Showing 10 of 15 results
A search for strongly produced supersymmetric particles is conducted using signatures involving multiple energetic jets and either two isolated leptons ($e$ or $\mu$) with the same electric charge or at least three isolated leptons. The search also utilises $b$-tagged jets, missing transverse momentum and other observables to extend its sensitivity. The analysis uses a data sample of proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV recorded with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider in 2015 corresponding to a total integrated luminosity of 3.2 fb$^{-1}$. No significant excess over the Standard Model expectation is observed. The results are interpreted in several simplified supersymmetric models and extend the exclusion limits from previous searches. In the context of exclusive production and simplified decay modes, gluino masses are excluded at 95% confidence level up to 1.1-1.3 TeV for light neutralinos (depending on the decay channel), and bottom squark masses are also excluded up to 540 GeV. In the former scenarios, neutralino masses are also excluded up to 550-850 GeV for gluino masses around 1 TeV.
Missing transverse momentum distribution after SR0b3j selection, beside the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ requirement. The results in the signal region correspond to the last inclusive bin. The systematic uncertainties include theory uncertainties for the backgrounds with prompt SS/3L and the full systematic uncertainties for data-driven backgrounds. For illustration the distribution for a benchmark SUSY scenario ($pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$, $\tilde g\to qq(\tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu)$, $m_{\tilde g}=1.3$ TeV, $m_{\tilde\chi_1^0}=0.5$ TeV) is also shown.
Missing transverse momentum distribution after SR0b5j selection, beside the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ requirement. The results in the signal region correspond to the last inclusive bin. The systematic uncertainties include theory uncertainties for the backgrounds with prompt SS/3L and the full systematic uncertainties for data-driven backgrounds. For illustration the distribution for a benchmark SUSY scenario ($pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$, $\tilde g\to qqWZ\tilde\chi_1^0$, $m_{\tilde g}=1.1$ TeV, $m_{\tilde\chi_1^0}=0.4$ TeV) is also shown.
Missing transverse momentum distribution after SR1b selection, beside the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ requirement. The results in the signal region correspond to the last inclusive bin. The systematic uncertainties include theory uncertainties for the backgrounds with prompt SS/3L and the full systematic uncertainties for data-driven backgrounds. For illustration the distribution for a benchmark SUSY scenario ($pp\to \tilde b_1\tilde b_1^*$, $\tilde b_1\to tW\tilde\chi_1^0$, $m_{\tilde b_1}=600$ GeV, $m_{\tilde\chi_1^0}=50$ GeV) is also shown.
Missing transverse momentum distribution after SR3b selection, beside the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ requirement. The results in the signal region correspond to the last inclusive bin. The systematic uncertainties include theory uncertainties for the backgrounds with prompt SS/3L and the full systematic uncertainties for data-driven backgrounds. For illustration the distribution for a benchmark SUSY scenario ($pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$, $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$, $m_{\tilde g}=1.2$ TeV, $m_{\tilde\chi_1^0}=0.7$ TeV) is also shown.
Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qq(\tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu)$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qq(\tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu)$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Upper limits on signal cross-sections as function of the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qq(\tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu)$ decays, obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to each model. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qqWZ\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qqWZ\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Upper limits on signal cross-sections as function of the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qqWZ\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays, obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to each model. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde b_1$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde b_1\tilde b_1^*$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde b_1\to t\tilde\chi_1^-$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on the $\tilde b_1$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde b_1\tilde b_1^*$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde b_1\to t\tilde\chi_1^-$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Upper limits on signal cross-sections as function of the $\tilde b_1$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde b_1\tilde b_1^*$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde b_1\to t\tilde\chi_1^-$ decays, obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to each model. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Upper limits on signal cross-sections as function of the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays, obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to each model. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to q\bar q(\tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu)$ decay: signal acceptance (in %) in the signal region SR0b3j. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].
SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to q\bar q(\tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu)$ decay: reconstruction efficiency (in %) in the signal region SR0b3j. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].
SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to q\bar qWZ\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: signal acceptance (in %) in the signal region SR0b5j. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].
SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to q\bar qWZ\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: reconstruction efficiency (in %) in the signal region SR0b5j. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].
SUSY scenario with $\tilde b_1\tilde b_1^*$ production and $\tilde b_1\to tW\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: signal acceptance (in %) in the signal region SR1b. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].
