers. The denominator in the efficiency calculation is the number of STA muons with $|\eta| < 1.2$ and $p_T > 33$ GeV.
Level-1 muon trigger efficiency in cosmic-ray muon data (blue) and signal simulation (red) as a function of $d_0$, for the Level-1 trigger $p_T$ threshold used in the 2018 analysis triggers. The denominator in the efficiency calculation is the number of STA muons with $|\eta| < 1.2$ and $p_T > 28$ GeV.
Level-1 muon trigger efficiency in cosmic-ray muon data (blue) and signal simulation (red) as a function of $d_0$, for the Level-1 trigger $p_T$ threshold used in the 2018 analysis triggers. The denominator in the efficiency calculation is the number of STA muons with $|\eta| < 1.2$ and $p_T > 28$ GeV.
Fractions of signal events with zero (green), one (blue), and two (red) STA muons matched to TMS muons by the STA-to-TMS muon association procedure, as a function of true $L_{xy}$, in all simulated $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal samples combined. The fractions are computed relative to the number of signal events passing the trigger and containing two STA muons with more than 12 muon detector hits and $p_T > 10$ GeV matched to generated muons from $X \rightarrow \mu \mu$ decays.
Fractions of signal events with zero (green), one (blue), and two (red) STA muons matched to TMS muons by the STA-to-TMS muon association procedure, as a function of true $L_{xy}$, in all simulated $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal samples combined. The fractions are computed relative to the number of signal events passing the trigger and containing two STA muons with more than 12 muon detector hits and $p_T > 10$ GeV matched to generated muons from $X \rightarrow \mu \mu$ decays.
Comparison of the number of events observed in 2016 data in the STA-STA dimuon category with the expected number of background events, in representative $m_{\mu \mu}$ intervals. The black points with crosses show the number of observed events; the green and yellow components of the stacked histograms represent the estimated numbers of DY and QCD events, respectively. The last bin includes events in the overflow. The uncertainties in the total expected background (shaded area) are statistical only. Signal contributions expected from simulated $H \rightarrow Z_D Z_D$ with $m_{Z_D}$ of 20 and 50 GeV are shown in red and blue, respectively. Their yields are set to the corresponding combined median expected exclusion limits at 95% CL, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. The legends also include the total number of observed events as well as the number of expected background events obtained inclusively, by applying the background evaluation method to the events in all $m_{\mu \mu}$ intervals combined.
Comparison of the number of events observed in 2016 data in the STA-STA dimuon category with the expected number of background events, in representative $m_{\mu \mu}$ intervals. The black points with crosses show the number of observed events; the green and yellow components of the stacked histograms represent the estimated numbers of DY and QCD events, respectively. The last bin includes events in the overflow. The uncertainties in the total expected background (shaded area) are statistical only. Signal contributions expected from simulated $H \rightarrow Z_D Z_D$ with $m_{Z_D}$ of 20 and 50 GeV are shown in red and blue, respectively. Their yields are set to the corresponding combined median expected exclusion limits at 95% CL, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. The legends also include the total number of observed events as well as the number of expected background events obtained inclusively, by applying the background evaluation method to the events in all $m_{\mu \mu}$ intervals combined.
Comparison of the number of events observed in 2018 data in the STA-STA dimuon category with the expected number of background events, in representative $m_{\mu \mu}$ intervals. The black points with crosses show the number of observed events; the green and yellow components of the stacked histograms represent the estimated numbers of DY and QCD events, respectively. The last bin includes events in the overflow. The uncertainties in the total expected background (shaded area) are statistical only. Signal contributions expected from simulated $H \rightarrow Z_D Z_D$ with $m_{Z_D}$ of 20 and 50 GeV are shown in red and blue, respectively. Their yields are set to the corresponding combined median expected exclusion limits at 95% CL, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. The legends also include the total number of observed events as well as the number of expected background events obtained inclusively, by applying the background evaluation method to the events in all $m_{\mu \mu}$ intervals combined.
Comparison of the number of events observed in 2018 data in the STA-STA dimuon category with the expected number of background events, in representative $m_{\mu \mu}$ intervals. The black points with crosses show the number of observed events; the green and yellow components of the stacked histograms represent the estimated numbers of DY and QCD events, respectively. The last bin includes events in the overflow. The uncertainties in the total expected background (shaded area) are statistical only. Signal contributions expected from simulated $H \rightarrow Z_D Z_D$ with $m_{Z_D}$ of 20 and 50 GeV are shown in red and blue, respectively. Their yields are set to the corresponding combined median expected exclusion limits at 95% CL, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. The legends also include the total number of observed events as well as the number of expected background events obtained inclusively, by applying the background evaluation method to the events in all $m_{\mu \mu}$ intervals combined.
Comparison of the number of events observed in 2016 data in the STA-TMS dimuon category with the expected number of background events, in representative $m_{\mu \mu}$ intervals. The black points with crosses show the number of observed events; the green and yellow components of the stacked histograms represent the estimated numbers of DY and QCD events, respectively. The last bin includes events in the overflow. The uncertainties in the total expected background (shaded area) are statistical only. Signal contributions expected from simulated $H \rightarrow Z_D Z_D$ with $m_{Z_D}$ of 30 and 60 GeV are shown in red and blue, respectively. Their yields are set to the corresponding combined median expected exclusion limits at 95% CL, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. The legends also include the total number of observed events as well as the number of expected background events obtained inclusively, by applying the background evaluation method to the events in all $m_{\mu \mu}$ intervals combined.
Comparison of the number of events observed in 2016 data in the STA-TMS dimuon category with the expected number of background events, in representative $m_{\mu \mu}$ intervals. The black points with crosses show the number of observed events; the green and yellow components of the stacked histograms represent the estimated numbers of DY and QCD events, respectively. The last bin includes events in the overflow. The uncertainties in the total expected background (shaded area) are statistical only. Signal contributions expected from simulated $H \rightarrow Z_D Z_D$ with $m_{Z_D}$ of 30 and 60 GeV are shown in red and blue, respectively. Their yields are set to the corresponding combined median expected exclusion limits at 95% CL, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. The legends also include the total number of observed events as well as the number of expected background events obtained inclusively, by applying the background evaluation method to the events in all $m_{\mu \mu}$ intervals combined.
Comparison of the number of events observed in 2018 data in the STA-TMS dimuon category with the expected number of background events, in representative $m_{\mu \mu}$ intervals. The black points with crosses show the number of observed events; the green and yellow components of the stacked histograms represent the estimated numbers of DY and QCD events, respectively. The last bin includes events in the overflow. The uncertainties in the total expected background (shaded area) are statistical only. Signal contributions expected from simulated $H \rightarrow Z_D Z_D$ with $m_{Z_D}$ of 30 and 60 GeV are shown in red and blue, respectively. Their yields are set to the corresponding combined median expected exclusion limits at 95% CL, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. The legends also include the total number of observed events as well as the number of expected background events obtained inclusively, by applying the background evaluation method to the events in all $m_{\mu \mu}$ intervals combined.
Comparison of the number of events observed in 2018 data in the STA-TMS dimuon category with the expected number of background events, in representative $m_{\mu \mu}$ intervals. The black points with crosses show the number of observed events; the green and yellow components of the stacked histograms represent the estimated numbers of DY and QCD events, respectively. The last bin includes events in the overflow. The uncertainties in the total expected background (shaded area) are statistical only. Signal contributions expected from simulated $H \rightarrow Z_D Z_D$ with $m_{Z_D}$ of 30 and 60 GeV are shown in red and blue, respectively. Their yields are set to the corresponding combined median expected exclusion limits at 95% CL, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. The legends also include the total number of observed events as well as the number of expected background events obtained inclusively, by applying the background evaluation method to the events in all $m_{\mu \mu}$ intervals combined.
Comparison of the number of events observed in 2016 data in the TMS-TMS dimuon category with the expected number of background events, in representative $m_{\mu \mu}$ intervals in the $6 < min(d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}) \leq 10$ bin. The black points with crosses show the number of observed events; the green and yellow components of the stacked histograms represent the estimated numbers of DY and QCD events, respectively. The last bin includes events in the overflow. The uncertainties in the total expected background (shaded area) are statistical only. Signal contributions expected from simulated $H \rightarrow Z_D Z_D$ with $m_{Z_D}$ of 20 and 50 GeV are shown in red and blue, respectively. Their yields are set to the corresponding combined median expected exclusion limits at 95% CL, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. The legend also includes the total number of observed events as well as the number of expected background events obtained inclusively, by applying the background evaluation method to the events in all $m_{Z_D}$ and min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) intervals combined.
Comparison of the number of events observed in 2016 data in the TMS-TMS dimuon category with the expected number of background events, in representative $m_{\mu \mu}$ intervals in the $6 < min(d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}) \leq 10$ bin. The black points with crosses show the number of observed events; the green and yellow components of the stacked histograms represent the estimated numbers of DY and QCD events, respectively. The last bin includes events in the overflow. The uncertainties in the total expected background (shaded area) are statistical only. Signal contributions expected from simulated $H \rightarrow Z_D Z_D$ with $m_{Z_D}$ of 20 and 50 GeV are shown in red and blue, respectively. Their yields are set to the corresponding combined median expected exclusion limits at 95% CL, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. The legend also includes the total number of observed events as well as the number of expected background events obtained inclusively, by applying the background evaluation method to the events in all $m_{Z_D}$ and min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) intervals combined.
Comparison of the number of events observed in 2016 data in the TMS-TMS dimuon category with the expected number of background events, in representative $m_{\mu \mu}$ intervals in the $10 < min(d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}) \leq 20$ bin. The black points with crosses show the number of observed events; the green and yellow components of the stacked histograms represent the estimated numbers of DY and QCD events, respectively. The last bin includes events in the overflow. The uncertainties in the total expected background (shaded area) are statistical only. Signal contributions expected from simulated $H \rightarrow Z_D Z_D$ with $m_{Z_D}$ of 20 and 50 GeV are shown in red and blue, respectively. Their yields are set to the corresponding combined median expected exclusion limits at 95% CL, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. The legend also includes the total number of observed events as well as the number of expected background events obtained inclusively, by applying the background evaluation method to the events in all $m_{Z_D}$ and min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) intervals combined.
Comparison of the number of events observed in 2016 data in the TMS-TMS dimuon category with the expected number of background events, in representative $m_{\mu \mu}$ intervals in the $10 < min(d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}) \leq 20$ bin. The black points with crosses show the number of observed events; the green and yellow components of the stacked histograms represent the estimated numbers of DY and QCD events, respectively. The last bin includes events in the overflow. The uncertainties in the total expected background (shaded area) are statistical only. Signal contributions expected from simulated $H \rightarrow Z_D Z_D$ with $m_{Z_D}$ of 20 and 50 GeV are shown in red and blue, respectively. Their yields are set to the corresponding combined median expected exclusion limits at 95% CL, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. The legend also includes the total number of observed events as well as the number of expected background events obtained inclusively, by applying the background evaluation method to the events in all $m_{Z_D}$ and min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) intervals combined.
Comparison of the number of events observed in 2016 data in the TMS-TMS dimuon category with the expected number of background events, in representative $m_{\mu \mu}$ intervals in the $min(d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}) > 20$ bin. The black points with crosses show the number of observed events; the green and yellow components of the stacked histograms represent the estimated numbers of DY and QCD events, respectively. The last bin includes events in the overflow. The uncertainties in the total expected background (shaded area) are statistical only. Signal contributions expected from simulated $H \rightarrow Z_D Z_D$ with $m_{Z_D}$ of 20 and 50 GeV are shown in red and blue, respectively. Their yields are set to the corresponding combined median expected exclusion limits at 95% CL, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. The legend also includes the total number of observed events as well as the number of expected background events obtained inclusively, by applying the background evaluation method to the events in all $m_{Z_D}$ and min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) intervals combined.
Comparison of the number of events observed in 2016 data in the TMS-TMS dimuon category with the expected number of background events, in representative $m_{\mu \mu}$ intervals in the $min(d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}) > 20$ bin. The black points with crosses show the number of observed events; the green and yellow components of the stacked histograms represent the estimated numbers of DY and QCD events, respectively. The last bin includes events in the overflow. The uncertainties in the total expected background (shaded area) are statistical only. Signal contributions expected from simulated $H \rightarrow Z_D Z_D$ with $m_{Z_D}$ of 20 and 50 GeV are shown in red and blue, respectively. Their yields are set to the corresponding combined median expected exclusion limits at 95% CL, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. The legend also includes the total number of observed events as well as the number of expected background events obtained inclusively, by applying the background evaluation method to the events in all $m_{Z_D}$ and min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) intervals combined.
Comparison of the number of events observed in 2018 data in the TMS-TMS dimuon category with the expected number of background events, in representative $m_{\mu \mu}$ intervals in the $6 < min(d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}) \leq 10$ bin. The black points with crosses show the number of observed events; the green and yellow components of the stacked histograms represent the estimated numbers of DY and QCD events, respectively. The last bin includes events in the overflow. The uncertainties in the total expected background (shaded area) are statistical only. Signal contributions expected from simulated $H \rightarrow Z_D Z_D$ with $m_{Z_D}$ of 20 and 50 GeV are shown in red and blue, respectively. Their yields are set to the corresponding combined median expected exclusion limits at 95% CL, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. The legend also includes the total number of observed events as well as the number of expected background events obtained inclusively, by applying the background evaluation method to the events in all $m_{Z_D}$ and min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) intervals combined.
Comparison of the number of events observed in 2018 data in the TMS-TMS dimuon category with the expected number of background events, in representative $m_{\mu \mu}$ intervals in the $6 < min(d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}) \leq 10$ bin. The black points with crosses show the number of observed events; the green and yellow components of the stacked histograms represent the estimated numbers of DY and QCD events, respectively. The last bin includes events in the overflow. The uncertainties in the total expected background (shaded area) are statistical only. Signal contributions expected from simulated $H \rightarrow Z_D Z_D$ with $m_{Z_D}$ of 20 and 50 GeV are shown in red and blue, respectively. Their yields are set to the corresponding combined median expected exclusion limits at 95% CL, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. The legend also includes the total number of observed events as well as the number of expected background events obtained inclusively, by applying the background evaluation method to the events in all $m_{Z_D}$ and min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) intervals combined.
Comparison of the number of events observed in 2018 data in the TMS-TMS dimuon category with the expected number of background events, in representative $m_{\mu \mu}$ intervals in the $10 < min(d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}) \leq 20$ bin. The black points with crosses show the number of observed events; the green and yellow components of the stacked histograms represent the estimated numbers of DY and QCD events, respectively. The last bin includes events in the overflow. The uncertainties in the total expected background (shaded area) are statistical only. Signal contributions expected from simulated $H \rightarrow Z_D Z_D$ with $m_{Z_D}$ of 20 and 50 GeV are shown in red and blue, respectively. Their yields are set to the corresponding combined median expected exclusion limits at 95% CL, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. The legend also includes the total number of observed events as well as the number of expected background events obtained inclusively, by applying the background evaluation method to the events in all $m_{Z_D}$ and min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) intervals combined.
Comparison of the number of events observed in 2018 data in the TMS-TMS dimuon category with the expected number of background events, in representative $m_{\mu \mu}$ intervals in the $10 < min(d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}) \leq 20$ bin. The black points with crosses show the number of observed events; the green and yellow components of the stacked histograms represent the estimated numbers of DY and QCD events, respectively. The last bin includes events in the overflow. The uncertainties in the total expected background (shaded area) are statistical only. Signal contributions expected from simulated $H \rightarrow Z_D Z_D$ with $m_{Z_D}$ of 20 and 50 GeV are shown in red and blue, respectively. Their yields are set to the corresponding combined median expected exclusion limits at 95% CL, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. The legend also includes the total number of observed events as well as the number of expected background events obtained inclusively, by applying the background evaluation method to the events in all $m_{Z_D}$ and min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) intervals combined.
Comparison of the number of events observed in 2018 data in the TMS-TMS dimuon category with the expected number of background events, in representative $m_{\mu \mu}$ intervals in the $min(d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}) > 20$ bin. The black points with crosses show the number of observed events; the green and yellow components of the stacked histograms represent the estimated numbers of DY and QCD events, respectively. The last bin includes events in the overflow. The uncertainties in the total expected background (shaded area) are statistical only. Signal contributions expected from simulated $H \rightarrow Z_D Z_D$ with $m_{Z_D}$ of 20 and 50 GeV are shown in red and blue, respectively. Their yields are set to the corresponding combined median expected exclusion limits at 95% CL, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. The legend also includes the total number of observed events as well as the number of expected background events obtained inclusively, by applying the background evaluation method to the events in all $m_{Z_D}$ and min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) intervals combined.
Comparison of the number of events observed in 2018 data in the TMS-TMS dimuon category with the expected number of background events, in representative $m_{\mu \mu}$ intervals in the $min(d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}) > 20$ bin. The black points with crosses show the number of observed events; the green and yellow components of the stacked histograms represent the estimated numbers of DY and QCD events, respectively. The last bin includes events in the overflow. The uncertainties in the total expected background (shaded area) are statistical only. Signal contributions expected from simulated $H \rightarrow Z_D Z_D$ with $m_{Z_D}$ of 20 and 50 GeV are shown in red and blue, respectively. Their yields are set to the corresponding combined median expected exclusion limits at 95% CL, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. The legend also includes the total number of observed events as well as the number of expected background events obtained inclusively, by applying the background evaluation method to the events in all $m_{Z_D}$ and min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) intervals combined.
