This paper presents a statistical combination of searches targeting final states with two top quarks and invisible particles, characterised by the presence of zero, one or two leptons, at least one jet originating from a $b$-quark and missing transverse momentum. The analyses are searches for phenomena beyond the Standard Model consistent with the direct production of dark matter in $pp$ collisions at the LHC, using 139 fb$^{-\text{1}}$ of data collected with the ATLAS detector at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. The results are interpreted in terms of simplified dark matter models with a spin-0 scalar or pseudoscalar mediator particle. In addition, the results are interpreted in terms of upper limits on the Higgs boson invisible branching ratio, where the Higgs boson is produced according to the Standard Model in association with a pair of top quarks. For scalar (pseudoscalar) dark matter models, with all couplings set to unity, the statistical combination extends the mass range excluded by the best of the individual channels by 50 (25) GeV, excluding mediator masses up to 370 GeV. In addition, the statistical combination improves the expected coupling exclusion reach by 14% (24%), assuming a scalar (pseudoscalar) mediator mass of 10 GeV. An upper limit on the Higgs boson invisible branching ratio of 0.38 (0.30$^{+\text{0.13}}_{-\text{0.09}}$) is observed (expected) at 95% confidence level.
Post-fit signal region yields for the tt0L-high and the tt0L-low analyses. The bottom panel shows the statistical significance of the difference between the SM prediction and the observed data in each region. '$t\bar{t}$ (other)' represents $t\bar{t}$ events without extra jets or events with extra light-flavour jets. 'Other' includes contributions from $t\bar{t}W$, $tZ$ and $tWZ$ processes. The total uncertainty in the SM expectation is represented with hatched bands and the expected distributions for selected signal models are shown as dashed lines.
Representative fit distribution in the signal region for the tt1L analysis: each bin of such distribution corresponds to a single SR included in the fit. 'Other' includes contributions from $t\bar{t}W$, $tZ$, $tWZ$ and $t\bar{t}$ (semileptonic) processes. The total uncertainty in the SM expectation is represented with hatched bands and the expected distributions for selected signal models are shown as dashed lines.
Representative fit distribution in the same flavour leptons signal region for the tt2L analysis: each bin of such distribution, starting from the red arrow, corresponds to a single SR included in the fit. 'FNP' includes the contribution from fake/non-prompt lepton background arising from jets (mainly $\pi/K$, heavy-flavour hadron decays and photon conversion) misidentified as leptons, estimated in a purely data-driven way. 'Other' includes contributions from $t\bar{t}W$, $tZ$ and $tWZ$ processes. The total uncertainty in the SM expectation is represented with hatched bands and the expected distributions for selected signal models are shown as dashed lines.
A search is presented for displaced production of Higgs bosons or $Z$ bosons, originating from the decay of a neutral long-lived particle (LLP) and reconstructed in the decay modes $H\rightarrow \gamma\gamma$ and $Z\rightarrow ee$. The analysis uses the full Run 2 data set of proton$-$proton collisions delivered by the LHC at an energy of $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV between 2015 and 2018 and recorded by the ATLAS detector, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. Exploiting the capabilities of the ATLAS liquid argon calorimeter to precisely measure the arrival times and trajectories of electromagnetic objects, the analysis searches for the signature of pairs of photons or electrons which arise from a common displaced vertex and which arrive after some delay at the calorimeter. The results are interpreted in a gauge-mediated supersymmetry breaking model with pair-produced higgsinos that decay to LLPs, and each LLP subsequently decays into either a Higgs boson or a $Z$ boson. The final state includes at least two particles that escape direct detection, giving rise to missing transverse momentum. No significant excess is observed above the background expectation. The results are used to set upper limits on the cross section for higgsino pair production, up to a $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass of 369 (704) GeV for decays with 100% branching ratio of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ to Higgs ($Z$) bosons for a $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime of 2 ns. A model-independent limit is also set on the production of pairs of photons or electrons with a significant delay in arrival at the calorimeter.