Comparison of the number of events observed in 2016 data in the TMS-TMS dimuon category with the expected number of background events, as a function of the smaller of the two $d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$ values in the TMS-TMS dimuon. The black points with crosses show the number of observed events; the green and yellow components of the stacked histograms represent the estimated numbers of DY and QCD events, respectively. The last bin includes events in the overflow. The uncertainties in the total expected background (shaded area) are statistical only. Signal contributions expected from simulated $H \rightarrow Z_D Z_D$ with $m_{Z_D}$ of 20 and 50 GeV are shown in red and blue, respectively. Their yields are set to the corresponding combined median expected exclusion limits at 95% CL, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility.
Comparison of the number of events observed in 2016 data in the TMS-TMS dimuon category with the expected number of background events, as a function of the smaller of the two $d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$ values in the TMS-TMS dimuon. The black points with crosses show the number of observed events; the green and yellow components of the stacked histograms represent the estimated numbers of DY and QCD events, respectively. The last bin includes events in the overflow. The uncertainties in the total expected background (shaded area) are statistical only. Signal contributions expected from simulated $H \rightarrow Z_D Z_D$ with $m_{Z_D}$ of 20 and 50 GeV are shown in red and blue, respectively. Their yields are set to the corresponding combined median expected exclusion limits at 95% CL, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility.
Comparison of the number of events observed in 2018 data in the TMS-TMS dimuon category with the expected number of background events, as a function of the smaller of the two $d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$ values in the TMS-TMS dimuon. The black points with crosses show the number of observed events; the green and yellow components of the stacked histograms represent the estimated numbers of DY and QCD events, respectively. The last bin includes events in the overflow. The uncertainties in the total expected background (shaded area) are statistical only. Signal contributions expected from simulated $H \rightarrow Z_D Z_D$ with $m_{Z_D}$ of 20 and 50 GeV are shown in red and blue, respectively. Their yields are set to the corresponding combined median expected exclusion limits at 95% CL, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility.
Comparison of the number of events observed in 2018 data in the TMS-TMS dimuon category with the expected number of background events, as a function of the smaller of the two $d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$ values in the TMS-TMS dimuon. The black points with crosses show the number of observed events; the green and yellow components of the stacked histograms represent the estimated numbers of DY and QCD events, respectively. The last bin includes events in the overflow. The uncertainties in the total expected background (shaded area) are statistical only. Signal contributions expected from simulated $H \rightarrow Z_D Z_D$ with $m_{Z_D}$ of 20 and 50 GeV are shown in red and blue, respectively. Their yields are set to the corresponding combined median expected exclusion limits at 95% CL, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(\Phi \rightarrow XX)B(X \rightarrow \mu \mu)$ as a function of $c\tau(X)$ in the heavy-scalar model, for $m(\Phi) = 125\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 20\ GeV$. The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA, STA-TMS, and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed green, blue, and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(\Phi \rightarrow XX)B(X \rightarrow \mu \mu)$ as a function of $c\tau(X)$ in the heavy-scalar model, for $m(\Phi) = 125\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 20\ GeV$. The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA, STA-TMS, and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed green, blue, and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(\Phi \rightarrow XX)B(X \rightarrow \mu \mu)$ as a function of $c\tau(X)$ in the heavy-scalar model, for $m(\Phi) = 125\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 50\ GeV$. The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA, STA-TMS, and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed green, blue, and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(\Phi \rightarrow XX)B(X \rightarrow \mu \mu)$ as a function of $c\tau(X)$ in the heavy-scalar model, for $m(\Phi) = 125\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 50\ GeV$. The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA, STA-TMS, and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed green, blue, and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(\Phi \rightarrow XX)B(X \rightarrow \mu \mu)$ as a function of $c\tau(X)$ in the heavy-scalar model, for $m(\Phi) = 200\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 20\ GeV$. The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA, STA-TMS, and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed green, blue, and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(\Phi \rightarrow XX)B(X \rightarrow \mu \mu)$ as a function of $c\tau(X)$ in the heavy-scalar model, for $m(\Phi) = 200\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 20\ GeV$. The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA, STA-TMS, and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed green, blue, and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(\Phi \rightarrow XX)B(X \rightarrow \mu \mu)$ as a function of $c\tau(X)$ in the heavy-scalar model, for $m(\Phi) = 200\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 50\ GeV$. The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA, STA-TMS, and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed green, blue, and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(\Phi \rightarrow XX)B(X \rightarrow \mu \mu)$ as a function of $c\tau(X)$ in the heavy-scalar model, for $m(\Phi) = 200\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 50\ GeV$. The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA, STA-TMS, and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed green, blue, and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(\Phi \rightarrow XX)B(X \rightarrow \mu \mu)$ as a function of $c\tau(X)$ in the heavy-scalar model, for $m(\Phi) = 400\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 20\ GeV$. The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA, STA-TMS, and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed green, blue, and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(\Phi \rightarrow XX)B(X \rightarrow \mu \mu)$ as a function of $c\tau(X)$ in the heavy-scalar model, for $m(\Phi) = 400\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 20\ GeV$. The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA, STA-TMS, and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed green, blue, and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(\Phi \rightarrow XX)B(X \rightarrow \mu \mu)$ as a function of $c\tau(X)$ in the heavy-scalar model, for $m(\Phi) = 400\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 50\ GeV$. The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA, STA-TMS, and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed green, blue, and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(\Phi \rightarrow XX)B(X \rightarrow \mu \mu)$ as a function of $c\tau(X)$ in the heavy-scalar model, for $m(\Phi) = 400\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 50\ GeV$. The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA, STA-TMS, and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed green, blue, and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(\Phi \rightarrow XX)B(X \rightarrow \mu \mu)$ as a function of $c\tau(X)$ in the heavy-scalar model, for $m(\Phi) = 400\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 150\ GeV$. The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA, STA-TMS, and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed green, blue, and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(\Phi \rightarrow XX)B(X \rightarrow \mu \mu)$ as a function of $c\tau(X)$ in the heavy-scalar model, for $m(\Phi) = 400\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 150\ GeV$. The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA, STA-TMS, and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed green, blue, and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(\Phi \rightarrow XX)B(X \rightarrow \mu \mu)$ as a function of $c\tau(X)$ in the heavy-scalar model, for $m(\Phi) = 1000\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 20\ GeV$. The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA, STA-TMS, and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed green, blue, and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(\Phi \rightarrow XX)B(X \rightarrow \mu \mu)$ as a function of $c\tau(X)$ in the heavy-scalar model, for $m(\Phi) = 1000\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 20\ GeV$. The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA, STA-TMS, and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed green, blue, and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(\Phi \rightarrow XX)B(X \rightarrow \mu \mu)$ as a function of $c\tau(X)$ in the heavy-scalar model, for $m(\Phi) = 1000\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 50\ GeV$. The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA, STA-TMS, and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed green, blue, and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(\Phi \rightarrow XX)B(X \rightarrow \mu \mu)$ as a function of $c\tau(X)$ in the heavy-scalar model, for $m(\Phi) = 1000\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 50\ GeV$. The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA, STA-TMS, and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed green, blue, and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(\Phi \rightarrow XX)B(X \rightarrow \mu \mu)$ as a function of $c\tau(X)$ in the heavy-scalar model, for $m(\Phi) = 1000\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 150\ GeV$. The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA, STA-TMS, and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed green, blue, and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(\Phi \rightarrow XX)B(X \rightarrow \mu \mu)$ as a function of $c\tau(X)$ in the heavy-scalar model, for $m(\Phi) = 1000\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 150\ GeV$. The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA, STA-TMS, and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed green, blue, and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(\Phi \rightarrow XX)B(X \rightarrow \mu \mu)$ as a function of $c\tau(X)$ in the heavy-scalar model, for $m(\Phi) = 1000\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 350\ GeV$. The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA, STA-TMS, and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed green, blue, and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(\Phi \rightarrow XX)B(X \rightarrow \mu \mu)$ as a function of $c\tau(X)$ in the heavy-scalar model, for $m(\Phi) = 1000\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 350\ GeV$. The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA, STA-TMS, and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed green, blue, and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)B(Z_D \rightarrow \mu \mu)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m_{Z_D} = 10\ GeV$. The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA, STA-TMS, and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed green, blue, and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits. The horizontal lines in gray correspond to the theoretical predictions for values of $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ indicated next to the lines.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)B(Z_D \rightarrow \mu \mu)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m_{Z_D} = 10\ GeV$. The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA, STA-TMS, and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed green, blue, and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits. The horizontal lines in gray correspond to the theoretical predictions for values of $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ indicated next to the lines.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)B(Z_D \rightarrow \mu \mu)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m_{Z_D} = 20\ GeV$. The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA, STA-TMS, and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed green, blue, and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits. The horizontal lines in gray correspond to the theoretical predictions for values of $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ indicated next to the lines.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)B(Z_D \rightarrow \mu \mu)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m_{Z_D} = 20\ GeV$. The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA, STA-TMS, and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed green, blue, and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits. The horizontal lines in gray correspond to the theoretical predictions for values of $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ indicated next to the lines.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)B(Z_D \rightarrow \mu \mu)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m_{Z_D} = 30\ GeV$. The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA, STA-TMS, and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed green, blue, and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits. The horizontal lines in gray correspond to the theoretical predictions for values of $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ indicated next to the lines.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)B(Z_D \rightarrow \mu \mu)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m_{Z_D} = 30\ GeV$. The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA, STA-TMS, and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed green, blue, and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits. The horizontal lines in gray correspond to the theoretical predictions for values of $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ indicated next to the lines.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)B(Z_D \rightarrow \mu \mu)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m_{Z_D} = 40\ GeV$. The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA, STA-TMS, and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed green, blue, and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits. The horizontal lines in gray correspond to the theoretical predictions for values of $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ indicated next to the lines.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)B(Z_D \rightarrow \mu \mu)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m_{Z_D} = 40\ GeV$. The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA, STA-TMS, and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed green, blue, and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits. The horizontal lines in gray correspond to the theoretical predictions for values of $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ indicated next to the lines.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)B(Z_D \rightarrow \mu \mu)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m_{Z_D} = 50\ GeV$. The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA, STA-TMS, and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed green, blue, and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits. The horizontal lines in gray correspond to the theoretical predictions for values of $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ indicated next to the lines.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)B(Z_D \rightarrow \mu \mu)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m_{Z_D} = 50\ GeV$. The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA, STA-TMS, and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed green, blue, and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits. The horizontal lines in gray correspond to the theoretical predictions for values of $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ indicated next to the lines.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)B(Z_D \rightarrow \mu \mu)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m_{Z_D} = 60\ GeV$. The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA, STA-TMS, and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed green, blue, and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits. The horizontal lines in gray correspond to the theoretical predictions for values of $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ indicated next to the lines.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)B(Z_D \rightarrow \mu \mu)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m_{Z_D} = 60\ GeV$. The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA, STA-TMS, and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed green, blue, and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits. The horizontal lines in gray correspond to the theoretical predictions for values of $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ indicated next to the lines.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours in the HAHM model, in the ($m(Z_D)$, $c\tau(Z_D)$) plane. The contours correspond to several representative values of $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D$) ranging from 0.005 to 1%.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours in the HAHM model, in the ($m(Z_D)$, $c\tau(Z_D)$) plane. The contours correspond to several representative values of $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D$) ranging from 0.005 to 1%.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours in the HAHM model, in the ($m(Z_D)$, $\epsilon$) plane. The contours correspond to several representative values of $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D$) ranging from 0.005 to 1%.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours in the HAHM model, in the ($m(Z_D)$, $\epsilon$) plane. The contours correspond to several representative values of $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D$) ranging from 0.005 to 1%.
Background estimation and observed number of events in the STA-STA dimuon category in 2016 and 2018 data. For each probed LLP mass, the chosen mass interval is shown. The mass interval is followed by the estimated and observed counts for the given year. The quoted uncertainties are statistical only.
Background estimations and observed numbers of events in the STA-STA dimuon category in 2016 and 2018 data. For each probed LLP mass, the chosen mass interval is shown, followed by the predicted background yield $N^\text{est}_\text{bkg}$ and the observed number of events $N^\text{obs}$ for the given year. The quoted uncertainties are statistical only.
Background estimation and observed number of events in the TMS-TMS dimuon category in 2016 data. The mass interval is followed by the estimated and observed counts within each $min(d_0 / \sigma_{d_0})$ bin in this mass interval. The quoted uncertainties are statistical only.
Background estimations and observed numbers of events in the TMS-TMS dimuon category in 2016 data. For each mass interval, the table shows the predicted background yield $N^\text{est}_\text{bkg}$ and the observed number of events $N^\text{obs}$ in each of the three $\text{min}(d_0 / \sigma_{d_0})$ bins. The quoted uncertainties are statistical only
Background estimation and observed number of events in the TMS-TMS dimuon category in 2018 data. The mass interval is followed by the estimated and observed counts within each $min(d_0 / \sigma_{d_0})$ bin in this mass interval. The quoted uncertainties are statistical only.
Background estimations and observed numbers of events in the TMS-TMS dimuon category in 2016 data. For each mass interval, the table shows the predicted background yield $N^\text{est}_\text{bkg}$ and the observed number of events $N^\text{obs}$ in each of the three $\text{min}(d_0 / \sigma_{d_0})$ bins. The quoted uncertainties are statistical only
Correspondence between the mass intervals in the TMS-TMS category and the parameters of the simulated signal samples.
Correspondence between the probed LLP masses and the chosen mass intervals in the TMS-TMS category.
Background estimation and observed number of events in the STA-TMS dimuon category in 2016 and 2018 data. For each probed LLP mass, the chosen mass interval is shown. The mass interval is followed by the estimated and observed counts for the given year. The quoted uncertainties are statistical only.
Background estimations and observed numbers of events in the STA-TMS dimuon category in 2016 and 2018 data. For each probed LLP mass, the chosen mass interval is shown, followed by the predicted background yield $N^\text{est}_\text{bkg}$ and the observed number of events $N^\text{obs}$ for the given year. The quoted uncertainties are statistical only.
Number of events passing consecutive sets of selection criteria for 2018 collision data and the signal process $\Phi(125) \rightarrow XX(20\ GeV, c\tau = 13\ cm) \rightarrow \mu\mu$. Each row introduces a new criterion that is applied in addition to the selection of the previous row. In addition to the total number of events, N(events), the event yields of the individual dimuon vertex categories, STA-STA, TMS-TMS, and STA-TMS, are shown in separate columns for each data set. In these columns, events containing selected dimuons of different categories are independently counted for each category.
Number of events passing consecutive sets of selection criteria, in 2018 data and in a sample of simulated $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow \mu\mu$ signal events with $m(H) = 125\ GeV$, $m(X) = 20\ GeV$, and $c\tau = 13\ cm$. Each row introduces a new criterion that is applied in addition to the selection of the previous row. In addition to the total number of events $N(\text{total})$, the event yields in the individual dimuon categories, STA-STA, TMS-TMS, and STA-TMS, are shown in separate columns for each data set. In these columns, events containing selected dimuons of different categories are counted independently for each category.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 125\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 20\ GeV$. The figure shows efficiencies in the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black) calculated as the sum of the efficiencies of the individual categories. The signal efficiencies for the 2016 and 2018 datasets are shown as dashed and solid lines, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 125\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 20\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper. The efficiencies in the 2016 and 2018 data sets are shown as dashed and solid curves, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 125\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 50\ GeV$. The figure shows efficiencies in the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black) calculated as the sum of the efficiencies of the individual categories. The signal efficiencies for the 2016 and 2018 datasets are shown as dashed and solid lines, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 125\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 50\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper. The efficiencies in the 2016 and 2018 data sets are shown as dashed and solid curves, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 200\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 20\ GeV$. The figure shows efficiencies in the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black) calculated as the sum of the efficiencies of the individual categories. The signal efficiencies for the 2016 and 2018 datasets are shown as dashed and solid lines, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 200\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 20\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper. The efficiencies in the 2016 and 2018 data sets are shown as dashed and solid curves, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 200\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 50\ GeV$. The figure shows efficiencies in the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black) calculated as the sum of the efficiencies of the individual categories. The signal efficiencies for the 2016 and 2018 datasets are shown as dashed and solid lines, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 200\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 50\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper. The efficiencies in the 2016 and 2018 data sets are shown as dashed and solid curves, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 400\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 20\ GeV$. The figure shows efficiencies in the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black) calculated as the sum of the efficiencies of the individual categories. The signal efficiencies for the 2016 and 2018 datasets are shown as dashed and solid lines, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 400\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 20\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper. The efficiencies in the 2016 and 2018 data sets are shown as dashed and solid curves, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 400\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 50\ GeV$. The figure shows efficiencies in the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black) calculated as the sum of the efficiencies of the individual categories. The signal efficiencies for the 2016 and 2018 datasets are shown as dashed and solid lines, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 400\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 50\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper. The efficiencies in the 2016 and 2018 data sets are shown as dashed and solid curves, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 400\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 150\ GeV$. The figure shows efficiencies in the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black) calculated as the sum of the efficiencies of the individual categories. The signal efficiencies for the 2016 and 2018 datasets are shown as dashed and solid lines, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 400\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 150\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper. The efficiencies in the 2016 and 2018 data sets are shown as dashed and solid curves, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 1000\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 20\ GeV$. The figure shows efficiencies in the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black) calculated as the sum of the efficiencies of the individual categories. The signal efficiencies for the 2016 and 2018 datasets are shown as dashed and solid lines, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 1\ TeV$ and $m(X) = 20\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper. The efficiencies in the 2016 and 2018 data sets are shown as dashed and solid curves, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 1000\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 50\ GeV$. The figure shows efficiencies in the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black) calculated as the sum of the efficiencies of the individual categories. The signal efficiencies for the 2016 and 2018 datasets are shown as dashed and solid lines, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 1\ TeV$ and $m(X) = 50\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper. The efficiencies in the 2016 and 2018 data sets are shown as dashed and solid curves, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 1000\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 150\ GeV$. The figure shows efficiencies in the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black) calculated as the sum of the efficiencies of the individual categories. The signal efficiencies for the 2016 and 2018 datasets are shown as dashed and solid lines, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 1\ TeV$ and $m(X) = 150\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper. The efficiencies in the 2016 and 2018 data sets are shown as dashed and solid curves, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 1000\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 350\ GeV$. The figure shows efficiencies in the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black) calculated as the sum of the efficiencies of the individual categories. The signal efficiencies for the 2016 and 2018 datasets are shown as dashed and solid lines, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 1\ TeV$ and $m(X) = 350\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper. The efficiencies in the 2016 and 2018 data sets are shown as dashed and solid curves, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow 4\mu$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 125\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 20\ GeV$. The figure shows efficiencies in the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black) calculated as the sum of the efficiencies of the individual categories. The signal efficiencies for the 2016 and 2018 datasets are shown as dashed and solid lines, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow 4\mu$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 125\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 20\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper. The efficiencies in the 2016 and 2018 data sets are shown as dashed and solid curves, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow 4\mu$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 125\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 50\ GeV$. The figure shows efficiencies in the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black) calculated as the sum of the efficiencies of the individual categories. The signal efficiencies for the 2016 and 2018 datasets are shown as dashed and solid lines, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow 4\mu$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 125\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 50\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper. The efficiencies in the 2016 and 2018 data sets are shown as dashed and solid curves, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow 4\mu$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 200\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 20\ GeV$. The figure shows efficiencies in the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black) calculated as the sum of the efficiencies of the individual categories. The signal efficiencies for the 2016 and 2018 datasets are shown as dashed and solid lines, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow 4\mu$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 200\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 20\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper. The efficiencies in the 2016 and 2018 data sets are shown as dashed and solid curves, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow 4\mu$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 200\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 50\ GeV$. The figure shows efficiencies in the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black) calculated as the sum of the efficiencies of the individual categories. The signal efficiencies for the 2016 and 2018 datasets are shown as dashed and solid lines, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow 4\mu$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 200\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 50\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper. The efficiencies in the 2016 and 2018 data sets are shown as dashed and solid curves, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow 4\mu$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 400\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 20\ GeV$. The figure shows efficiencies in the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black) calculated as the sum of the efficiencies of the individual categories. The signal efficiencies for the 2016 and 2018 datasets are shown as dashed and solid lines, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow 4\mu$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 400\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 20\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper. The efficiencies in the 2016 and 2018 data sets are shown as dashed and solid curves, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow 4\mu$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 400\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 50\ GeV$. The figure shows efficiencies in the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black) calculated as the sum of the efficiencies of the individual categories. The signal efficiencies for the 2016 and 2018 datasets are shown as dashed and solid lines, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow 4\mu$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 400\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 50\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper. The efficiencies in the 2016 and 2018 data sets are shown as dashed and solid curves, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow 4\mu$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 400\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 150\ GeV$. The figure shows efficiencies in the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black) calculated as the sum of the efficiencies of the individual categories. The signal efficiencies for the 2016 and 2018 datasets are shown as dashed and solid lines, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow 4\mu$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 400\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 150\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper. The efficiencies in the 2016 and 2018 data sets are shown as dashed and solid curves, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow 4\mu$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 1000\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 20\ GeV$. The figure shows efficiencies in the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black) calculated as the sum of the efficiencies of the individual categories. The signal efficiencies for the 2016 and 2018 datasets are shown as dashed and solid lines, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow 4\mu$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 1\ TeV$ and $m(X) = 20\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper. The efficiencies in the 2016 and 2018 data sets are shown as dashed and solid curves, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow 4\mu$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 1000\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 50\ GeV$. The figure shows efficiencies in the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black) calculated as the sum of the efficiencies of the individual categories. The signal efficiencies for the 2016 and 2018 datasets are shown as dashed and solid lines, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow 4\mu$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 1\ TeV$ and $m(X) = 50\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper. The efficiencies in the 2016 and 2018 data sets are shown as dashed and solid curves, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow 4\mu$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 1000\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 150\ GeV$. The figure shows efficiencies in the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black) calculated as the sum of the efficiencies of the individual categories. The signal efficiencies for the 2016 and 2018 datasets are shown as dashed and solid lines, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow 4\mu$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 1\ TeV$ and $m(X) = 150\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper. The efficiencies in the 2016 and 2018 data sets are shown as dashed and solid curves, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow 4\mu$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 1000\ GeV$ and $m(X) = 350\ GeV$. The figure shows efficiencies in the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black) calculated as the sum of the efficiencies of the individual categories. The signal efficiencies for the 2016 and 2018 datasets are shown as dashed and solid lines, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow 4\mu$ signal process with $m(\Phi) = 1\ TeV$ and $m(X) = 350\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper. The efficiencies in the 2016 and 2018 data sets are shown as dashed and solid curves, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal process with $m(H) = 125\ GeV$ and $m(Z_D) = 10\ GeV$. The figure shows efficiencies in the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black) calculated as the sum of the efficiencies of the individual categories. The signal efficiencies for the 2016 and 2018 datasets are shown as dashed and solid lines, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal process with $m(H) = 125\ GeV$ and $m(Z_D) = 10\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well the combined efficiency (black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper. The efficiencies in the 2016 and 2018 data sets are shown as dashed and solid curves, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal process with $m(H) = 125\ GeV$ and $m(Z_D) = 20\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well the combined efficiency (black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper. The efficiencies in the 2016 and 2018 data sets are shown as dashed and solid curves, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal process with $m(H) = 125\ GeV$ and $m(Z_D) = 20\ GeV$. The figure shows efficiencies in the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black) calculated as the sum of the efficiencies of the individual categories. The signal efficiencies for the 2016 and 2018 datasets are shown as dashed and solid lines, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal process with $m(H) = 125\ GeV$ and $m(Z_D) = 30\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well the combined efficiency (black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper. The efficiencies in the 2016 and 2018 data sets are shown as dashed and solid curves, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal process with $m(H) = 125\ GeV$ and $m(Z_D) = 30\ GeV$. The figure shows efficiencies in the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black) calculated as the sum of the efficiencies of the individual categories. The signal efficiencies for the 2016 and 2018 datasets are shown as dashed and solid lines, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal process with $m(H) = 125\ GeV$ and $m(Z_D) = 40\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well the combined efficiency (black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper. The efficiencies in the 2016 and 2018 data sets are shown as dashed and solid curves, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal process with $m(H) = 125\ GeV$ and $m(Z_D) = 40\ GeV$. The figure shows efficiencies in the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black) calculated as the sum of the efficiencies of the individual categories. The signal efficiencies for the 2016 and 2018 datasets are shown as dashed and solid lines, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal process with $m(H) = 125\ GeV$ and $m(Z_D) = 50\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well the combined efficiency (black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper. The efficiencies in the 2016 and 2018 data sets are shown as dashed and solid curves, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal process with $m(H) = 125\ GeV$ and $m(Z_D) = 50\ GeV$. The figure shows efficiencies in the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black) calculated as the sum of the efficiencies of the individual categories. The signal efficiencies for the 2016 and 2018 datasets are shown as dashed and solid lines, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal process with $m(H) = 125\ GeV$ and $m(Z_D) = 60\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well the combined efficiency (black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper. The efficiencies in the 2016 and 2018 data sets are shown as dashed and solid curves, respectively.
Overall signal efficiencies as a function of $c\tau$ for the $H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal process with $m(H) = 125\ GeV$ and $m(Z_D) = 60\ GeV$. The figure shows efficiencies in the three dimuon categories, STA-STA (green), TMS-TMS (red), and STA-TMS (blue), as well as the combined efficiency (black) calculated as the sum of the efficiencies of the individual categories. The signal efficiencies for the 2016 and 2018 datasets are shown as dashed and solid lines, respectively.
Signal efficiencies as a function of the smaller of the two values of generated muon $p_T$ and $d_0$ in dimuons with $L_{xy}^\mathrm{true} < 20\ cm$ in the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal model, in 2016 samples. The efficiency in each bin is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin that pass the trigger requirements and selection criteria applied in the STA-STA dimuon category to the total number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin and within the geometric acceptance. The geometric acceptance is defined as the generated longitudinal decay length $L_{z}$ smaller than $8\ m$ and $|\eta^\mathrm{true}|$ of both generated muons forming the dimuon smaller than 2.0. The efficiencies obtained from simulation were further corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.
Signal efficiencies as a function of the smaller of the two values of generated muon $p_T$ and $d_0$ in dimuons with $L_{xy}^\mathrm{true} < 20\ cm$ in the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal model, in 2018 samples. The efficiency in each bin is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin that pass the trigger requirements and selection criteria applied in the STA-STA dimuon category to the total number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin and within the geometric acceptance. The geometric acceptance is defined as the generated longitudinal decay length $L_{z}$ smaller than $8\ m$ and $|\eta^\mathrm{true}|$ of both generated muons forming the dimuon smaller than 2.0. The efficiencies obtained from simulation were further corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.
Signal efficiencies as a function of the smaller of the two values of generated muon $p_T$ and $d_0$ in dimuons with $L_{xy}^\mathrm{true} < 20\ cm$ in the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal model, in 2016 samples. The efficiency in each bin is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin that pass the trigger requirements and selection criteria applied in the STA-TMS dimuon category to the total number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin and within the geometric acceptance. The geometric acceptance is defined as the generated longitudinal decay length $L_{z}$ smaller than $8\ m$ and $|\eta^\mathrm{true}|$ of both generated muons forming the dimuon smaller than 2.0. The efficiencies obtained from simulation were further corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.
Signal efficiencies as a function of the smaller of the two values of generated muon $p_T$ and $d_0$ in dimuons with $L_{xy}^\mathrm{true} < 20\ cm$ in the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal model, in 2018 samples. The efficiency in each bin is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin that pass the trigger requirements and selection criteria applied in the STA-TMS dimuon category to the total number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin and within the geometric acceptance. The geometric acceptance is defined as the generated longitudinal decay length $L_{z}$ smaller than $8\ m$ and $|\eta^\mathrm{true}|$ of both generated muons forming the dimuon smaller than 2.0. The efficiencies obtained from simulation were further corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.
Signal efficiencies as a function of the smaller of the two values of generated muon $p_T$ and $d_0$ in dimuons with $L_{xy}^\mathrm{true} < 20\ cm$ in the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal model, in 2016 samples. The efficiency in each bin is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin that pass the trigger requirements and selection criteria applied in the TMS-TMS dimuon category to the total number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin and within the geometric acceptance. The geometric acceptance is defined as the generated longitudinal decay length $L_{z}$ smaller than $8\ m$ and $|\eta^\mathrm{true}|$ of both generated muons forming the dimuon smaller than 2.0. The efficiencies obtained from simulation were further corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.
Signal efficiencies as a function of the smaller of the two values of generated muon $p_T$ and $d_0$ in dimuons with $L_{xy}^\mathrm{true} < 20\ cm$ in the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal model, in 2018 samples. The efficiency in each bin is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin that pass the trigger requirements and selection criteria applied in the TMS-TMS dimuon category to the total number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin and within the geometric acceptance. The geometric acceptance is defined as the generated longitudinal decay length $L_{z}$ smaller than $8\ m$ and $|\eta^\mathrm{true}|$ of both generated muons forming the dimuon smaller than 2.0. The efficiencies obtained from simulation were further corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.
Signal efficiencies as a function of the smaller of the two values of generated muon $p_T$ and $d_0$ in dimuons with $20\ cm < L_{xy}^\mathrm{true} < 70\ cm$ in the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal model, in 2016 samples. The efficiency in each bin is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin that pass the trigger requirements and selection criteria applied in the STA-STA dimuon category to the total number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin and within the geometric acceptance. The geometric acceptance is defined as the generated longitudinal decay length $L_{z}$ smaller than $8\ m$ and $|\eta^\mathrm{true}|$ of both generated muons forming the dimuon smaller than 2.0. The efficiencies obtained from simulation were further corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.
Signal efficiencies as a function of the smaller of the two values of generated muon $p_T$ and $d_0$ in dimuons with $20\ cm < L_{xy}^\mathrm{true} < 70\ cm$ in the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal model, in 2018 samples. The efficiency in each bin is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin that pass the trigger requirements and selection criteria applied in the STA-STA dimuon category to the total number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin and within the geometric acceptance. The geometric acceptance is defined as the generated longitudinal decay length $L_{z}$ smaller than $8\ m$ and $|\eta^\mathrm{true}|$ of both generated muons forming the dimuon smaller than 2.0. The efficiencies obtained from simulation were further corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.
Signal efficiencies as a function of the smaller of the two values of generated muon $p_T$ and $d_0$ in dimuons with $20\ cm < L_{xy}^\mathrm{true} < 70\ cm$ in the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal model, in 2016 samples. The efficiency in each bin is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin that pass the trigger requirements and selection criteria applied in the STA-TMS dimuon category to the total number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin and within the geometric acceptance. The geometric acceptance is defined as the generated longitudinal decay length $L_{z}$ smaller than $8\ m$ and $|\eta^\mathrm{true}|$ of both generated muons forming the dimuon smaller than 2.0. The efficiencies obtained from simulation were further corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.
Signal efficiencies as a function of the smaller of the two values of generated muon $p_T$ and $d_0$ in dimuons with $20\ cm < L_{xy}^\mathrm{true} < 70\ cm$ in the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal model, in 2018 samples. The efficiency in each bin is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin that pass the trigger requirements and selection criteria applied in the STA-TMS dimuon category to the total number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin and within the geometric acceptance. The geometric acceptance is defined as the generated longitudinal decay length $L_{z}$ smaller than $8\ m$ and $|\eta^\mathrm{true}|$ of both generated muons forming the dimuon smaller than 2.0. The efficiencies obtained from simulation were further corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.
Signal efficiencies as a function of the smaller of the two values of generated muon $p_T$ and $d_0$ in dimuons with $20\ cm < L_{xy}^\mathrm{true} < 70\ cm$ in the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal model, in 2016 samples. The efficiency in each bin is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin that pass the trigger requirements and selection criteria applied in the TMS-TMS dimuon category to the total number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin and within the geometric acceptance. The geometric acceptance is defined as the generated longitudinal decay length $L_{z}$ smaller than $8\ m$ and $|\eta^\mathrm{true}|$ of both generated muons forming the dimuon smaller than 2.0. The efficiencies obtained from simulation were further corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.
Signal efficiencies as a function of the smaller of the two values of generated muon $p_T$ and $d_0$ in dimuons with $20\ cm < L_{xy}^\mathrm{true} < 70\ cm$ in the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal model, in 2018 samples. The efficiency in each bin is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin that pass the trigger requirements and selection criteria applied in the TMS-TMS dimuon category to the total number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin and within the geometric acceptance. The geometric acceptance is defined as the generated longitudinal decay length $L_{z}$ smaller than $8\ m$ and $|\eta^\mathrm{true}|$ of both generated muons forming the dimuon smaller than 2.0. The efficiencies obtained from simulation were further corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.
Signal efficiencies as a function of the smaller of the two values of generated muon $p_T$ and $d_0$ in dimuons with $70\ cm < L_{xy}^\mathrm{true} < 320\ cm$ in the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal model, in 2016 samples. The efficiency in each bin is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin that pass the trigger requirements and selection criteria applied in the STA-STA dimuon category to the total number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin and within the geometric acceptance. The geometric acceptance is defined as the generated longitudinal decay length $L_{z}$ smaller than $8\ m$ and $|\eta^\mathrm{true}|$ of both generated muons forming the dimuon smaller than 2.0. The efficiencies obtained from simulation were further corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper. Efficiencies for dimuons with $70\ cm < L_{xy}^\mathrm{true} < 320\ cm$ in the STA-TMS and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are equal to zero.
Signal efficiencies as a function of the smaller of the two values of generated muon $p_T$ and $d_0$ in dimuons with $70\ cm < L_{xy}^\mathrm{true} < 320\ cm$ in the $\Phi \rightarrow XX \rightarrow \mu\mu + anything$ signal model, in 2018 samples. The efficiency in each bin is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin that pass the trigger requirements and selection criteria applied in the STA-STA dimuon category to the total number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin and within the geometric acceptance. The geometric acceptance is defined as the generated longitudinal decay length $L_{z}$ smaller than $8\ m$ and $|\eta^\mathrm{true}|$ of both generated muons forming the dimuon smaller than 2.0. The efficiencies obtained from simulation were further corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper. Efficiencies for dimuons with $70\ cm < L_{xy}^\mathrm{true} < 320\ cm$ in the STA-TMS and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are equal to zero.
A search for dark matter produced in association with a Higgs boson in final states with two hadronically decaying $\tau$-leptons and missing transverse momentum is presented. The analysis uses $139$ fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collision data at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV collected by the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider between 2015 and 2018. No evidence for physics beyond the Standard Model is found. The results are interpreted in terms of a 2HDM+$a$ model. Exclusion limits at 95% confidence level are derived. Model-independent limits are also set on the visible cross section for processes beyond the Standard Model producing missing transverse momentum in association with a Higgs boson decaying to $\tau$-leptons.
Expected CLs values in the Low mA SR, mA vs tanB signal grid.
Observed CLs values in the Low mA SR, mA vs tanB signal grid.
Expected CLs values in the High mA SR, mA vs ma signal grid.
Observed CLs values in the High mA SR, mA vs ma signal grid.
Expected CLs values in the Low mA SR, mA vs ma signal grid.
Observed CLs values in the High mA SR, mA vs ma signal grid.
CLs+b values in the Low mA SR, mA vs tanB signal grid.