Average timing distributions for SR data and the estimated background as determined by the background-only fit, in each of the five exclusive $\rho$ categories. For comparison, the expected timing shapes for a few different signal models are superimposed, with each model labeled by the values of the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass and lifetime, as well as decay mode. To provide some indication of the variations in signal yield and shape, three signal models are shown for each of the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decay modes, namely $\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow$ $H \tilde G$ and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow$ $Z \tilde G$. The models shown include a rather low $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass value of 135 GeV for lifetimes of either 2 ns or 10 ns, and a higher $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass value which is near the 95% CL exclusion limit for each decay mode for a lifetime of 2 ns. Each signal model is shown with the signal normalization corresponding to a BR value of unity for the decay mode in question.
Average timing distributions for SR data and the estimated background as determined by the background-only fit, in each of the five exclusive $\rho$ categories. For comparison, the expected timing shapes for a few different signal models are superimposed, with each model labeled by the values of the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass and lifetime, as well as decay mode. To provide some indication of the variations in signal yield and shape, three signal models are shown for each of the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decay modes, namely $\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow$ $H \tilde G$ and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow$ $Z \tilde G$. The models shown include a rather low $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass value of 135 GeV for lifetimes of either 2 ns or 10 ns, and a higher $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass value which is near the 95% CL exclusion limit for each decay mode for a lifetime of 2 ns. Each signal model is shown with the signal normalization corresponding to a BR value of unity for the decay mode in question.
Average timing distributions for SR data and the estimated background as determined by the background-only fit, in each of the five exclusive $\rho$ categories. For comparison, the expected timing shapes for a few different signal models are superimposed, with each model labeled by the values of the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass and lifetime, as well as decay mode. To provide some indication of the variations in signal yield and shape, three signal models are shown for each of the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decay modes, namely $\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow$ $H \tilde G$ and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow$ $Z \tilde G$. The models shown include a rather low $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass value of 135 GeV for lifetimes of either 2 ns or 10 ns, and a higher $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass value which is near the 95% CL exclusion limit for each decay mode for a lifetime of 2 ns. Each signal model is shown with the signal normalization corresponding to a BR value of unity for the decay mode in question.
A measurement of the energy asymmetry in jet-associated top-quark pair production is presented using 139 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ of data collected by the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider during $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV. The observable measures the different probability of top and antitop quarks to have the higher energy as a function of the jet scattering angle with respect to the beam axis. The energy asymmetry is measured in the semileptonic $t\bar{t}$ decay channel, and the hadronically decaying top quark must have transverse momentum above $350$ GeV. The results are corrected for detector effects to particle level in three bins of the scattering angle of the associated jet. The measurement agrees with the SM prediction at next-to-leading-order accuracy in quantum chromodynamics in all three bins. In the bin with the largest expected asymmetry, where the jet is emitted perpendicular to the beam, the energy asymmetry is measured to be $-0.043\pm0.020$, in agreement with the SM prediction of $-0.037\pm0.003$. Interpreting this result in the framework of the Standard Model effective field theory (SMEFT), it is shown that the energy asymmetry is sensitive to the top-quark chirality in four-quark operators and is therefore a valuable new observable in global SMEFT fits.
Data Measurements and predictions of the energy asymmetry in three bins of the jet angle $\theta_j$. The SM prediction was obtained from simulations of $t\bar{t}j$ events with MadGraph5_aMC@NLO + Pythia 8 at NLO in QCD for $t\bar{t}j$ + PS, including MC statistical and scale uncertainties.
Data measurements and predictions of the energy asymmetry in three bins of the jet angle $\theta_j$. The SM prediction was obtained from simulations of $t\bar{t}j$ events with MadGraph5_aMC@NLO + Pythia 8 at NLO in QCD for $t\bar{t}j$ + PS, including MC statistical and scale uncertainties.
Correlation coefficients $\rho_{i,j}$ for the statistical and systematic uncertainties between the $i$-th and $j$-th bin of the differential $A_E$ measurement as a function of the jet scattering angle $\theta_j$
Searches are performed for nonresonant and resonant di-Higgs boson production in the $b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$ final state. The data set used corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV recorded by the ATLAS detector at the CERN Large Hadron Collider. No excess above the expected background is found and upper limits on the di-Higgs boson production cross sections are set. A 95% confidence-level upper limit of 4.2 times the cross section predicted by the Standard Model is set on $pp \rightarrow HH$ nonresonant production, where the expected limit is 5.7 times the Standard Model predicted value. The expected constraints are obtained for a background hypothesis excluding $pp \rightarrow HH$ production. The observed (expected) constraints on the Higgs boson trilinear coupling modifier $\kappa_{\lambda}$ are determined to be $[-1.5, 6.7]$ $([-2.4, 7.7])$ at 95% confidence level, where the expected constraints on $\kappa_{\lambda}$ are obtained excluding $pp \rightarrow HH$ production from the background hypothesis. For resonant production of a new hypothetical scalar particle $X$ ($X \rightarrow HH \rightarrow b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$), limits on the cross section for $pp \to X \to HH$ are presented in the narrow-width approximation as a function of $m_{X}$ in the range $251 \leq m_{X} \leq 1000$ GeV. The observed (expected) limits on the cross section for $pp \to X \to HH$ range from 640 fb to 44 fb (391 fb to 46 fb) over the considered mass range.