CLs+b values in the High mA SR, mA vs ma signal grid.
CLs+b values in the Low mA SR, mA vs ma signal grid.
Cut flow of the 2HDM+a signal points, gluon–gluon fusion production, Low mA SR. tanB = 1, $sin\theta$ = 0.35. The first two entries in the tables are number of raw MC events, third entry is theoretical prediction, and all other lines include the correct weights. Note that during the generation Higgs boson’s branching ratio to taus has been set to 1. An additional factor of 0.0627 is used to account for that, starting from the ‘Initial’ entry.
Cut flow of the 2HDM+a signal points, gluon–gluon fusion production, High mA SR. tanB = 1, $sin\theta$ = 0.35. The first two entries in the tables are number of raw MC events, third entry is theoretical prediction, and all other lines include the correct weights. Note that during the generation Higgs boson’s branching ratio to taus has been set to 1. An additional factor of 0.0627 is used to account for that, starting from the ‘Initial’ entry.
Cut flow of the 2HDM+a signal points, bb annihilation production, Low mA SR. tanB = 1, $sin\theta$ = 0.35. The first two entries in the tables are number of raw MC events, third entry is theoretical prediction, and all other lines include the correct weights. Note that during the generation Higgs boson’s branching ratio to taus has been set to 1. An additional factor of 0.0627 is used to account for that, starting from the ‘Initial’ entry.
Cut flow of the 2HDM+a signal points, bb annihilation production, High mA SR. tanB = 1, $sin\theta$ = 0.35. The first two entries in the tables are number of raw MC events, third entry is theoretical prediction, and all other lines include the correct weights. Note that during the generation Higgs boson’s branching ratio to taus has been set to 1. An additional factor of 0.0627 is used to account for that, starting from the ‘Initial’ entry.
A comparison of the observed and expected yields in the four bins of the Low mA SR.
A comparison of the observed and expected yields in the two bins of the High mA SR.
Expected exclusion contours at 95% CL as a function of mA and ma.
Observed exclusion contours at 95% CL as a function of mA and ma.
Expected +- 1sigma exclusion contours at 95% CL as a function of mA and ma.
Expected exclusion contours at 95% CL as a function of mA and ma.
Observed exclusion contours at 95% CL as a function of mA and ma.
Expected +- 1sigma exclusion contours at 95% CL as a function of mA and ma.
Acceptance, High mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 400-750 GeV, bb prod
Acceptance, High mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, >750 GeV, bb prod
Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 100-250 GeV, bb prod
Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 250-400 GeV, bb prod
Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 400-550 GeV, bb prod
Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, >550 GeV, bb prod
Acceptance, High mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 400-750 GeV, bb prod
Acceptance, High mA SR, mA vs ma grid, >750 GeV, bb prod
Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 100-250 GeV, bb prod
Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 250-400 GeV, bb prod
Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 400-550 GeV, bb prod
Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, >550 GeV, bb prod
Acceptance, High mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 400-750 GeV, ggF prod
Acceptance, High mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, >750 GeV, ggF prod
Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 100-250 GeV, ggF prod
Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 250-400 GeV, ggF prod
Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 400-550 GeV, ggF prod
Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, >550 GeV, ggF prod
Acceptance, High mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 400-750 GeV, ggF prod
Acceptance, High mA SR, mA vs ma grid, >750 GeV, ggF prod
Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 100-250 GeV, ggF prod
Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 250-400 GeV, ggF prod
Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 400-550 GeV, ggF prod
Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, >550 GeV, ggF prod
Efficiency, High mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 400-750 GeV, bb prod
Efficiency, High mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, >750 GeV, bb prod
Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 100-250 GeV, bb prod
Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 250-400 GeV, bb prod
Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 400-550 GeV, bb prod
Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, >550 GeV, bb prod
Efficiency, High mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 400-750 GeV, bb prod
Efficiency, High mA SR, mA vs ma grid, >750 GeV, bb prod
Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 100-250 GeV, bb prod
Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 250-400 GeV, bb prod
Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 400-550 GeV, bb prod
Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, >550 GeV, bb prod
Efficiency, High mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 400-750 GeV, ggF prod
Efficiency, High mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, >750 GeV, ggF prod
Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 100-250 GeV, ggF prod
Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 250-400 GeV, ggF prod
Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 400-550 GeV, ggF prod
Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, >550 GeV, ggF prod
Efficiency, High mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 400-750 GeV, ggF prod
Efficiency, High mA SR, mA vs ma grid, >750 GeV, ggF prod
This Letter presents a search for the production of a long-lived neutral particle ($Z_d$) decaying within the ATLAS hadronic calorimeter, in association with a Standard Model (SM) $Z$ boson produced via an intermediate scalar boson, where $Z\to l^+l^-$ ($l=e,\mu$). The data used were collected by the ATLAS detector during 2015 and 2016 $pp$ collisions with a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV at the Large Hadron Collider and corresponds to an integrated luminosity of $36.1\pm0.8$ fb$^{-1}$. No significant excess of events is observed above the expected background. Limits on the production cross section of the scalar boson times its decay branching fraction into the long-lived neutral particle are derived as a function of the mass of the intermediate scalar boson, the mass of the long-lived neutral particle, and its $c\tau$ from a few centimeters to one hundred meters. In the case that the intermediate scalar boson is the SM Higgs boson, its decay branching fraction to a long-lived neutral particle with a $c\tau$ approximately between 0.1 m and 7 m is excluded with a 95% confidence level up to 10% for $m_{Z_d}$ between 5 and 15 GeV.
The product of acceptance and efficiency for all signal MC samples.
A search for supersymmetric partners of top quarks decaying as $\tilde{t}_1\to c\tilde\chi^0_1$ and supersymmetric partners of charm quarks decaying as $\tilde{c}_1\to c\tilde\chi^0_1$, where $\tilde\chi^0_1$ is the lightest neutralino, is presented. The search uses 36.1 ${\rm fb}^{-1}$ $pp$ collision data at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV collected by the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider and is performed in final states with jets identified as containing charm hadrons. Assuming a 100% branching ratio to $c\tilde\chi^0_1$, top and charm squarks with masses up to 850 GeV are excluded at 95% confidence level for a massless lightest neutralino. For $m_{\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{c}_1}-m_{\tilde\chi^0_1}
Acceptance for best expected CLS SR in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.
Acceptance for SR1 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.
Acceptance for SR1 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.
Acceptance for SR1 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.
Acceptance for SR2 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.
Acceptance for SR2 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.
Acceptance for SR2 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.
Acceptance for SR3 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.
Acceptance for SR3 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.
Acceptance for SR3 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.
Acceptance for SR4 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.
Acceptance for SR4 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.
Acceptance for SR4 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.
Acceptance for SR5 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.
Acceptance for SR5 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.
Acceptance for SR5 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.
Acceptance for best expected CLS SR in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.
Acceptance for best expected CLS SR in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.
Detector efficiency for best expected CLS SR in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.
Detector efficiency for SR1 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.
Detector efficiency for SR1 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.
Detector efficiency for SR1 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.
Detector efficiency for SR2 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.
Detector efficiency for SR2 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.
Detector efficiency for SR2 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.
Detector efficiency for SR3 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.
Detector efficiency for SR3 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.
Detector efficiency for SR3 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.
Detector efficiency for SR4 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.
Detector efficiency for SR4 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.
Detector efficiency for SR4 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.
Detector efficiency for SR5 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.
Detector efficiency for SR5 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.
Detector efficiency for SR5 in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.
Detector efficiency for best expected CLS SR in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.
Detector efficiency for best expected CLS SR in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
SR1 expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
SR1 expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
SR1 expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
SR1 observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
SR1 observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
SR1 observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
SR2 expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
SR2 expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
SR2 expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
SR2 observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
SR2 observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
SR2 observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
SR3 expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
SR3 expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
SR3 expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
SR3 observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
SR3 observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
SR3 observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
SR4 expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
SR4 expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
SR4 expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
SR4 observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
SR4 observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
SR4 observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
SR5 expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
SR5 expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
SR5 expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
SR5 observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
SR5 observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
SR5 observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
Upper limits on signal cross sections and exclusion limits at 95% CL for the best expected SR in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
Upper limits on signal cross sections and exclusion limits at 95% CL for SR1 in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
Upper limits on signal cross sections and exclusion limits at 95% CL for SR1 in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
Upper limits on signal cross sections and exclusion limits at 95% CL for SR1 in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
Upper limits on signal cross sections and exclusion limits at 95% CL for SR2 in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
Upper limits on signal cross sections and exclusion limits at 95% CL for SR2 in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
Upper limits on signal cross sections and exclusion limits at 95% CL for SR2 in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
Upper limits on signal cross sections and exclusion limits at 95% CL for SR3 in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
Upper limits on signal cross sections and exclusion limits at 95% CL for SR3 in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
Upper limits on signal cross sections and exclusion limits at 95% CL for SR3 in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
Upper limits on signal cross sections and exclusion limits at 95% CL for SR4 in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
Upper limits on signal cross sections and exclusion limits at 95% CL for SR4 in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
Upper limits on signal cross sections and exclusion limits at 95% CL for SR4 in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
Upper limits on signal cross sections and exclusion limits at 95% CL for SR5 in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
Upper limits on signal cross sections and exclusion limits at 95% CL for SR5 in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
Upper limits on signal cross sections and exclusion limits at 95% CL for SR5 in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
Upper limits on signal cross sections and exclusion limits at 95% CL for the best expected SR in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
Upper limits on signal cross sections and exclusion limits at 95% CL for the best expected SR in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
Minimum branching ratio excluded at 95% CL, assuming no sensitivity for other decay possibilities, in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
Minimum branching ratio excluded at 95% CL, assuming no sensitivity for other decay possibilities, in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
Minimum branching ratio excluded at 95% CL, assuming no sensitivity for other decay possibilities, in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
The signal region with the best expected CLS value for each signal in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.
The signal region with the best expected CLS value for each signal in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.
The signal region with the best expected CLS value for each signal in the $\tilde{t}_1/\tilde{c}_1-\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass plane.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$\Delta m$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$\Delta m$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$\Delta m$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$\Delta m$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$\Delta m$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde t_1/\tilde c_1)$-$\Delta m$ plane for the stop/scharm pair production scenario.
Comparison between data and expectation after the background-only fit for the $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in SR1. The shaded band indicates detector-related systematic uncertainties and the statistical uncertainties of the MC samples, while the error bars on the data points indicate the data's statistical uncertainty. The final bin in each histogram includes the overflow. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the SM prediction after the background-only fit. The distribution is also shown for a representative signal point.
Comparison between data and expectation after the background-only fit for the $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in SR1. The shaded band indicates detector-related systematic uncertainties and the statistical uncertainties of the MC samples, while the error bars on the data points indicate the data's statistical uncertainty. The final bin in each histogram includes the overflow. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the SM prediction after the background-only fit. The distribution is also shown for a representative signal point.
Comparison between data and expectation after the background-only fit for the $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in SR1. The shaded band indicates detector-related systematic uncertainties and the statistical uncertainties of the MC samples, while the error bars on the data points indicate the data's statistical uncertainty. The final bin in each histogram includes the overflow. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the SM prediction after the background-only fit. The distribution is also shown for a representative signal point.
Comparison between data and expectation after the background-only fit for the $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in SR2. The shaded band indicates detector-related systematic uncertainties and the statistical uncertainties of the MC samples, while the error bars on the data points indicate the data's statistical uncertainty. The final bin in each histogram includes the overflow. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the SM prediction after the background-only fit. The distribution is also shown for a representative signal point.
Comparison between data and expectation after the background-only fit for the $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in SR2. The shaded band indicates detector-related systematic uncertainties and the statistical uncertainties of the MC samples, while the error bars on the data points indicate the data's statistical uncertainty. The final bin in each histogram includes the overflow. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the SM prediction after the background-only fit. The distribution is also shown for a representative signal point.
Comparison between data and expectation after the background-only fit for the $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in SR2. The shaded band indicates detector-related systematic uncertainties and the statistical uncertainties of the MC samples, while the error bars on the data points indicate the data's statistical uncertainty. The final bin in each histogram includes the overflow. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the SM prediction after the background-only fit. The distribution is also shown for a representative signal point.
Comparison between data and expectation after the background-only fit for the $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in SR3. The shaded band indicates detector-related systematic uncertainties and the statistical uncertainties of the MC samples, while the error bars on the data points indicate the data's statistical uncertainty. The final bin in each histogram includes the overflow. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the SM prediction after the background-only fit. The distribution is also shown for a representative signal point.
Comparison between data and expectation after the background-only fit for the $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in SR3. The shaded band indicates detector-related systematic uncertainties and the statistical uncertainties of the MC samples, while the error bars on the data points indicate the data's statistical uncertainty. The final bin in each histogram includes the overflow. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the SM prediction after the background-only fit. The distribution is also shown for a representative signal point.
Comparison between data and expectation after the background-only fit for the $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in SR3. The shaded band indicates detector-related systematic uncertainties and the statistical uncertainties of the MC samples, while the error bars on the data points indicate the data's statistical uncertainty. The final bin in each histogram includes the overflow. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the SM prediction after the background-only fit. The distribution is also shown for a representative signal point.
Comparison between data and expectation after the background-only fit for the $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in SR4. The shaded band indicates detector-related systematic uncertainties and the statistical uncertainties of the MC samples, while the error bars on the data points indicate the data's statistical uncertainty. The final bin in each histogram includes the overflow. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the SM prediction after the background-only fit. The distribution is also shown for a representative signal point.
Comparison between data and expectation after the background-only fit for the $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in SR4. The shaded band indicates detector-related systematic uncertainties and the statistical uncertainties of the MC samples, while the error bars on the data points indicate the data's statistical uncertainty. The final bin in each histogram includes the overflow. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the SM prediction after the background-only fit. The distribution is also shown for a representative signal point.
Comparison between data and expectation after the background-only fit for the $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in SR4. The shaded band indicates detector-related systematic uncertainties and the statistical uncertainties of the MC samples, while the error bars on the data points indicate the data's statistical uncertainty. The final bin in each histogram includes the overflow. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the SM prediction after the background-only fit. The distribution is also shown for a representative signal point.
Comparison between data and expectation after the background-only fit for the $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in SR5. The shaded band indicates detector-related systematic uncertainties and the statistical uncertainties of the MC samples, while the error bars on the data points indicate the data's statistical uncertainty. The final bin in each histogram includes the overflow. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the SM prediction after the background-only fit. The distribution is also shown for a representative signal point.
Comparison between data and expectation after the background-only fit for the $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in SR5. The shaded band indicates detector-related systematic uncertainties and the statistical uncertainties of the MC samples, while the error bars on the data points indicate the data's statistical uncertainty. The final bin in each histogram includes the overflow. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the SM prediction after the background-only fit. The distribution is also shown for a representative signal point.
Comparison between data and expectation after the background-only fit for the $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in SR5. The shaded band indicates detector-related systematic uncertainties and the statistical uncertainties of the MC samples, while the error bars on the data points indicate the data's statistical uncertainty. The final bin in each histogram includes the overflow. The lower panel shows the ratio of the data to the SM prediction after the background-only fit. The distribution is also shown for a representative signal point.
Cutflow for the $(m_{\tilde{t}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}}) = (450,425)$ GeV signal point for signal region SR1.
Cutflow for the $(m_{\tilde{t}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}}) = (450,425)$ GeV signal point for signal region SR1.
Cutflow for the $(m_{\tilde{t}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}}) = (450,425)$ GeV signal point for signal region SR1.
Cutflow for the $(m_{\tilde{t}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}}) = (500,420)$ GeV signal point for signal region SR2.
Cutflow for the $(m_{\tilde{t}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}}) = (500,420)$ GeV signal point for signal region SR2.
Cutflow for the $(m_{\tilde{t}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}}) = (500,420)$ GeV signal point for signal region SR2.
Cutflow for the $(m_{\tilde{t}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}}) = (500,350)$ GeV signal point for signal region SR3.
Cutflow for the $(m_{\tilde{t}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}}) = (500,350)$ GeV signal point for signal region SR3.
Cutflow for the $(m_{\tilde{t}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}}) = (500,350)$ GeV signal point for signal region SR3.
Cutflow for the $(m_{\tilde{t}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}}) = (600,350)$ GeV signal point for signal region SR4.
Cutflow for the $(m_{\tilde{t}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}}) = (600,350)$ GeV signal point for signal region SR4.
Cutflow for the $(m_{\tilde{t}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}}) = (600,350)$ GeV signal point for signal region SR4.
Cutflow for the $(m_{\tilde{t}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}}) = (900,1)$ GeV signal point for signal region SR5.
Cutflow for the $(m_{\tilde{t}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}}) = (900,1)$ GeV signal point for signal region SR5.
Cutflow for the $(m_{\tilde{t}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}}) = (900,1)$ GeV signal point for signal region SR5.
The result of a search for the pair production of the lightest supersymmetric partner of the bottom quark ($\tilde{b}_{1}$) using 139 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton data collected at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV by the ATLAS detector is reported. In the supersymmetric scenarios considered both of the bottom-squarks decay into a $b$-quark and the second-lightest neutralino, $\tilde{b}_{1} \rightarrow b + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$. Each $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ is assumed to subsequently decay with 100% branching ratio into a Higgs boson ($h$) like the one in the Standard Model and the lightest neutralino: $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2} \rightarrow h + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ is assumed to be the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) and is stable. Two signal mass configurations are targeted: the first has a constant LSP mass of 60 GeV; and the second has a constant mass difference between the $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ of 130 GeV. The final states considered contain no charged leptons, three or more $b$-jets, and large missing transverse momentum. No significant excess of events over the Standard Model background expectation is observed in any of the signal regions considered. Limits at the 95% confidence level are placed in the supersymmetric models considered, and bottom-squarks with mass up to 1.5 TeV are excluded.
Distributions of ${E}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ after the background-only fit. The backgrounds which contribute only a small amount (diboson, W+jets and ttbar+W/Z/h) are grouped and labelled as `Other'.
Distributions of ${E}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ after the background-only fit. The backgrounds which contribute only a small amount (diboson, W+jets and ttbar+W/Z/h) are grouped and labelled as `Other'.
Distributions of ${E}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ after the background-only fit. The backgrounds which contribute only a small amount (diboson, W+jets and ttbar+W/Z/h) are grouped and labelled as `Other'.
Distributions of $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ after the background-only fit. The backgrounds which contribute only a small amount (diboson, W+jets and ttbar+W/Z/h) are grouped and labelled as `Other'.
Distributions of $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ after the background-only fit. The backgrounds which contribute only a small amount (diboson, W+jets and ttbar+W/Z/h) are grouped and labelled as `Other'.
Distributions of $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ after the background-only fit. The backgrounds which contribute only a small amount (diboson, W+jets and ttbar+W/Z/h) are grouped and labelled as `Other'.
Distributions of Object-based $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} {Sig.}$ after the background-only fit. The backgrounds which contribute only a small amount (diboson, W+jets and ttbar+W/Z/h) are grouped and labelled as `Other'.
Distributions of Object-based $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} {Sig.}$ after the background-only fit. The backgrounds which contribute only a small amount (diboson, W+jets and ttbar+W/Z/h) are grouped and labelled as `Other'.
Distributions of Object-based $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} {Sig.}$ after the background-only fit. The backgrounds which contribute only a small amount (diboson, W+jets and ttbar+W/Z/h) are grouped and labelled as `Other'.
Distributions of MaxMin alternative algorithm $m(h_{\mathrm{cand1}},h_{\mathrm{cand2}})_{\mathrm{avg}}$ after the background-only fit. The backgrounds which contribute only a small amount (diboson, W+jets and ttbar+W/Z/h) are grouped and labelled as `Other'.
Distributions of MaxMin alternative algorithm $m(h_{\mathrm{cand1}},h_{\mathrm{cand2}})_{\mathrm{avg}}$ after the background-only fit. The backgrounds which contribute only a small amount (diboson, W+jets and ttbar+W/Z/h) are grouped and labelled as `Other'.
Distributions of MaxMin alternative algorithm $m(h_{\mathrm{cand1}},h_{\mathrm{cand2}})_{\mathrm{avg}}$ after the background-only fit. The backgrounds which contribute only a small amount (diboson, W+jets and ttbar+W/Z/h) are grouped and labelled as `Other'.
Distributions of Leading jet $p_T$ after the background-only fit. The backgrounds which contribute only a small amount (diboson, W+jets and ttbar+W/Z/h) are grouped and labelled as `Other'.
Distributions of Leading jet $p_T$ after the background-only fit. The backgrounds which contribute only a small amount (diboson, W+jets and ttbar+W/Z/h) are grouped and labelled as `Other'.
Distributions of Leading jet $p_T$ after the background-only fit. The backgrounds which contribute only a small amount (diboson, W+jets and ttbar+W/Z/h) are grouped and labelled as `Other'.
Distributions of MaxMin algorithm $m_{hcand}$ after the background-only fit. The backgrounds which contribute only a small amount (diboson, W+jets and ttbar+W/Z/h) are grouped and labelled as `Other'.
Distributions of MaxMin algorithm $m_{hcand}$ after the background-only fit. The backgrounds which contribute only a small amount (diboson, W+jets and ttbar+W/Z/h) are grouped and labelled as `Other'.
Distributions of MaxMin algorithm $m_{hcand}$ after the background-only fit. The backgrounds which contribute only a small amount (diboson, W+jets and ttbar+W/Z/h) are grouped and labelled as `Other'.
Signal efficiency in SRA_M_m60 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRA_M_m60 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRA_M_m60 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal acceptance in SRC_28 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRC_28 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRC_28 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRC_26 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRC_26 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRC_26 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRC_24 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRC_24 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRC_24 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_M_dm130 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_M_dm130 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_M_dm130 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRB for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRB for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRB for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_L_dm130 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_L_dm130 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_L_dm130 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRC_incl for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRC_incl for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRC_incl for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_L_m60 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_L_m60 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_L_m60 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_incl_dm130 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_incl_dm130 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_incl_dm130 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_incl_m60 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_incl_m60 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_incl_m60 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal efficiency in SRA_H_m60 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRA_H_m60 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRA_H_m60 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRA_L_dm130 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRA_L_dm130 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRA_L_dm130 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRB for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRB for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRB for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal acceptance in SRC_22 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRC_22 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRC_22 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal efficiency in SRA_H_dm130 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRA_H_dm130 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRA_H_dm130 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRC_24 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRC_24 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRC_24 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRC_26 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRC_26 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRC_26 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal acceptance in SRA_H_m60 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_H_m60 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_H_m60 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal efficiency in SRA_incl_m60 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRA_incl_m60 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRA_incl_m60 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRC_22 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRC_22 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRC_22 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal acceptance in SRA_M_m60 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_M_m60 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_M_m60 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal efficiency in SRC_28 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRC_28 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRC_28 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal acceptance in SRA_H_dm130 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_H_dm130 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_H_dm130 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal efficiency in SRA_incl_dm130 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRA_incl_dm130 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRA_incl_dm130 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRA_L_m60 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRA_L_m60 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRA_L_m60 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRA_M_dm130 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRA_M_dm130 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRA_M_dm130 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRC_incl for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRC_incl for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRC_incl for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Observed 95% CLs exclusion limit for the $\Delta M(\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0},\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$=130GeV signal grid for the best combined signal regions.
Observed 95% CLs exclusion limit for the $\Delta M(\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0},\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$=130GeV signal grid for the best combined signal regions.
Observed 95% CLs exclusion limit for the $\Delta M(\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0},\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$=130GeV signal grid for the best combined signal regions.
Expected 95% CLs exclusion limit for the $\Delta M(\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0},\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$=130GeV signal grid for the best combined signal regions.
Expected 95% CLs exclusion limit for the $\Delta M(\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0},\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$=130GeV signal grid for the best combined signal regions.
Expected 95% CLs exclusion limit for the $\Delta M(\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0},\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$=130GeV signal grid for the best combined signal regions.
Observed 95% CLs exclusion limit for the $M(\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$=60GeV signal grid for the best combined signal regions.
Observed 95% CLs exclusion limit for the $M(\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$=60GeV signal grid for the best combined signal regions.
Observed 95% CLs exclusion limit for the $M(\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$=60GeV signal grid for the best combined signal regions.
Expected 95% CLs exclusion limit for the $\Delta M(\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0},\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$=130GeV signal grid for the best combined signal regions.
Expected 95% CLs exclusion limit for the $M(\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$=60GeV signal grid for the best combined signal regions.
Expected 95% CLs exclusion limit for the $M(\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$=60GeV signal grid for the best combined signal regions.
Model dependent upper limit on the best combined signal regions considered in the $\Delta M(\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0},\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$=130GeV signal grid
Model dependent upper limit on the best combined signal regions considered in the $\Delta M(\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0},\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$=130GeV signal grid
Model dependent upper limit on the best combined signal regions considered in the $\Delta M(\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0},\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$=130GeV signal grid
Model dependet upper limits on the best combined signal regions considered in the $\Delta M(\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0},\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$=130GeV signal grid
Model dependet upper limits on the best combined signal regions considered in the $\Delta M(\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0},\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$=130GeV signal grid
Model dependet upper limits on the best combined signal regions considered in the $\Delta M(\widetilde{\chi}_{2}^{0},\widetilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$=130GeV signal grid
Result of background only fit applied to signal regions. Event yields from the signal regions compared with SM MC predictions for the 3 highest contributing backgrounds separately and combined minor backgrounds.
Result of background only fit applied to signal regions. Event yields from the signal regions compared with SM MC predictions for the 3 highest contributing backgrounds separately and combined minor backgrounds.
Result of background only fit applied to signal regions. Event yields from the signal regions compared with SM MC predictions for the 3 highest contributing backgrounds separately and combined minor backgrounds.
Expected background event yields and dominant systematic uncertainties on background estimates in the A-type (inclusive), B-type and C-type (inclusive) regions.
Expected background event yields and dominant systematic uncertainties on background estimates in the A-type (inclusive), B-type and C-type (inclusive) regions.
Expected background event yields and dominant systematic uncertainties on background estimates in the A-type (inclusive), B-type and C-type (inclusive) regions.
Background-only fit results for the A- and B-type regions performed using 139$fb^{-1}$ of data. The quoted uncertainties on the fitted SM background include both the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Background-only fit results for the A- and B-type regions performed using 139$fb^{-1}$ of data. The quoted uncertainties on the fitted SM background include both the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Background-only fit results for the A- and B-type regions performed using 139$fb^{-1}$ of data. The quoted uncertainties on the fitted SM background include both the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Background-only fit results for the C-type region performed using 139$fb^{-1}$ of data. The quoted uncertainties on the fitted SM background include both the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Background-only fit results for the C-type region performed using 139$fb^{-1}$ of data. The quoted uncertainties on the fitted SM background include both the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Background-only fit results for the C-type region performed using 139$fb^{-1}$ of data. The quoted uncertainties on the fitted SM background include both the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on the visible cross sections σvis, the observed (S95obs) and expected (S95exp) 95% CL upper limits on the number of signal events with ± 1 σ excursions of the expectation, the CL of the background-only hypothesis, CLB, the discovery p-value (p0), truncated at 0.5, and the associated significance.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on the visible cross sections σvis, the observed (S95obs) and expected (S95exp) 95% CL upper limits on the number of signal events with ± 1 σ excursions of the expectation, the CL of the background-only hypothesis, CLB, the discovery p-value (p0), truncated at 0.5, and the associated significance.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on the visible cross sections σvis, the observed (S95obs) and expected (S95exp) 95% CL upper limits on the number of signal events with ± 1 σ excursions of the expectation, the CL of the background-only hypothesis, CLB, the discovery p-value (p0), truncated at 0.5, and the associated significance.
Cutflow of the MC events scaled to 139 $fb^{-1}$ for the SRA selections, with a scalar bottom signal of m$(\widetilde{b}_{1},\widetilde{\chi}_2^0,\widetilde{\chi}_1^0) = (1100, 330, 200)$ GeV, considered.
Cutflow of the MC events scaled to 139 $fb^{-1}$ for the SRA selections, with a scalar bottom signal of m$(\widetilde{b}_{1},\widetilde{\chi}_2^0,\widetilde{\chi}_1^0) = (1100, 330, 200)$ GeV, considered.
Cutflow of the MC events scaled to 139 $fb^{-1}$ for the SRA selections, with a scalar bottom signal of m$(\widetilde{b}_{1},\widetilde{\chi}_2^0,\widetilde{\chi}_1^0) = (1100, 330, 200)$ GeV, considered.
Cutflow of the MC events scaled to 139 $fb^{-1}$ for the SRB selections, with a scalar bottom signal of m$(\widetilde{b}_{1},\widetilde{\chi}_2^0,\widetilde{\chi}_1^0) = (700, 680, 550)$ GeV, considered.
Cutflow of the MC events scaled to 139 $fb^{-1}$ for the SRB selections, with a scalar bottom signal of m$(\widetilde{b}_{1},\widetilde{\chi}_2^0,\widetilde{\chi}_1^0) = (700, 680, 550)$ GeV, considered.
Cutflow of the MC events scaled to 139 $fb^{-1}$ for the SRB selections, with a scalar bottom signal of m$(\widetilde{b}_{1},\widetilde{\chi}_2^0,\widetilde{\chi}_1^0) = (700, 680, 550)$ GeV, considered.
Cutflow of the MC events scaled to 139 $fb^{-1}$ for the SRC selections, with a scalar bottom signal of m$(\widetilde{b}_{1},\widetilde{\chi}_2^0,\widetilde{\chi}_1^0) = (1200, 1150, 60)$ GeV, considered.
Cutflow of the MC events scaled to 139 $fb^{-1}$ for the SRC selections, with a scalar bottom signal of m$(\widetilde{b}_{1},\widetilde{\chi}_2^0,\widetilde{\chi}_1^0) = (1200, 1150, 60)$ GeV, considered.
Cutflow of the MC events scaled to 139 $fb^{-1}$ for the SRC selections, with a scalar bottom signal of m$(\widetilde{b}_{1},\widetilde{\chi}_2^0,\widetilde{\chi}_1^0) = (1200, 1150, 60)$ GeV, considered.
This Letter presents a search for direct production of charginos and neutralinos via electroweak interactions. The results are based on data from proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV collected with the CMS detector at the LHC, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 137 fb$^{-1}$. The search considers final states with large missing transverse momentum and pairs of hadronically decaying bosons WW, WZ, and WH, where H is the Higgs boson. These bosons are identified using novel algorithms. No significant excess of events is observed relative to the expectations from the standard model. Limits at the 95% confidence level are placed on the cross section for production of mass-degenerate wino-like supersymmetric particles $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0$, and mass-degenerate higgsino-like supersymmetric particles $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$, $\tilde{\chi}_2^0$, and $\tilde{\chi}_3^0$. In the limit of a nearly-massless lightest supersymmetric particle $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$, wino-like particles with masses up to 870 and 960 GeV are excluded in the cases of $\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\to$ Z$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\to$ H$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$, respectively, and higgsino-like particles are excluded between 300 and 650 GeV.
SM background prediction vs. observation in the b-veto signal region
Observed exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections
Expected exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections
The 95% CL observed upper limits on the production cross sections for $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ $\widetilde{\chi}^\mp_1$ assuming that each $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ decays to a W boson and $\widetilde{\chi}^0_1$
Observed exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections
Expected exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections
The 95% CL observed upper limits on the production cross sections for $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ $\widetilde{\chi}^0_2$ assuming that each $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ decays to a W boson and $\widetilde{\chi}^0_1$ and the $\widetilde{\chi}^0_2$ decays to a Z boson and $\widetilde{\chi}^0_1$
Observed exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections
Expected exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections
The 95% CL observed upper limits on the production cross sections for $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ $\widetilde{\chi}^0_2$ assuming that each $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ decays to a W boson and $\widetilde{\chi}^0_1$ and the $\widetilde{\chi}^0_2$ decays to a H boson and $\widetilde{\chi}^0_1$
Observed exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections
Expected exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections
Observed exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections
Expected exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections
Observed exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections
Expected exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections
The 95% CL observed upper limits on the production cross sections for mass-degenerate higgsino-like$\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ $\widetilde{\chi}^\mp_1$, $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ $\widetilde{\chi}^0_2$, $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ $\widetilde{\chi}^0_3$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^0_2$ $\widetilde{\chi}^0_3$ as functions of the NLSP and LSP masses.
Efficiency of bb-tagger for H(bb), Z(bb) and Z(cc) decays.
Efficiency of W- and V-tagger for W(qq) and Z(qq) decays.
Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWW in the b-Veto region.
Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWZ in the b-Veto region.
Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWH in the b-Veto region.
Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiHZ in the b-Veto region.
Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWW in the WHSR region.
Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWW in the WSR region.
Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWW in the HSR region.
Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWZ in the WHSR region.
Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWZ in the WSR region.
Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWZ in the HSR region.
Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWH in the WHSR region.
Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWH in the WSR region.
Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWH in the HSR region.
Acceptance times efficiency values with uncertainties for TChiHZ in the WHSR region.
Acceptance times efficiency values with uncertainties for TChiHZ in the WSR region.
Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiHZ in the HSR region.
Covariance matrix for the signal regions, derived from a fit to the control regions only under the background-only hypothesis.
Correlation matrix for the signal regions, derived from a fit to the control regions only under the background-only hypothesis.
An inclusive search for long-lived exotic particles (LLPs) decaying to final states with a pair of muons is presented. The search uses data corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 36.6 fb$^{-1}$ collected by the CMS experiment from the proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13.6 TeV in 2022, the first year of Run 3 of the CERN LHC. The experimental signature is a pair of oppositely charged muons originating from a common vertex spatially separated from the proton-proton interaction point by distances ranging from several hundred $\mu$m to several meters. The sensitivity of the search benefits from new triggers for displaced dimuons developed for Run 3. The results are interpreted in the framework of the hidden Abelian Higgs model, in which the Higgs boson decays to a pair of long-lived dark photons, and of an $R$-parity violating supersymmetry model, in which long-lived neutralinos decay to a pair of muons and a neutrino. The limits set on these models are the most stringent to date in wide regions of lifetimes for LLPs with masses larger than 10 GeV.
Efficiencies of the Run 2 and Run 3 displaced dimuon triggers as a function of $c\tau$ for the HAHM signal events with $m_{Z_D} = 20\ GeV$. The efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated events that satisfy the requirements of the following sets of trigger paths: the Run 2 (2018) triggers (dashed black); the Run 3 (2022, L3) triggers (blue); the Run 3 (2022, L2) triggers (red); and the OR of all these triggers (Run 3 (2022), black). The lower panel shows the ratio of the overall Run 3 (2022) efficiency to the Run 2 (2018) efficiency.
Efficiencies of the various displaced dimuon trigger paths and their combination as a function of $c\tau$ for the HAHM signal events with $m(Z_D) = 20\ GeV$. The efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated events that satisfy the detector acceptance and the requirements of the following sets of trigger paths: the Run 2 (2018) triggers (dashed black); the Run 3 (2022, L3) triggers (blue); the Run 3 (2022, L2) triggers (red); and the OR of all these triggers (Run 3 (2022), black). The lower panel shows the ratio of the overall Run 3 (2022) efficiency to the Run 2 (2018) efficiency.