The BDT distribution of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the low mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} < 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.881 in the low mass region are discarded.
The BDT distribution of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the low mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} < 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.881 in the low mass region are discarded.
The BDT distribution of the di-Higgs ggF signal for two different values of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and the main backgrounds in the low mass region ($m^{*}_{b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma} < 350$ GeV). Distributions are normalized to unit area. The dotted lines denote the category boundaries. Events with a BDT score below 0.881 in the low mass region are discarded.
A search is made for a vector-like $T$ quark decaying into a Higgs boson and a top quark in 13 TeV proton-proton collisions using the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider with a data sample corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. The Higgs-boson and top-quark candidates are identified in the all-hadronic decay mode, where $H\to b\bar{b}$ and $t\to b W \to b q \bar{q}^\prime$ are reconstructed as large-radius jets. The candidate Higgs boson, top quark, and associated B-hadrons are identified using tagging algorithms. No significant excess is observed above the background, so limits are set on the production cross-section of a singlet $T$ quark at 95% confidence level, depending on the mass, $m_T$, and coupling, $\kappa_T$, of the vector-like $T$ quark to Standard Model particles. In the considered mass range between 1.0 and 2.3 TeV, the upper limit on the allowed coupling values increases with $m_T$ from a minimum value of 0.35 for 1.07 < $m_T$ < 1.4 TeV to 1.6 for $m_T$ = 2.3 TeV.
Dijet invariant mass distribution for the $SR$ showing the results of the model when fitted to the data. A $T$-quark hypothesis with $m_{T} = 1.6$ TeV and $\kappa_{T} = 0.5$ is used in the fit.
Dijet invariant mass distribution for the $ttNR$ showing the results of the model when fitted to the data. A $T$-quark hypothesis with $m_{T} = 1.6$ TeV and $\kappa_{T} = 0.5$ is used in the fit.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the single $T$-quark coupling $\kappa_{T}$ as a function of $m_{T}$ are shown.
Inclusive and differential measurements of the top-antitop ($t\bar{t}$) charge asymmetry $A_\text{C}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the leptonic asymmetry $A_\text{C}^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ are presented in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV recorded by the ATLAS experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider. The measurement uses the complete Run 2 dataset, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, combines data in the single-lepton and dilepton channels, and employs reconstruction techniques adapted to both the resolved and boosted topologies. A Bayesian unfolding procedure is performed to correct for detector resolution and acceptance effects. The combined inclusive $t\bar{t}$ charge asymmetry is measured to be $A_\text{C}^{t\bar{t}} = 0.0068 \pm 0.0015$, which differs from zero by 4.7 standard deviations. Differential measurements are performed as a function of the invariant mass, transverse momentum and longitudinal boost of the $t\bar{t}$ system. Both the inclusive and differential measurements are found to be compatible with the Standard Model predictions, at next-to-next-to-leading order in quantum chromodynamics perturbation theory with next-to-leading-order electroweak corrections. The measurements are interpreted in the framework of the Standard Model effective field theory, placing competitive bounds on several Wilson coefficients.
- - - - - - - - Overview of HEPData Record - - - - - - - - <br/><br/> <b>Results:</b> <ul> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Resultsforchargeasymmetryinclusive">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Resultsforchargeasymmetryvsmtt">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Resultsforchargeasymmetryvspttt">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Resultsforchargeasymmetryvsbetatt">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Resultsforleptonicchargeasymmetryinclusive">$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Resultsforchargeasymmetryvsllmll">$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Resultsforchargeasymmetryvsllptll">$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Resultsforchargeasymmetryvsllbetall">$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> </ul> <b>Bounds on the Wilson coefficients:</b> <ul> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=BoundsonWilsoncoefficientschargeasymmetryinclusive">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=BoundsonWilsoncoefficientschargeasymmetryvsmtt">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$</a> </ul> <b>Ranking of systematic uncertainties:</b></br> Inclusive:<a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryinclusive">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$</a></br> <b>$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$:</b> <ul> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsbetattbin0">$\beta_{z,t\bar{t}} \in[0,0.3]$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsbetattbin1">$\beta_{z,t\bar{t}} \in[0.3,0.6]$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsbetattbin2">$\beta_{z,t\bar{t}} \in[0.6,0.8]$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsbetattbin3">$\beta_{z,t\bar{t}} \in[0.8,1]$</a> </ul> <b>$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$:</b> <ul> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsmttbin0">$m_{t\bar{t}}$ < $500$GeV</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsmttbin1">$m_{t\bar{t}} \in [500,750]$GeV</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsmttbin2">$m_{t\bar{t}} \in [750,1000]$GeV</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsmttbin3">$m_{t\bar{t}} \in [1000,1500]$GeV</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsmttbin4">$m_{t\bar{t}}$ > $1500$GeV</a> </ul> <b>$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$:</b> <ul> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsptttbin0">$p_{T,t\bar{t}} \in [0,30]$GeV</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsptttbin1">$p_{T,t\bar{t}} \in[30,120]$GeV</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsptttbin2">$p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ > $120$GeV</a> </ul> Inclusive leptonic:<a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingleptonicchargeasymmetryinclusive">$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a></br> <b>$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$</b> <ul> <li><a href="132116?version=1&tableNPrankingchargeasymmetry=vsllbetallbin0">$\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}} \in [0,0.3]$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&tableNPrankingchargeasymmetry=vsllbetallbin1">$\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}} \in [0.3,0.6]$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&tableNPrankingchargeasymmetry=vsllbetallbin2">$\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}} \in [0.6,0.8]$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&tableNPrankingchargeasymmetry=vsllbetallbin3">$\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}} \in [0.8,1]$</a> </ul> <b>$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$</b> <ul> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsllmllbin0">$m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ < $200$GeV</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsllmllbin1">$m_{\ell\bar{\ell}} \in [200,300]$GeV</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsllmllbin2">$m_{\ell\bar{\ell}} \in [300,400]$Ge$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsllmllbin3">$m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ > $400$GeV</a> </ul> <b>$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$</b> <ul> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsllptllbin0">$p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}\in [0,20]$GeV</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsllptllbin1">$p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}\in[20,70]$GeV</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsllptllbin2">$p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ > $70$GeV</a> </ul> <b>NP correlations:</b> <ul> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPcorrelationschargeasymmetryinclusive">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPcorrelationschargeasymmetryvsmtt">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPcorrelationschargeasymmetryvspttt">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPcorrelationschargeasymmetryvsbetatt">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPcorrelationsleptonicchargeasymmetryinclusive">$A_c^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPcorrelationschargeasymmetryvsllmll">$A_c^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPcorrelationschargeasymmetryvsllptll">$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPcorrelationschargeasymmetryvsllbetall">$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> </ul> <b>Covariance matrices:</b> <ul> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Covariancematrixchargeasymmetryvsmtt">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Covariancematrixchargeasymmetryvspttt">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Covariancematrixchargeasymmetryvsbetatt">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Covariancematrixleptonicchargeasymmetryvsllmll">$A_c^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Covariancematrixleptonicchargeasymmetryvsllptll">$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Covariancematrixleptonicchargeasymmetryvsllbetall">$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> </ul>
The unfolded inclusive charge asymmetry. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NNLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed, and the impact of the linear term of the Wilson coefficient on the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ prediction is shown for two different values. The scale uncertainty is obtained by varying renormalisation and factorisation scales independently by a factor of 2 or 0.5 around $\mu_0$ to calculate the maximum and minimum value of the asymmetry, respectively. The nominal value $\mu_0$ is chosen as $H_T/4$. The variations in which one scale is multiplied by 2 while the other scale is divided by 2 are excluded. Finally, the scale and MC integration uncertainties are added in quadrature.