Efficiencies in the STA-STA (green) and TMS-TMS (red) dimuon categories, as well as their combination (black) as a function of $c\tau$ for the HAHM signal events with $m_{Z_D} = 20\ GeV$. Solid curves show efficiencies achieved with the Run 3 triggers, whereas dashed curves show efficiencies for the subset of events selected by the triggers used in the 2018 Run 2 analysis. The efficiency is defined as the fraction of signal events that satisfy the criteria of the indicated trigger as well as the full set of offline selection criteria. The lower panel shows the relative improvement of the overall signal efficiency brought in by improvements in the trigger.
Overall efficiencies in the STA-STA (green) and TMS-TMS (red) dimuon categories, as well as their combination (black) as a function of $c\tau$ for the HAHM signal events with $m(Z_D) = 20\ GeV$. The solid curves show efficiencies achieved with the 2022 Run 3 triggers, whereas dashed curves show efficiencies for the subset of events selected by the triggers used in the 2018 Run 2 analysis. The efficiency is defined as the fraction of signal events that satisfy the criteria of the indicated trigger as well as the full set of offline selection criteria. The lower panel shows the relative improvement of the overall signal efficiency brought in by improvements in the trigger.
Comparison of the observed (black points) and expected (histograms) numbers of events in nonoverlapping $m_{\mu \mu}$ intervals in the STA-STA dimuon category, in the signal region optimized for the HAHM model. Yellow and green stacked histograms represent mean expected background contributions from QCD and DY, respectively, while statistical uncertainties in the total expected background are shown as hatched histograms. Signal contributions expected from simulated signals indicated in the legends are shown in red and blue. Their yields are set to the corresponding median expected 95% CL exclusion limits obtained from the ensemble of both dimuon categories, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. The last bin includes events in the histogram overflow. All uncertainties shown are statistical only.
Comparison of the observed (black points) and expected (histograms) numbers of events in nonoverlapping $m_{\mu \mu}$ intervals in the STA-STA dimuon category, in the signal region optimized for the HAHM model. Yellow and green stacked filled histograms represent mean expected background contributions from QCD and DY, respectively, while statistical uncertainties in the total expected background are shown as hatched histograms. Signal contributions expected from simulated signals indicated in the legends are shown in red and blue. Their yields are set to the corresponding median expected 95% CL exclusion limits obtained from the ensemble of both dimuon categories, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. The last bin includes events in the histogram overflow.
Comparison of the observed (black points) and expected (histograms) numbers of events in nonoverlapping $m^{corr}_{\mu\mu}$ intervals in the STA-STA dimuon category, in the signal region optimized for the RPV SUSY model. Yellow and green stacked histograms represent mean expected background contributions from QCD and DY, respectively, while statistical uncertainties in the total expected background are shown as hatched histograms. Signal contributions expected from simulated signals indicated in the legends are shown in red and blue. Their yields are set to the corresponding median expected 95% CL exclusion limits obtained from the ensemble of both dimuon categories, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. The last bin includes events in the histogram overflow. All uncertainties shown are statistical only.
Comparison of the observed (black points) and expected (histograms) numbers of events in nonoverlapping $m^{corr}_{\mu\mu}$ intervals in the STA-STA dimuon category, in the signal region optimized for the RPV SUSY model. Yellow and green stacked filled histograms represent mean expected background contributions from QCD and DY, respectively, while statistical uncertainties in the total expected background are shown as hatched histograms. Signal contributions expected from simulated signals indicated in the legends are shown in red and blue. Their yields are set to the corresponding median expected 95% CL exclusion limits obtained from the ensemble of both dimuon categories, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. The last bin includes events in the histogram overflow.
Distribution of min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) for TMS-TMS dimuons with $|\Delta\Phi| < \pi/30$, for events in all mass intervals combined. Events are required to satisfy all nominal selection criteria with the exception of the $d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$ requirement. Notations are as in the Fig. 10 caption.
Distribution of min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) for TMS-TMS dimuons with $|\Delta\Phi| < \pi/30$, for events in all mass intervals combined, for both the validation (min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) < 6) and signal (min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) > 6) regions. The number of observed events (black circles) is overlaid with the stacked histograms showing the expected numbers of QCD (yellow) and DY (green) background events. Statistical uncertainties in the total expected background are shown as hatched histograms. Signal contributions expected from simulated signals indicated in the legends are shown in red and blue. Their yields are set to the corresponding median expected 95% CL exclusion limits obtained from the ensemble of both dimuon categories, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. Events are required to satisfy all nominal selection criteria with the exception of the $d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$ requirement. The last bin includes events in the histogram overflow.
Distribution of min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) for TMS-TMS dimuons with $|\Delta\Phi| < \pi/4$, for events in all mass intervals combined. Events are required to satisfy all nominal selection criteria with the exception of the $d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$ requirement. Notations are as in the Fig. 10 caption.
Distribution of min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) for TMS-TMS dimuons with $|\Delta\Phi| < \pi/4$, for events in all mass intervals combined, for both the validation (min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) < 6) and signal (min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) > 6) regions. The number of observed events (black circles) is overlaid with the stacked histograms showing the expected numbers of QCD (yellow) and DY (green) background events. Statistical uncertainties in the total expected background are shown as hatched histograms. Signal contributions expected from simulated signals indicated in the legends are shown in red and blue. Their yields are set to the corresponding median expected 95% CL exclusion limits obtained from the ensemble of both dimuon categories, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. Events are required to satisfy all nominal selection criteria with the exception of the $d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$ requirement. The last bin includes events in the histogram overflow.
Comparison of observed and expected numbers of events in the TMS-TMS dimuon category, in the RPV SUSY study that requires $|\Delta\Phi| < \pi/4$, in bins of $m^{corr}_{\mu\mu}$. The number of observed events (black circles) is overlaid with the stacked histograms showing the expected numbers of QCD (yellow) and DY (green) background events in bins of $m^{corr}_{\mu\mu}$ in min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) bin: 6-10. Contributions expected from signal events predicted by the RPV SUSY model with the parameters indicated in the legends are shown as red and blue histograms. Their yields are set to the corresponding median expected 95% CL exclusion limits obtained from the ensemble of both dimuon categories, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. The last bin includes events in the histogram overflow. All uncertainties shown are statistical only.
Comparison of observed and expected numbers of events in bins of $m^{corr}_{\mu\mu}$ in the TMS-TMS dimuon category, in the signal regions optimized for the RPV SUSY model. The number of observed events (black circles) is overlaid with the stacked filled histograms showing the expected numbers of QCD (yellow) and DY (green) background events in bins of $m^{corr}_{\mu\mu}$ in min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) bin: 6-10. Hatched histograms show statistical uncertainties in the total expected background. Contributions expected from signal events predicted by the RPV SUSY model with the parameters indicated in the legends are shown as red and blue histograms. Their yields are set to the corresponding median expected 95% CL exclusion limits obtained from the ensemble of both dimuon categories, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. The last bin includes events in the histogram overflow.
Comparison of observed and expected numbers of events in the TMS-TMS dimuon category, in the RPV SUSY study that requires $|\Delta\Phi| < \pi/4$, in bins of $m^{corr}_{\mu\mu}$. The number of observed events (black circles) is overlaid with the stacked histograms showing the expected numbers of QCD (yellow) and DY (green) background events in bins of $m^{corr}_{\mu\mu}$ in min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) bin: 10-20. Contributions expected from signal events predicted by the RPV SUSY model with the parameters indicated in the legends are shown as red and blue histograms. Their yields are set to the corresponding median expected 95% CL exclusion limits obtained from the ensemble of both dimuon categories, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. The last bin includes events in the histogram overflow. All uncertainties shown are statistical only.
Comparison of observed and expected numbers of events in bins of $m^{corr}_{\mu\mu}$ in the TMS-TMS dimuon category, in the signal regions optimized for the RPV SUSY model. The number of observed events (black circles) is overlaid with the stacked filled histograms showing the expected numbers of QCD (yellow) and DY (green) background events in bins of $m^{corr}_{\mu\mu}$ in min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) bin: 10-20. Hatched histograms show statistical uncertainties in the total expected background. Contributions expected from signal events predicted by the RPV SUSY model with the parameters indicated in the legends are shown as red and blue histograms. Their yields are set to the corresponding median expected 95% CL exclusion limits obtained from the ensemble of both dimuon categories, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. The last bin includes events in the histogram overflow.
Comparison of observed and expected numbers of events in the TMS-TMS dimuon category, in the RPV SUSY study that requires $|\Delta\Phi| < \pi/4$, in bins of $m^{corr}_{\mu\mu}$. The number of observed events (black circles) is overlaid with the stacked histograms showing the expected numbers of QCD (yellow) and DY (green) background events in bins of $m^{corr}_{\mu\mu}$ in min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) bin: > 20. Contributions expected from signal events predicted by the RPV SUSY model with the parameters indicated in the legends are shown as red and blue histograms. Their yields are set to the corresponding median expected 95% CL exclusion limits obtained from the ensemble of both dimuon categories, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. The last bin includes events in the histogram overflow. All uncertainties shown are statistical only.
Comparison of observed and expected numbers of events in bins of $m^{corr}_{\mu\mu}$ in the TMS-TMS dimuon category, in the signal regions optimized for the RPV SUSY model. The number of observed events (black circles) is overlaid with the stacked filled histograms showing the expected numbers of QCD (yellow) and DY (green) background events in bins of $m^{corr}_{\mu\mu}$ in min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) bin: >20. Hatched histograms show statistical uncertainties in the total expected background. Contributions expected from signal events predicted by the RPV SUSY model with the parameters indicated in the legends are shown as red and blue histograms. Their yields are set to the corresponding median expected 95% CL exclusion limits obtained from the ensemble of both dimuon categories, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. The last bin includes events in the histogram overflow.
Comparison of observed and expected numbers of events in the TMS-TMS dimuon category, in the HAHM study that requires $|\Delta\Phi| < \pi/30$, in bins of $m_{\mu\mu}$. The number of observed events (black circles) is overlaid with the stacked histograms showing the expected numbers of QCD (yellow) and DY (green) background events in bins of $m_{\mu\mu}$ in min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) bin: 6-10. Signal contributions expected from simulated $H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D$ events with the parameters indicated in the legends are shown as red and blue histograms. Other notations are as in the Fig. 12 caption.
Comparison of observed and expected numbers of events in bins of $m_{\mu\mu}$ in the TMS-TMS dimuon category, in the signal regions optimized for the HAHM. The number of observed events (black circles) is overlaid with the stacked filled histograms showing the expected numbers of QCD (yellow) and DY (green) background events in bins of $m_{\mu\mu}$ in min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) bin: 6-10. Hatched histograms show statistical uncertainties in the total expected background. Signal contributions expected from simulated $H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D$ events with the parameters indicated in the legends are shown as red and blue histograms. Their yields are set to the corresponding median expected 95% CL exclusion limits obtained from the ensemble of both dimuon categories, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. The last bin includes events in the histogram overflow.
Comparison of observed and expected numbers of events in the TMS-TMS dimuon category, in the HAHM study that requires $|\Delta\Phi| < \pi/30$, in bins of $m_{\mu\mu}$. The number of observed events (black circles) is overlaid with the stacked histograms showing the expected numbers of QCD (yellow) and DY (green) background events in bins of $m_{\mu\mu}$ in min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) bin: 10-20. Signal contributions expected from simulated $H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D$ events with the parameters indicated in the legends are shown as red and blue histograms. Other notations are as in the Fig. 12 caption.
Comparison of observed and expected numbers of events in bins of $m_{\mu\mu}$ in the TMS-TMS dimuon category, in the signal regions optimized for the HAHM. The number of observed events (black circles) is overlaid with the stacked filled histograms showing the expected numbers of QCD (yellow) and DY (green) background events in bins of $m_{\mu\mu}$ in min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) bin: 10-20. Hatched histograms show statistical uncertainties in the total expected background. Signal contributions expected from simulated $H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D$ events with the parameters indicated in the legends are shown as red and blue histograms. Their yields are set to the corresponding median expected 95% CL exclusion limits obtained from the ensemble of both dimuon categories, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. The last bin includes events in the histogram overflow.
Comparison of observed and expected numbers of events in the TMS-TMS dimuon category, in the HAHM study that requires $|\Delta\Phi| < \pi/30$, in bins of $m_{\mu\mu}$. The number of observed events (black circles) is overlaid with the stacked histograms showing the expected numbers of QCD (yellow) and DY (green) background events in bins of $m_{\mu\mu}$ in min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) bin: > 20. Signal contributions expected from simulated $H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D$ events with the parameters indicated in the legends are shown as red and blue histograms. Other notations are as in the Fig. 12 caption.
Comparison of observed and expected numbers of events in bins of $m_{\mu\mu}$ in the TMS-TMS dimuon category, in the signal regions optimized for the HAHM. The number of observed events (black circles) is overlaid with the stacked filled histograms showing the expected numbers of QCD (yellow) and DY (green) background events in bins of $m_{\mu\mu}$ in min($d_0 / \sigma_{d_0}$) bin: >20. Hatched histograms show statistical uncertainties in the total expected background. Signal contributions expected from simulated $H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D$ events with the parameters indicated in the legends are shown as red and blue histograms. Their yields are set to the corresponding median expected 95% CL exclusion limits obtained from the ensemble of both dimuon categories, scaled up as indicated in the legend to improve visibility. The last bin includes events in the histogram overflow.