The unfolded differential charge asymmetry as a function of the invariant mass of the top pair system. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NNLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed, and the impact of the linear term of the Wilson coefficient on the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ prediction is shown for two different values. The scale uncertainty is obtained by varying renormalisation and factorisation scales independently by a factor of 2 or 0.5 around $\mu_0$ to calculate the maximum and minimum value of the asymmetry, respectively. The nominal value $\mu_0$ is chosen as $H_T/4$. The variations in which one scale is multiplied by 2 while the other scale is divided by 2 are excluded. Finally, the scale and MC integration uncertainties are added in quadrature.
A search for the electroweak production of pairs of charged sleptons or charginos decaying into two-lepton final states with missing transverse momentum is presented. Two simplified models of $R$-parity-conserving supersymmetry are considered: direct pair-production of sleptons ($\tilde{\ell}\tilde{\ell}$), with each decaying into a charged lepton and a $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ neutralino, and direct pair-production of the lightest charginos $(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^\mp)$, with each decaying into a $W$-boson and a $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_1^0$) is assumed to be the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP). The analyses target the experimentally challenging mass regions where $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm)-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ are close to the $W$-boson mass (`moderately compressed' regions). The search uses 139 fb$^{-1}$ of $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV proton-proton collisions recorded by the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider. No significant excesses over the expected background are observed. Exclusion limits on the simplified models under study are reported in the ($\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0$) and ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0$) mass planes at 95% confidence level (CL). Sleptons with masses up to 150 GeV are excluded at 95% CL for the case of a mass-splitting between sleptons and the LSP of 50 GeV. Chargino masses up to 140 GeV are excluded at 95% CL for the case of a mass-splitting between the chargino and the LSP down to about 100 GeV.
<b>- - - - - - - - Overview of HEPData Record - - - - - - - -</b> <b>Title: </b><em>Search for direct pair production of sleptons and charginos decaying to two leptons and neutralinos with mass splittings near the $W$ boson mass in $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV $pp$ collisions with the ATLAS detector</em> <b>Paper website:</b> <a href="https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PAPERS/SUSY-2019-02/">SUSY-2019-02</a> <b>Exclusion contours</b> <ul><li><b>Sleptons:</b> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_nominal>Combined Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_up>Combined Observed Up</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_down>Combined Observed Down</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_nominal>Combined Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_up>Combined Expected Up</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_down>Combined Expected Down</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_nominal_dM>Combined Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_up_dM>Combined Observed Up $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_down_dM>Combined Observed Down $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_nominal_dM>Combined Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_up_dM>Combined Expected Up $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_down_dM>Combined Expected Down $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_ee_obs_nominal>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_ee_exp_nominal>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_eLeL_obs_nominal>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L}$ Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_eLeL_exp_nominal>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L}$ Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_eReR_obs_nominal>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{R}$ Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_eReR_exp_nominal>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{R}$ Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_ee_obs_nominal_dM>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_ee_exp_nominal_dM>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_eLeL_obs_nominal_dM>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L}$ Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_eLeL_exp_nominal_dM>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L}$ Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_eReR_obs_nominal_dM>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{R}$ Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_eReR_exp_nominal_dM>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{R}$ Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_mm_obs_nominal>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_mm_exp_nominal>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_mLmL_obs_nominal>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L}$ Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_mLmL_exp_nominal>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L}$ Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_mRmR_obs_nominal>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{R}$ Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_mRmR_exp_nominal>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{R}$ Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_mm_obs_nominal_dM>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_mm_exp_nominal_dM>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_mLmL_obs_nominal_dM>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L}$ Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_mLmL_exp_nominal_dM>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L}$ Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_mRmR_obs_nominal_dM>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{R}$ Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_mRmR_exp_nominal_dM>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{R}$ Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_nominal_SR0j>Combined Observed Nominal SR-0j</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_nominal_SR0j>Combined Expected Nominal SR-0j</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_nominal_SR1j>Combined Observed Nominal SR-1j</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_nominal_SR1j>Combined Expected Nominal SR-1j</a> <li><b>Charginos:</b> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_obs_nominal>Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_obs_up>Observed Up</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_obs_down>Observed Down</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_exp_nominal>Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_exp_nominal>Expected Up</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_exp_nominal>Expected Down</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_obs_nominal_dM>Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_obs_up_dM>Observed Up $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_obs_down_dM>Observed Down $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_exp_nominal_dM>Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_exp_nominal_dM>Expected Up $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_exp_nominal_dM>Expected Down $(\Delta m)$</a> </ul> <b>Upper Limits</b> <ul><li><b>Sleptons:</b> <a href=?table=UL_slep>ULs</a> <li><b>Charginos:</b> <a href=?table=UL_c1c1>ULs</a> </ul> <b>Pull Plots</b> <ul><li><b>Sleptons:</b> <a href=?table=pullplot_slep>SRs summary plot</a> <li><b>Charginos:</b> <a href=?table=pullplot_c1c1>SRs summary plot</a> </ul> <b>Cutflows</b> <ul><li><b>Sleptons:</b> <a href=?table=Cutflow_slep_SR0j>Towards SR-0J</a> <a href=?table=Cutflow_slep_SR1j>Towards SR-1J</a> <li><b>Charginos:</b> <a href=?table=Cutflow_SRs>Towards SRs</a> </ul> <b>Acceptance and