The 95% CL upper limits on $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m_{Z_D} = 10\ GeV$, in the STA-STA and TMS-TMS dimuon categories in 2022 data and their combination.The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed blue and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; and the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m(Z_D) = 10\ GeV$, in the STA-STA and TMS-TMS dimuon categories in 2022 data and their combination.The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed blue and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; and the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m_{Z_D} = 20\ GeV$, in the STA-STA and TMS-TMS dimuon categories in 2022 data and their combination.The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed blue and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; and the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m(Z_D) = 20\ GeV$, in the STA-STA and TMS-TMS dimuon categories in 2022 data and their combination.The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed blue and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; and the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m_{Z_D} = 30\ GeV$, in the STA-STA and TMS-TMS dimuon categories in 2022 data and their combination.The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed blue and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; and the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m(Z_D) = 30\ GeV$, in the STA-STA and TMS-TMS dimuon categories in 2022 data and their combination.The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed blue and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; and the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m_{Z_D} = 40\ GeV$, in the STA-STA and TMS-TMS dimuon categories in 2022 data and their combination.The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed blue and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; and the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m(Z_D) = 40\ GeV$, in the STA-STA and TMS-TMS dimuon categories in 2022 data and their combination.The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed blue and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; and the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m_{Z_D} = 50\ GeV$, in the STA-STA and TMS-TMS dimuon categories in 2022 data and their combination.The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed blue and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; and the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m(Z_D) = 50\ GeV$, in the STA-STA and TMS-TMS dimuon categories in 2022 data and their combination.The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed blue and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; and the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m_{Z_D} = 60\ GeV$, in the STA-STA and TMS-TMS dimuon categories in 2022 data and their combination.The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed blue and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; and the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m(Z_D) = 60\ GeV$, in the STA-STA and TMS-TMS dimuon categories in 2022 data and their combination.The median expected limits obtained from the STA-STA and TMS-TMS dimuon categories are shown as dashed blue and red curves, respectively; the combined median expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; and the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m_{Z_D} = 10\ GeV$, obtained in this analysis, the Run 2 analysis, and their combination. The observed limits in this analysis and in the Run 2 analysis are shown as blue and red curves, respectively; the median combined expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; and the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m(Z_D) = 10\ GeV$, obtained in this analysis, the Run 2 analysis, and their combination. The observed limits in this analysis and in the Run 2 analysis are shown as blue and red curves, respectively; the median combined expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; and the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m_{Z_D} = 20\ GeV$, obtained in this analysis, the Run 2 analysis, and their combination. The observed limits in this analysis and in the Run 2 analysis are shown as blue and red curves, respectively; the median combined expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; and the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m(Z_D) = 20\ GeV$, obtained in this analysis, the Run 2 analysis, and their combination. The observed limits in this analysis and in the Run 2 analysis are shown as blue and red curves, respectively; the median combined expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; and the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m_{Z_D} = 30\ GeV$, obtained in this analysis, the Run 2 analysis, and their combination. The observed limits in this analysis and in the Run 2 analysis are shown as blue and red curves, respectively; the median combined expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; and the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m(Z_D) = 30\ GeV$, obtained in this analysis, the Run 2 analysis, and their combination. The observed limits in this analysis and in the Run 2 analysis are shown as blue and red curves, respectively; the median combined expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; and the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m_{Z_D} = 40\ GeV$, obtained in this analysis, the Run 2 analysis, and their combination. The observed limits in this analysis and in the Run 2 analysis are shown as blue and red curves, respectively; the median combined expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; and the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m(Z_D) = 40\ GeV$, obtained in this analysis, the Run 2 analysis, and their combination. The observed limits in this analysis and in the Run 2 analysis are shown as blue and red curves, respectively; the median combined expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; and the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m_{Z_D} = 50\ GeV$, obtained in this analysis, the Run 2 analysis, and their combination. The observed limits in this analysis and in the Run 2 analysis are shown as blue and red curves, respectively; the median combined expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; and the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m(Z_D) = 50\ GeV$, obtained in this analysis, the Run 2 analysis, and their combination. The observed limits in this analysis and in the Run 2 analysis are shown as blue and red curves, respectively; the median combined expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; and the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m_{Z_D} = 60\ GeV$, obtained in this analysis, the Run 2 analysis, and their combination. The observed limits in this analysis and in the Run 2 analysis are shown as blue and red curves, respectively; the median combined expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; and the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $B(H \rightarrow Z_DZ_D)$ as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ in the HAHM model, for $m(Z_D) = 60\ GeV$, obtained in this analysis, the Run 2 analysis, and their combination. The observed limits in this analysis and in the Run 2 analysis are shown as blue and red curves, respectively; the median combined expected limits are shown as dashed black curves; and the combined observed limits are shown as solid black curves. The green and yellow bands correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 95% quantiles for the combined expected limits.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde{q}\bar{\tilde{q}})B(\tilde{q} \rightarrow q\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ as a function of $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ in the RPV SUSY model, for $B(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \rightarrow \mu^{+}\mu^{-}\nu) = 0.5$ and $m(\tilde{q}) = 125\ GeV$. The observed limits for various $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ indicated in the legends are shown as solid curves. The median expected limits and their 68 and 95% quantiles are shown, respectively, as dashed black curves and green and yellow bands for the case of $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 50\ GeV$ and omitted for other neutralino masses for clarity. The predicted cross section for $m(\tilde{q}) = 125\ GeV$ is 7200 pb, and falls outside the y-axis range.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde{q}\bar{\tilde{q}})B(\tilde{q} \rightarrow q\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ as a function of $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ in the RPV SUSY model, for $B(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \rightarrow \mu^{+}\mu^{-}\nu) = 0.5$ and $m(\tilde{q}) = 125\ GeV$. The observed limits for various $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ indicated in the legends are shown as solid curves. The median expected limits and their 68 and 95% quantiles are shown, respectively, as dashed black curves and green and yellow bands for the case of $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 50\ GeV$ and omitted for other neutralino masses for clarity. The predicted cross section for $m(\tilde{q}) = 125\ GeV$ is 7200 pb, and falls outside the y-axis range.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde{q}\bar{\tilde{q}})B(\tilde{q} \rightarrow q\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ as a function of $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ in the RPV SUSY model, for $B(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \rightarrow \mu^{+}\mu^{-}\nu) = 0.5$ and $m(\tilde{q}) = 200\ GeV$. The observed limits for various $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ indicated in the legends are shown as solid curves. The median expected limits and their 68 and 95% quantiles are shown, respectively, as dashed black curves and green and yellow bands for the case of $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 50\ GeV$ and omitted for other neutralino masses for clarity. The predicted cross section for $m(\tilde{q}) = 200 GeV$ is 840 pb, and falls outside the y-axis range.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde{q}\bar{\tilde{q}})B(\tilde{q} \rightarrow q\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ as a function of $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ in the RPV SUSY model, for $B(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \rightarrow \mu^{+}\mu^{-}\nu) = 0.5$ and $m(\tilde{q}) = 200\ GeV$. The observed limits for various $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ indicated in the legends are shown as solid curves. The median expected limits and their 68 and 95% quantiles are shown, respectively, as dashed black curves and green and yellow bands for the case of $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 50\ GeV$ and omitted for other neutralino masses for clarity. The predicted cross section for $m(\tilde{q}) = 200 GeV$ is 840 pb, and falls outside the y-axis range.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde{q}\bar{\tilde{q}})B(\tilde{q} \rightarrow q\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ as a function of $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ in the RPV SUSY model, for $B(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \rightarrow \mu^{+}\mu^{-}\nu) = 0.5$ and $m(\tilde{q}) = 350\ GeV$. The observed limits for various $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ indicated in the legends are shown as solid curves. The median expected limits and their 68 and 95% quantiles are shown, respectively, as dashed black curves and green and yellow bands for the case of $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 50\ GeV$ and omitted for other neutralino masses for clarity. The predicted cross section for $m(\tilde{q}) = 350\ GeV$ is 50 pb, and falls outside the y-axis range.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde{q}\bar{\tilde{q}})B(\tilde{q} \rightarrow q\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ as a function of $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ in the RPV SUSY model, for $B(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \rightarrow \mu^{+}\mu^{-}\nu) = 0.5$ and $m(\tilde{q}) = 350\ GeV$. The observed limits for various $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ indicated in the legends are shown as solid curves. The median expected limits and their 68 and 95% quantiles are shown, respectively, as dashed black curves and green and yellow bands for the case of $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 50\ GeV$ and omitted for other neutralino masses for clarity. The predicted cross section for $m(\tilde{q}) = 350\ GeV$ is 50 pb, and falls outside the y-axis range.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde{q}\bar{\tilde{q}})B(\tilde{q} \rightarrow q\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ as a function of $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ in the RPV SUSY model, for $B(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \rightarrow \mu^{+}\mu^{-}\nu) = 0.5$ and $m(\tilde{q}) = 700\ GeV$. The observed limits for various $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ indicated in the legends are shown as solid curves. The median expected limits and their 68 and 95% quantiles are shown, respectively, as dashed black curves and green and yellow bands for the case of $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 50\ GeV$ and omitted for other neutralino masses for clarity. The gray horizontal line indicates the theoretical value of the squark-antisquark production cross section with the uncertainties shown as the gray shaded band.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde{q}\bar{\tilde{q}})B(\tilde{q} \rightarrow q\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ as a function of $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ in the RPV SUSY model, for $B(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \rightarrow \mu^{+}\mu^{-}\nu) = 0.5$ and $m(\tilde{q}) = 700\ GeV$. The observed limits for various $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ indicated in the legends are shown as solid curves. The median expected limits and their 68 and 95% quantiles are shown, respectively, as dashed black curves and green and yellow bands for the case of $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 50\ GeV$ and omitted for other neutralino masses for clarity. The gray horizontal line indicates the theoretical value of the squark-antisquark production cross section with the uncertainties shown as the gray shaded band.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde{q}\bar{\tilde{q}})B(\tilde{q} \rightarrow q\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ as a function of $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ in the RPV SUSY model, for $B(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \rightarrow \mu^{+}\mu^{-}\nu) = 0.5$ and $m(\tilde{q}) = 1150\ GeV$. The observed limits for various $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ indicated in the legends are shown as solid curves. The median expected limits and their 68 and 95% quantiles are shown, respectively, as dashed black curves and green and yellow bands for the case of $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 50\ GeV$ and omitted for other neutralino masses for clarity. The gray horizontal line indicates the theoretical value of the squark-antisquark production cross section with the uncertainties shown as the gray shaded band.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde{q}\bar{\tilde{q}})B(\tilde{q} \rightarrow q\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ as a function of $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ in the RPV SUSY model, for $B(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \rightarrow \mu^{+}\mu^{-}\nu) = 0.5$ and $m(\tilde{q}) = 1150\ GeV$. The observed limits for various $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ indicated in the legends are shown as solid curves. The median expected limits and their 68 and 95% quantiles are shown, respectively, as dashed black curves and green and yellow bands for the case of $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 50\ GeV$ and omitted for other neutralino masses for clarity. The gray horizontal line indicates the theoretical value of the squark-antisquark production cross section with the uncertainties shown as the gray shaded band.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde{q}\bar{\tilde{q}})B(\tilde{q} \rightarrow q\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ as a function of $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ in the RPV SUSY model, for $B(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \rightarrow \mu^{+}\mu^{-}\nu) = 0.5$ and $m(\tilde{q}) = 1600\ GeV$. The observed limits for various $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ indicated in the legends are shown as solid curves. The median expected limits and their 68 and 95% quantiles are shown, respectively, as dashed black curves and green and yellow bands for the case of $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 50\ GeV$ and omitted for other neutralino masses for clarity. The gray horizontal line indicates the theoretical value of the squark-antisquark production cross section with the uncertainties shown as the gray shaded band.
The 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde{q}\bar{\tilde{q}})B(\tilde{q} \rightarrow q\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ as a function of $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ in the RPV SUSY model, for $B(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \rightarrow \mu^{+}\mu^{-}\nu) = 0.5$ and $m(\tilde{q}) = 1600\ GeV$. The observed limits for various $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ indicated in the legends are shown as solid curves. The median expected limits and their 68 and 95% quantiles are shown, respectively, as dashed black curves and green and yellow bands for the case of $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 50\ GeV$ and omitted for other neutralino masses for clarity. The gray horizontal line indicates the theoretical value of the squark-antisquark production cross section with the uncertainties shown as the gray shaded band.
Fractions of signal events with zero (green), one (blue), and two (red) STA muons matched to TMS muons by the STA to TMS association procedure, as a function of generated $L_{xy}$, in all HAHM signal samples combined.
Efficiencies of the Run 2 and Run 3 displaced dimuon triggers as a function of $c\tau$ for the HAHM signal events with $m(Z_D) = 50\ GeV$. The efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated events that satisfy the requirements of the following sets of trigger paths: the Run 2 (2018) triggers (dashed black); the Run 3 (2022, L3) triggers (blue); the Run 3 (2022, L2) triggers (red); and the OR of all these triggers (Run 3 (2022), black). The lower panel shows the ratio of the overall Run 3 (2022) efficiency to the Run 2 (2018) efficiency.
Efficiencies of the Run 2 (2018) (red) and Run 3 (2022) (black) sets of displaced dimuon triggers as a function of $m(Z_D)$ for the HAHM signal events with $c\tau = 1\ cm$. The efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated events that satisfy the detector acceptance and the requirements of the indicated set of trigger paths. The lower panel shows the ratio of the Run 3 (2022) efficiency to the Run 2 (2018) efficiency.
Efficiencies of the Run 2 (2018) (red) and Run 3 (2022) (black) sets of displaced dimuon triggers as a function of $m(Z_D)$ for the HAHM signal events with $c\tau = 10\ m$. The efficiency is defined as the fraction of simulated events that satisfy the detector acceptance and the requirements of the indicated set of trigger paths. The lower panel shows the ratio of the Run 3 (2022) efficiency to the Run 2 (2018) efficiency.
Overall selection efficiencies as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ for the HAHM signal with $m(Z_D) = 20\ GeV$ in different years of data taking. Efficiencies are computed as the ratios of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate passes all 2016 (dashed green), 2018 (dashed red), and 2022 (solid black) trigger and offline selection criteria to the total number of simulated signal events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the 2022 efficiency to the 2018 efficiency (dashed red) and to the 2016 efficiency (dashed green).
Overall selection efficiencies as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ for the HAHM signal with $m(Z_D) = 50\ GeV$ in different years of data taking. Efficiencies are computed as the ratios of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate passes all 2016 (dashed green), 2018 (dashed red), and 2022 (solid black) trigger and offline selection criteria to the total number of simulated signal events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the 2022 efficiency to the 2018 efficiency (dashed red) and to the 2016 efficiency (dashed green).
Overall selection efficiencies as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ for the HAHM model with $m(Z_D) = 10\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the two dimuon categories, TMS-TMS (dashed red) and STA-STA (dashed green), as well as their combination (solid black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.
Overall selection efficiencies as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ for the HAHM model with $m(Z_D) = 20\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the two dimuon categories, TMS-TMS (dashed red) and STA-STA (dashed green), as well as their combination (solid black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.
Overall selection efficiencies as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ for the HAHM model with $m(Z_D) = 30\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the two dimuon categories, TMS-TMS (dashed red) and STA-STA (dashed green), as well as their combination (solid black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.
Overall selection efficiencies as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ for the HAHM model with $m(Z_D) = 40\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the two dimuon categories, TMS-TMS (dashed red) and STA-STA (dashed green), as well as their combination (solid black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.
Overall selection efficiencies as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ for the HAHM model with $m(Z_D) = 50\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the two dimuon categories, TMS-TMS (dashed red) and STA-STA (dashed green), as well as their combination (solid black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.
Overall selection efficiencies as a function of $c\tau(Z_D)$ for the HAHM model with $m(Z_D) = 60\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the two dimuon categories, TMS-TMS (dashed red) and STA-STA (dashed green), as well as their combination (solid black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.
Overall selection efficiencies as a function of $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ for the RPV SUSY model, for events with $m(\tilde{q}) = 125\ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 50\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the two dimuon categories, TMS-TMS (dashed red) and STA-STA (dashed green), as well as their combination (solid black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.
Overall selection efficiencies as a function of $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ for the RPV SUSY model, for events with $m(\tilde{q}) = 200\ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 50\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the two dimuon categories, TMS-TMS (dashed red) and STA-STA (dashed green), as well as their combination (solid black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.
Overall selection efficiencies as a function of $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ for the RPV SUSY model, for events with $m(\tilde{q}) = 350\ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 50\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the two dimuon categories, TMS-TMS (dashed red) and STA-STA (dashed green), as well as their combination (solid black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.
Overall selection efficiencies as a function of $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ for the RPV SUSY model, for events with $m(\tilde{q}) = 700\ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 50\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the two dimuon categories, TMS-TMS (dashed red) and STA-STA (dashed green), as well as their combination (solid black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.
Overall selection efficiencies as a function of $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ for the RPV SUSY model, for events with $m(\tilde{q}) = 1150\ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 50\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the two dimuon categories, TMS-TMS (dashed red) and STA-STA (dashed green), as well as their combination (solid black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.
Overall selection efficiencies as a function of $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ for the RPV SUSY model, for events with $m(\tilde{q}) = 1600\ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 50\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the two dimuon categories, TMS-TMS (dashed red) and STA-STA (dashed green), as well as their combination (solid black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.
Overall selection efficiencies as a function of $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ for the RPV SUSY model, for events with $m(\tilde{q}) = 700\ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 500\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the two dimuon categories, TMS-TMS (dashed red) and STA-STA (dashed green), as well as their combination (solid black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.
Overall selection efficiencies as a function of $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ for the RPV SUSY model, for events with $m(\tilde{q}) = 1150\ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 500\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the two dimuon categories, TMS-TMS (dashed red) and STA-STA (dashed green), as well as their combination (solid black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.
Overall selection efficiencies as a function of $c\tau(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ for the RPV SUSY model, for events with $m(\tilde{q}) = 1600\ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 500\ GeV$. The plot shows efficiencies of the two dimuon categories, TMS-TMS (dashed red) and STA-STA (dashed green), as well as their combination (solid black). Each efficiency is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events in which at least one dimuon candidate of a given type (or any type for the combined efficiency) passes all selection criteria (including the trigger) to the total number of simulated signal events. All efficiencies are corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.
Signal efficiencies in the TMS-TMS dimuon category as a function of the smaller of the two values of generated muon $p_T$ and $d_0$ in dimuons with $L_{xy}^\mathrm{true}$ smaller than 20 cm in the HAHM signal model. The efficiency in each bin is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin that pass the trigger requirements and selection criteria to the total number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin and within the geometric acceptance. The geometric acceptance is defined as the generated longitudinal decay length $L_{z}$ smaller than $8\ m$ and $|\eta^\mathrm{true}|$ of both generated muons forming the dimuon smaller than 2.0. The efficiencies obtained from simulation were further corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.
Signal efficiencies in the STA-STA dimuon category as a function of the smaller of the two values of generated muon $p_T$ and $d_0$ in dimuons with $L_{xy}^\mathrm{true}$ smaller than 20 cm in the HAHM signal model. The efficiency in each bin is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin that pass the trigger requirements and selection criteria to the total number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin and within the geometric acceptance. The geometric acceptance is defined as the generated longitudinal decay length $L_{z}$ smaller than $8\ m$ and $|\eta^\mathrm{true}|$ of both generated muons forming the dimuon smaller than 2.0. The efficiencies obtained from simulation were further corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.
Signal efficiencies in the TMS-TMS dimuon category as a function of the smaller of the two values of generated muon $p_T$ and $d_0$ in dimuons with $L_{xy}^\mathrm{true}$ 20-70 cm in the HAHM signal model. The efficiency in each bin is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin that pass the trigger requirements and selection criteria to the total number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin and within the geometric acceptance. The geometric acceptance is defined as the generated longitudinal decay length $L_{z}$ smaller than $8\ m$ and $|\eta^\mathrm{true}|$ of both generated muons forming the dimuon smaller than 2.0. The efficiencies obtained from simulation were further corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.
Signal efficiencies in the STA-STA dimuon category as a function of the smaller of the two values of generated muon $p_T$ and $d_0$ in dimuons with $L_{xy}^\mathrm{true}$ 20-70 cm in the HAHM signal model. The efficiency in each bin is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin that pass the trigger requirements and selection criteria to the total number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin and within the geometric acceptance. The geometric acceptance is defined as the generated longitudinal decay length $L_{z}$ smaller than $8\ m$ and $|\eta^\mathrm{true}|$ of both generated muons forming the dimuon smaller than 2.0. The efficiencies obtained from simulation were further corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.
Signal efficiencies in the STA-STA dimuon category as a function of the smaller of the two values of generated muon $p_T$ and $d_0$ in dimuons with $L_{xy}^\mathrm{true}$ 70-500 cm in the HAHM signal model. The efficiency in each bin is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin that pass the trigger requirements and selection criteria to the total number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin and within the geometric acceptance. The geometric acceptance is defined as the generated longitudinal decay length $L_{z}$ smaller than $8\ m$ and $|\eta^\mathrm{true}|$ of both generated muons forming the dimuon smaller than 2.0. The efficiencies obtained from simulation were further corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.
Signal efficiencies in the TMS-TMS dimuon category as a function of the smaller of the two values of generated muon $p_T$ and $d_0$ in dimuons with $L_{xy}^\mathrm{true}$ smaller than 20 cm in the RPV SUSY signal model. The efficiency in each bin is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin that pass the trigger requirements and selection criteria to the total number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin and within the geometric acceptance. The geometric acceptance is defined as the generated longitudinal decay length $L_{z}$ smaller than $8\ m$ and $|\eta^\mathrm{true}|$ of both generated muons forming the dimuon smaller than 2.0. The efficiencies obtained from simulation were further corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.