Efficiencies</b> <ul><li><b>Sleptons:</b> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_100_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_100_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_110_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_110_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_120_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_120_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_130_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_130_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_100_105>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_100_105>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_105_110>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_105_110>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_110_115>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_110_115>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_115_120>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_115_120>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_120_125>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,125)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_125_130>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[125,130)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_130_140>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_130_140>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_140_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_140_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_100_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_100_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_110_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_110_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_120_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_120_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_130_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_130_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_100_105>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_100_105>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_105_110>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_105_110>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_110_115>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_110_115>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_115_120>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_115_120>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_120_125>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,125)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_125_130>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[125,130)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_130_140>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_130_140>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_140_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_140_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <li><b>Charginos:</b> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_81_1_SF_77_1>SR$^{\text{-DF BDT-signal}\in(0.81,1]}_{\text{-SF BDT-signal}\in(0.77,1]}$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_81_1_SF_77_1>SR$^{\text{-DF BDT-signal}\in(0.81,1]}_{\text{-SF BDT-signal}\in(0.77,1]}$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_81_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_81_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_82_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_82_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_83_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_83_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_84_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.84,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_84_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.84,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_85_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_85_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_81_8125>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,8125]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_81_8125>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,8125]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_8125_815>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8125,815]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_8125_815>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8125,815]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_815_8175>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.815,8175]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_815_8175>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.815,8175]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_8175_82>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8175,82]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_8175_82>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8175,82]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_82_8225>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,8225]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_82_8225>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,8225]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_8225_825>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8225,825]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_8225_825>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8225,825]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_825_8275>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.825,8275]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_825_8275>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.825,8275]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_8275_83>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8275,83]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_8275_83>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8275,83]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_83_8325>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,8325]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_83_8325>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,8325]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_8325_835>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8325,835]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_8325_835>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8325,835]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_835_8375>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.835,8375]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_835_8375>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.835,8375]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_8375_84>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8375,84]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_8375_84>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8375,84]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_84_845>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,845]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_84_845>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,845]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_845_85>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.845,85]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_845_85>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.845,85]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_85_86>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,86]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_85_86>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,86]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_86_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.86,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_86_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.86,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_77_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_77_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_78_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_78_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_79_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_79_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_80_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_80_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_77_775>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,0.775]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_77_775>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,0.775]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_775_78>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.775,0.78]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_775_78>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.775,0.78]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_78_785>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,0.785]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_78_785>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,0.785]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_785_79>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.785,0.79]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_785_79>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.785,0.79]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_79_795>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,0.795]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_79_795>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,0.795]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_795_80>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.795,0.80]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_795_80>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.795,0.80]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_80_81>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,0.81]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_80_81>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,0.81]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_81_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_81_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ Efficiency</a></ul> <b>Truth Code snippets</b>, <b>SLHA</b> and <b>machine learning</b> files are available under "Resources" (purple button on the left)
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
A search for diphoton resonances in the mass range between 10 and 70 GeV with the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is presented. The analysis is based on $pp$ collision data corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$ at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV recorded from 2015 to 2018. Previous searches for diphoton resonances at the LHC have explored masses down to 65 GeV, finding no evidence of new particles. This search exploits the particular kinematics of events with pairs of closely spaced photons reconstructed in the detector, allowing examination of invariant masses down to 10 GeV. The presented strategy covers a region previously unexplored at hadron colliders because of the experimental challenges of recording low-energy photons and estimating the backgrounds. No significant excess is observed and the reported limits provide the strongest bound on promptly decaying axion-like particles coupling to gluons and photons for masses between 10 and 70 GeV.