Signal efficiencies in the STA-STA dimuon category as a function of the smaller of the two values of generated muon $p_T$ and $d_0$ in dimuons with $L_{xy}^\mathrm{true}$ smaller than 20 cm in the RPV SUSY signal model. The efficiency in each bin is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin that pass the trigger requirements and selection criteria to the total number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin and within the geometric acceptance. The geometric acceptance is defined as the generated longitudinal decay length $L_{z}$ smaller than $8\ m$ and $|\eta^\mathrm{true}|$ of both generated muons forming the dimuon smaller than 2.0. The efficiencies obtained from simulation were further corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.
Signal efficiencies in the TMS-TMS dimuon category as a function of the smaller of the two values of generated muon $p_T$ and $d_0$ in dimuons with $L_{xy}^\mathrm{true}$ 20-70 cm in the RPV SUSY signal model. The efficiency in each bin is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin that pass the trigger requirements and selection criteria to the total number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin and within the geometric acceptance. The geometric acceptance is defined as the generated longitudinal decay length $L_{z}$ smaller than $8\ m$ and $|\eta^\mathrm{true}|$ of both generated muons forming the dimuon smaller than 2.0. The efficiencies obtained from simulation were further corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.
Signal efficiencies in the STA-STA dimuon category as a function of the smaller of the two values of generated muon $p_T$ and $d_0$ in dimuons with $L_{xy}^\mathrm{true}$ 20-70 cm in the RPV SUSY signal model. The efficiency in each bin is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin that pass the trigger requirements and selection criteria to the total number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin and within the geometric acceptance. The geometric acceptance is defined as the generated longitudinal decay length $L_{z}$ smaller than $8\ m$ and $|\eta^\mathrm{true}|$ of both generated muons forming the dimuon smaller than 2.0. The efficiencies obtained from simulation were further corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.
Signal efficiencies in the STA-STA dimuon category as a function of the smaller of the two values of generated muon $p_T$ and $d_0$ in dimuons with $L_{xy}^\mathrm{true}$ 70-500 cm in the RPV SUSY signal model. The efficiency in each bin is computed as the ratio of the number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin that pass the trigger requirements and selection criteria to the total number of simulated signal dimuons in that bin and within the geometric acceptance. The geometric acceptance is defined as the generated longitudinal decay length $L_{z}$ smaller than $8\ m$ and $|\eta^\mathrm{true}|$ of both generated muons forming the dimuon smaller than 2.0. The efficiencies obtained from simulation were further corrected by the data-to-simulation scale factors described in the paper.
A search is presented for the direct pair production of the stop, the supersymmetric partner of the top quark, that decays through an $R$-parity-violating coupling to a final state with two leptons and two jets, at least one of which is identified as a $b$-jet. The dataset corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV, collected in 2015 and 2016 by the ATLAS detector at the LHC. No significant excess is observed over the Standard Model background, and exclusion limits are set on stop pair production at a 95% confidence level. Lower limits on the stop mass are set between 600 GeV and 1.5 TeV for branching ratios above 10% for decays to an electron or muon and a $b$-quark.
Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 600 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 600 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 600 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 600 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 700 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 700 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 700 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 700 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 800 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 800 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 800 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 800 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 900 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 900 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 900 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 900 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1000 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1000 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1000 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1000 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1050 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1050 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1050 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1050 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1100 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1100 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1100 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1100 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1150 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1150 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1150 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1150 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1200 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1200 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1200 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1200 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1250 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1250 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1250 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1250 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1300 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1300 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1300 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1300 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1350 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1350 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1350 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1350 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1400 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1400 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1400 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1400 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1450 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1450 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1450 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1450 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1500 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1500 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1500 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1500 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 800 GeV stop, for the SR800 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 800 GeV stop, for the SR800 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 800 GeV stop, for the SR1100 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 800 GeV stop, for the SR1100 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 800 GeV stop, for the SR800 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 800 GeV stop, for the SR800 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 800 GeV stop, for the SR1100 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 800 GeV stop, for the SR1100 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1200 GeV stop, for the SR800 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1200 GeV stop, for the SR800 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1200 GeV stop, for the SR1100 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1200 GeV stop, for the SR1100 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1200 GeV stop, for the SR800 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1200 GeV stop, for the SR800 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1200 GeV stop, for the SR1100 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1200 GeV stop, for the SR1100 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1500 GeV stop, for the SR800 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1500 GeV stop, for the SR800 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1500 GeV stop, for the SR1100 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1500 GeV stop, for the SR1100 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1500 GeV stop, for the SR800 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1500 GeV stop, for the SR800 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1500 GeV stop, for the SR1100 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1500 GeV stop, for the SR1100 signal region.
$m_{bl}^{0}$ distribution in SR800. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the background-only fit. The last bin includes overflows.
$m_{bl}^{0}$ distribution in SR800. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the background-only fit. The last bin includes overflows.
$m_{bl}^{0}$ distribution in SR800. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the background-only fit. The last bin includes overflows.
$m_{bl}^\mathrm{asym}$ distribution in SR800. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the background-only fit. The last bin includes overflows.
$m_{bl}^\mathrm{asym}$ distribution in SR800. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the background-only fit. The last bin includes overflows.
$m_{bl}^\mathrm{asym}$ distribution in SR800. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the background-only fit. The last bin includes overflows.
$H_\mathrm{T}$ distribution in SR800. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the background-only fit. The last bin includes overflows.
$H_\mathrm{T}$ distribution in SR800. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the background-only fit. The last bin includes overflows.
$H_\mathrm{T}$ distribution in SR800. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the background-only fit. The last bin includes overflows.
$m_{ll}$ distribution in SR800. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the background-only fit. The last bin includes overflows.
$m_{ll}$ distribution in SR800. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the background-only fit. The last bin includes overflows.
$m_{ll}$ distribution in SR800. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the background-only fit. The last bin includes overflows.
$m_{bl}^{1}$(rej) distribution in SR800. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the background-only fit. The last bin includes overflows.
$m_{bl}^{1}$(rej) distribution in SR800. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the background-only fit. The last bin includes overflows.
$m_{bl}^{1}$(rej) distribution in SR800. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the background-only fit. The last bin includes overflows.
Full list of event selections and MC generator-weighted yields and efficiencies in the inclusive SR800 and SR1100 signal regions for several signal samples of varying stop mass with decay into b-electron, b-muon or b-tau at 1/3 branching ratio.
Full list of event selections and MC generator-weighted yields and efficiencies in the inclusive SR800 and SR1100 signal regions for several signal samples of varying stop mass with decay into b-electron, b-muon or b-tau at 1/3 branching ratio.
Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 600 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 600 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 700 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 700 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 800 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 800 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 900 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 900 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 1000 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 1000 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 1050 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 1050 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 1100 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 1100 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 1150 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 1150 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 1200 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 1200 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 1250 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 1250 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 1300 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 1300 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 1350 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 1350 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 1400 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 1400 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 1450 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 1450 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 1500 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 1500 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 1550 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 1550 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 1600 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 1600 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 1350 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 1350 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 1400 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 1400 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 1450 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 1450 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 1500 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 1500 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 1550 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 1550 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 1600 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 1600 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 600 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 600 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 700 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 700 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 800 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 800 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 900 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 900 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 1000 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 1000 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 1050 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 1050 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 1100 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 1100 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 1150 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 1150 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 1200 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 1200 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 1250 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 1250 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 1300 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 1300 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
A search for the supersymmetric partners of the Standard Model bottom and top quarks is presented. The search uses 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ of $pp$ collision data at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV collected by the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider. Direct production of pairs of bottom and top squarks ($\tilde{b}_{1}$ and $\tilde{t}_{1}$) is searched for in final states with $b$-tagged jets and missing transverse momentum. Distinctive selections are defined with either no charged leptons (electrons or muons) in the final state, or one charged lepton. The zero-lepton selection targets models in which the $\tilde{b}_{1}$ is the lightest squark and decays via $\tilde{b}_{1} \rightarrow b \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$, where $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ is the lightest neutralino. The one-lepton final state targets models where bottom or top squarks are produced and can decay into multiple channels, $\tilde{b}_{1} \rightarrow b \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\tilde{b}_{1} \rightarrow t \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}$, or $\tilde{t}_{1} \rightarrow t \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\tilde{t}_{1} \rightarrow b \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}$, where $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}$ is the lightest chargino and the mass difference $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}}- m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ is set to 1 GeV. No excess above the expected Standard Model background is observed. Exclusion limits at 95\% confidence level on the mass of third-generation squarks are derived in various supersymmetry-inspired simplified models.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA350 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA350 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA450 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA450 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA550 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA550 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRB signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRB signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRC signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRC signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L- best expected signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L- best expected signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA300-2j signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA300-2j signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA450 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA450 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA600 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA600 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA750 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA750 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRB signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRB signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L- best expected signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L- best expected signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA350 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA350 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA450 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA450 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA550 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA550 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRB signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRB signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRC signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRC signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L- best expected signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L- best expected signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA300-2j signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA300-2j signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA450 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA450 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA600 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA600 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA750 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA750 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRB signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRB signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L- best expected signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L- best expected signal region.
b1L signal region with best expected exclusion limit in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino.
b1L signal region with best expected exclusion limit in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino.
b0L signal region with best expected exclusion limit in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino.
b0L signal region with best expected exclusion limit in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino.
combined signal region with best expected exclusion limit in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino.
combined signal region with best expected exclusion limit in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino.
b0L signal region with best expected exclusion limit in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino.
b0L signal region with best expected exclusion limit in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino.
Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRA350 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRA350 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRA350 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRA350 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRA350 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRA350 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRA350 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRA350 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRA550 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRA550 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRA550 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRA550 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRB for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRB for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRB for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRB for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRB for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRB for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRB for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRB for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRC for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRC for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRC for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRC for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Expected exclusion limit for best b0L SR for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Expected exclusion limit for best b0L SR for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Observed exclusion limit for best b0L SR for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Observed exclusion limit for best b0L SR for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Expected exclusion limit for best b0L SR for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for best b0L SR for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for best b0L SR for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for best b0L SR for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for b1L-SRA300-2j for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for b1L-SRA300-2j for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for b1L-SRA300-2j for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for b1L-SRA300-2j for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for b1L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for b1L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for b1L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for b1L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for b1L-SRA600 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for b1L-SRA600 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for b1L-SRA600 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for b1L-SRA600 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for b1L-SRA750 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for b1L-SRA750 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for b1L-SRA750 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for b1L-SRA750 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for b1L-SRB for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for b1L-SRB for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for b1L-SRB for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for b1L-SRB for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for best b1L SR for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for best b1L SR for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for best b1L SR for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for best b1L SR for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for A-LowMass combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for A-LowMass combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for A-LowMass combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for A-LowMass combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for A-HighMass combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for A-HighMass combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for A-HighMass combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for A-HighMass combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for B combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for B combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for B combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for B combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for best combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for best combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for best combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for best combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
$m_{\mathrm{CT}}$ distribution in b0L-SRA. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the fit. The last bin includes overflows.
$m_{\mathrm{CT}}$ distribution in b0L-SRA. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the fit. The last bin includes overflows.
$\mathrm{min[m_{T}(jet_{1-4}, E_{T}^{miss})]}$ distribution in b0L-SRB. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the fit. The last bin includes overflows.
$\mathrm{min[m_{T}(jet_{1-4}, E_{T}^{miss})]}$ distribution in b0L-SRB. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the fit. The last bin includes overflows.
${\cal A}$ distribution in b0L-SRC. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the fit. The last bin includes overflows.
${\cal A}$ distribution in b0L-SRC. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the fit. The last bin includes overflows.
$\mathrm{m_{bb}}$ distribution in b1L-SRA300-2j. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the fit. The last bin includes overflows.
$\mathrm{m_{bb}}$ distribution in b1L-SRA300-2j. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the fit. The last bin includes overflows.
$\mathrm{m_{eff}}$ distribution in b1L-SRA. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the fit. The last bin includes overflows.
$\mathrm{m_{eff}}$ distribution in b1L-SRA. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the fit. The last bin includes overflows.
$\mathrm{m_{T}}$ distribution in b1L-SRB. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the fit. The last bin includes overflows.
$\mathrm{m_{T}}$ distribution in b1L-SRB. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the fit. The last bin includes overflows.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for best b0L SR as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with symmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for best b0L SR as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with symmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRA350 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with symmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRA350 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with symmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRA450 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with symmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRA450 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with symmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRA550 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with symmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRA550 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with symmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRB as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with symmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRB as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with symmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRC as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with symmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRC as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with symmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for best b0L SR as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for best b0L SR as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRA350 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRA350 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRA450 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRA450 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRB as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRB as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for best b1L SR as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for best b1L SR as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b1L-SRA300-2j as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b1L-SRA300-2j as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b1L-SRA450 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b1L-SRA450 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b1L-SRA600 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b1L-SRA600 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b1L-SRA750 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b1L-SRA750 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b1L-SRB as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b1L-SRB as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for best combination as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for best combination as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for A-LowMass combination as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for A-LowMass combination as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for A-HighMass combination as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for A-HighMass combination as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for B combination as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for B combination as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cutflow table in b0L-SRA for a pair produced bottom squark of 1 TeV decaying into a 1 GeV neutralino in a symmetric decay scenario.
Cutflow table in b0L-SRA for a pair produced bottom squark of 1 TeV decaying into a 1 GeV neutralino in a symmetric decay scenario.
Cutflow table in b0L-SRB for a pair produced bottom squark of 700 GeV decaying into a 450 GeV neutralino in a symmetric decay scenario.
Cutflow table in b0L-SRB for a pair produced bottom squark of 700 GeV decaying into a 450 GeV neutralino in a symmetric decay scenario.
Cutflow table in b0L-SRC for a pair produced bottom squark of 450 GeV decaying into a 430 GeV neutralino in a symmetric decay scenario.
Cutflow table in b0L-SRC for a pair produced bottom squark of 450 GeV decaying into a 430 GeV neutralino in a symmetric decay scenario.
Cutflow table in b1L-SRA for a pair produced bottom squark of 700 GeV decaying into a 300 GeV neutralino in a mixed decay scenario.
Cutflow table in b1L-SRA for a pair produced bottom squark of 700 GeV decaying into a 300 GeV neutralino in a mixed decay scenario.
Cutflow table in b1L-SRA300-2j for a pair produced bottom squark of 700 GeV decaying into a 300 GeV neutralino in a mixed decay scenario.
Cutflow table in b1L-SRA300-2j for a pair produced bottom squark of 700 GeV decaying into a 300 GeV neutralino in a mixed decay scenario.
Cutflow table in b0L-SRA for a pair produced bottom squark of 700 GeV decaying into a 300 GeV neutralino in a mixed decay scenario.
Cutflow table in b0L-SRA for a pair produced bottom squark of 700 GeV decaying into a 300 GeV neutralino in a mixed decay scenario.
Searches for new phenomena in high-mass diphoton final states with the ATLAS experiment at the LHC are presented. The analysis is based on $pp$ collision data corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 36.7 fb$^{-1}$ at a centre-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV recorded in 2015 and 2016. Searches are performed for resonances with spin 0, as predicted by theories with an extended Higgs sector, and for resonances with spin 2, using a warped extra-dimension model as a benchmark model, as well as for non-resonant signals, assuming a large extra-dimension scenario. No significant deviation from the Standard Model is observed. Upper limits are placed on the production cross section times branching ratio to two photons as a function of the resonance mass. In addition, lower limits are set on the ultraviolet cutoff scale in the large extra-dimensions model.
Upper limits on the fiducial cross section times branching ratio to two photons at centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV of a narrow-width (Γ_X = 4 MeV) spin-0 resonance as a function of its mass m_X.
Upper limits on the fiducial cross section times branching ratio to two photons at centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV of a spin-0 resonance as a function of its mass m_X. The decay width of the resonance equals to 2% of m_X.
Upper limits on the fiducial cross section times branching ratio to two photons at centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV of a spin-0 resonance as a function of its mass m_X. The decay width of the resonance equals to 6% of m_X.
Upper limits on the fiducial cross section times branching ratio to two photons at centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV of a narrow-width (Γ_X = 4 MeV) spin-0 resonance as a function of its mass m_X.
Upper limits on the production cross section times branching ratio to two photons at centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV of the lightest KK graviton as a function of its mass m_G* for k/MPl=0.01.
Upper limits on the production cross section times branching ratio to two photons at centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV of the lightest KK graviton as a function of its mass m_G* for k/MPl=0.10. Only the limits derived with the asymptotic formulae are quoted here.
Upper limits on the production cross section times branching ratio to two photons at centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV of the lightest KK graviton as a function of its mass m_G* for k/MPl=0.20.
Upper limits on the production cross section times branching ratio to two photons at centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV of the lightest KK graviton as a function of its mass m_G* for k/MPl=0.30.
Fiducial acceptance and product of the fiducial acceptance times the combined reconstruction and identification efficiency as a function of the mass for a spin-0 resonant signal with narrow width under the spin-0 selection. Only MC statistical uncertainties are included.
Fiducial acceptance and product of the fiducial acceptance times the combined reconstruction and identification efficiency as a function of the mass for a spin-2 resonant signal with k/MPl=0.1 under the spin-2 selection. The definition of fiducial region is provided in JHEP 09 (2016) 001. Only MC statistical uncertainties are included.
Fiducial acceptance and product of the fiducial acceptance times the combined reconstruction and identification efficiency as a function of the mass for an ADD excess (GRW formalism), calculated as the difference between the sum of ADD and SM contributions (including their interference) and the SM contribution, under the spin-2 selection in the signal region M(gamma gamma)>2240 GeV. The definition of fiducial region is provided in JHEP 09 (2016) 001, and M(gamma gamma)>2240 GeV is required in addition. Only MC statistical uncertainties are included.
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.