The expected and observed upper limits at 95\% CL on the fiducial cross-section times branching ratio to two photons of a narrow-width ($\Gamma_{X}$ = 4 MeV) scalar resonance as a function of its mass $m_{X}$.
Diphoton invariant mass in the signal region using a 0.1 GeV binning.
Parametrization of the $C_{X}$ factor, defined as the ratio between the number of reconstructed signal events passing the analysis cuts and the number of signal events at the particle level generated within the fiducial volume, as function of $m_{X}$ obtained from the narrow width simulated signal samples produced in gluon fusion.
A search is reported for excited $\tau$-leptons and leptoquarks in events with two hadronically decaying $\tau$-leptons and two or more jets. The search uses proton-proton (pp) collision data at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV recorded by the ATLAS experiment during the Run 2 of the Large Hadron Collider in 2015-2018. The total integrated luminosity is 139 fb$^{-1}$. The excited $\tau$-lepton is assumed to be produced and to decay via a four-fermion contact interaction into an ordinary $\tau$-lepton and a quark-antiquark pair. The leptoquarks are assumed to be produced in pairs via the strong interaction, and each leptoquark is assumed to couple to a charm or lighter quark and a $\tau$-lepton. No excess over the background prediction is observed. Excited $\tau$-leptons with masses below 2.8 TeV are excluded at 95% CL in scenarios with the contact interaction scale $\Lambda$ set to 10 TeV. At the extreme limit of model validity where $\Lambda$ is set equal to the excited $\tau$-lepton mass, excited $\tau$-leptons with masses below 4.6 TeV are excluded. Leptoquarks with masses below 1.3 TeV are excluded at 95% CL if their branching ratio to a charm quark and a $\tau$-lepton equals 1. The analysis does not exploit flavour-tagging in the signal region.
Observed and expected upper 95% CL limit on the $\tau^\ast$ production cross-section as a function of $m_{\tau^\ast}$ for a fixed value of the contact interaction scale, $\Lambda = 10$ TeV.
Observed and expected lower 95% CL limit on the contact interaction scale $\Lambda$ as a function of $m_{\tau^\ast}$.
Observed and expected upper 95% CL limit on the LQ production cross-section as a function of $m_\mathrm{LQ}$. The LQ couples to a tau lepton and a c-quark. The limits are also valid for scenarios in which the LQ couples to lighter quarks.
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.
<b>- - - - - - - - Overview of HEPData Record - - - - - - - -</b> <br><br> <b>CLs and CLs+b values</b> <ul> <li><a href=?table=CLs_tanb_mA_grid_Expected>Expected CLs values in mA vs tanB grid, Low mA SR</a> <li><a href=?table=CLs_tanb_mA_grid_Observed>Observed CLs values in mA vs tanB grid, Low mA SR</a> <li><a href=?table=CLs_ma_mA_grid_HighmA_SR_Expected>Expected CLs values in mA vs ma grid, High mA SR</a> <li><a href=?table=CLs_ma_mA_grid_HighmA_SR_Observed>Observed CLs values in mA vs ma grid, High mA SR</a> <li><a href=?table=CLs_ma_mA_grid_LowmA_SR_Expected>Expected CLs values in mA vs ma grid, Low mA SR</a> <li><a href=?table=CLs_ma_mA_grid_LowmA_SR_Observed>Observed CLs values in mA vs ma grid, Low mA SR</a> <li><a href=?table=CLsplusb_tanb_mA_grid>CLs+b values in mA vs tanB grid, Low mA SR</a> <li><a href=?table=CLsplusb_ma_mA_grid_HighmA_SR>CLs+b values in mA vs ma grid, High mA SR</a> <li><a href=?table=CLsplusb_ma_mA_grid_LowmA_SR>CLs+b values in mA vs ma grid, Low mA SR</a> </ul> <b>Cutflow tables</b> <ul> <li><a href=?table=Cutflows_ggf_LowmA_SR>Low mA SR, ggF production</a> <li><a href=?table=Cutflows_ggf_HighmA_SR>High mA SR, ggF production</a> <li><a href=?table=Cutflows_bb_LowmA_SR>Low mA SR, bb production</a> <li><a href=?table=Cutflows_bb_HighmA_SR>High mA SR, bb production</a> </ul> <b>Kinematic Distributions</b> <ul> <li><a href=?table=KinDist_LowmA_SR>Low mA SR mTtau1+mTtau2 distribution</a> <li><a href=?table=KinDist_HighmA_SR>High mA SR mTtau1+mTtau2 distribution</a> </ul> <b>Limits</b> <ul> <li><a href=?table=Expected_95%_CL_exclusion_limit_mAma_grid>Expected 95% CL exclusion limit in mA vs ma grid</a> <li><a href=?table=Observed_95%_CL_exclusion_limit_mAma_grid>Observed 95% CL exclusion limit in mA vs ma grid</a> <li><a href=?table=Expected_pm1sigma_95%_CL_exclusion_limit_mAma_grid>Expected +-1 sigma 95% CL exclusion limit in mA vs ma grid</a> <li><a href=?table=Expected_95%_CL_exclusion_limit_mAtanB_grid>Expected 95% CL exclusion limit in mA vs tanB grid</a> <li><a href=?table=Observed_95%_CL_exclusion_limit_mAtanB_grid>Observed 95% CL exclusion limit in mA vs tanB grid</a> <li><a href=?table=Expected_pm1sigma_95%_CL_exclusion_limit_mAtanB_grid>Expected +-1 sigma 95% CL exclusion limit in tanB grid</a> </ul> <b>Acceptance and efficiency</b> <ul> <li><a href=?table=table1>Acceptance, High mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 400-750 GeV, bb prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table2>Acceptance, High mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, >750 GeV, bb prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table3>Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 100-250 GeV, bb prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table4>Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 250-400 GeV, bb prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table5>Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 400-550 GeV, bb prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table6>Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, >550 GeV, bb prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table7>Acceptance, High mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 400-750 GeV, bb prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table8>Acceptance, High mA SR, mA vs ma grid, >750 GeV, bb prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table9>Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 100-250 GeV, bb prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table10>Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 250-400 GeV, bb prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table11>Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 400-550 GeV, bb prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table12>Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, >550 GeV, bb prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table13>Acceptance, High mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 400-750 GeV, ggF prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table14>Acceptance, High mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, >750 GeV, ggF prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table15>Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 100-250 GeV, ggF prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table16>Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 250-400 GeV, ggF prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table17>Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 400-550 GeV, ggF prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table18>Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, >550 GeV, ggF prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table19>Acceptance, High mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 400-750 GeV, ggF prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table20>Acceptance, High mA SR, mA vs ma grid, >750 GeV, ggF prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table21>Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 100-250 GeV, ggF prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table22>Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 250-400 GeV, ggF prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table23>Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 400-550 GeV, ggF prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table24>Acceptance, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, >550 GeV, ggF prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table25>Efficiency, High mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 400-750 GeV, bb prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table26>Efficiency, High mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, >750 GeV, bb prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table27>Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 100-250 GeV, bb prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table28>Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 250-400 GeV, bb prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table29>Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 400-550 GeV, bb prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table30>Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, >550 GeV, bb prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table31>Efficiency, High mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 400-750 GeV, bb prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table32>Efficiency, High mA SR, mA vs ma grid, >750 GeV, bb prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table33>Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 100-250 GeV, bb prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table34>Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 250-400 GeV, bb prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table35>Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 400-550 GeV, bb prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table36>Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, >550 GeV, bb prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table37>Efficiency, High mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 400-750 GeV, ggF prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table38>Efficiency, High mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, >750 GeV, ggF prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table39>Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 100-250 GeV, ggF prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table40>Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 250-400 GeV, ggF prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table41>Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, 400-550 GeV, ggF prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table42>Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs tanB grid, >550 GeV, ggF prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table43>Efficiency, High mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 400-750 GeV, ggF prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table44>Efficiency, High mA SR, mA vs ma grid, >750 GeV, ggF prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table45>Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 100-250 GeV, ggF prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table46>Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 250-400 GeV, ggF prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table47>Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, 400-550 GeV, ggF prod</a> <li><a href=?table=table48>Efficiency, Low mA SR, mA vs ma grid, >550 GeV, ggF prod</a> </ul>
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.
Forum