SUSY scenario with $\tilde b_1\tilde b_1^*$ production and $\tilde b_1\to tW\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: reconstruction efficiency (in %) in the signal region SR1b. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].
SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: signal acceptance (in %) in the signal region SR3b. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].
SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: reconstruction efficiency (in %) in the signal region SR3b. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].
A search for new phenomena in final states characterized by high jet multiplicity, an isolated lepton (electron or muon) and either zero or at least three $b$-tagged jets is presented. The search uses 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ of $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV proton-proton collision data collected by the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider in 2015 and 2016. The dominant sources of background are estimated using parameterized extrapolations, based on observables at medium jet multiplicity, to predict the $b$-tagged jet multiplicity distribution at the higher jet multiplicities used in the search. No significant excess over the Standard Model expectation is observed and 95% confidence-level limits are extracted constraining four simplified models of $R$-parity-violating supersymmetry that feature either gluino or top-squark pair production. The exclusion limits reach as high as 2.1 TeV in gluino mass and 1.2 TeV in top-squark mass in the models considered. In addition, an upper limit is set on the cross-section for Standard Model $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ production of 60 fb (6.5 $\times$ the Standard Model prediction) at 95% confidence level. Finally, model-independent limits are set on the contribution from new phenomena to the signal-region yields.
The expected background and observed data with five jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with five jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with five jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with six jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with six jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with six jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with seven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with seven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with seven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with eight jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with eight jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with eight jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with nine jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with nine jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with nine jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with ten jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with ten jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with ten jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with eleven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with eleven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with eleven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with twelve-or-more jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with twelve-or-more jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with twelve-or-more jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 40 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with five jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with five jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with five jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with six jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with six jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with six jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with seven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with seven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with seven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with eight jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with eight jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with eight jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with nine jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with nine jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with nine jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with ten-or-more jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with ten-or-more jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with ten-or-more jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 60 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with five jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with five jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with five jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with six jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with six jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with six jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with seven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with seven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with seven jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with eight jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with eight jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with eight jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with nine jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with nine jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with nine jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with ten-or-more jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with ten-or-more jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
The expected background and observed data with ten-or-more jets in the different b-tag multiplicity bins for the 80 GeV jet pT threshold. The background shown is estimated by including all bins in the fit.
Cut flow for a model of gluino pair production where the gluino decays to two (u, d, s, c) quarks and the neutralino, which then decays to two (u, d, s, c) quarks and a lepton via a lambda' RPV coupling, where each RPV decay can produce any of the four first and second generation leptons (e, mu, nu_e, nu_mu) with equal probability (m_gluino = 1800 GeV, m_neutralino = 900 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.
Cut flow for a model of gluino pair production where the gluino decays to two (u, d, s, c) quarks and the neutralino, which then decays to two (u, d, s, c) quarks and a lepton via a lambda' RPV coupling, where each RPV decay can produce any of the four first and second generation leptons (e, mu, nu_e, nu_mu) with equal probability (m_gluino = 1800 GeV, m_neutralino = 900 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.
Cut flow for a model of gluino pair production where the gluino decays to two (u, d, s, c) quarks and the neutralino, which then decays to two (u, d, s, c) quarks and a lepton via a lambda' RPV coupling, where each RPV decay can produce any of the four first and second generation leptons (e, mu, nu_e, nu_mu) with equal probability (m_gluino = 1800 GeV, m_neutralino = 900 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.
Cut flow for a model of gluino pair production where each gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s- and a b- quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling (m_gluino = 1600 GeV, m_stop = 1000 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.
Cut flow for a model of gluino pair production where each gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s- and a b- quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling (m_gluino = 1600 GeV, m_stop = 1000 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.
Cut flow for a model of gluino pair production where each gluino decays to a top quark and a top squark, with the top squark decaying to an s- and a b- quark via a non-zero lambda''_323 RPV coupling (m_gluino = 1600 GeV, m_stop = 1000 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.
Cut flow for a model of gluino pair production where each gluino decays via an off-shell top squark to two top quarks and the lightest neutralino, with the neutralino decaying to three light quarks (neutralino -> uds) via the RPV coupling lambda''_112 (m_gluino = 2000 GeV, m_neutralino = 941 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.
Cut flow for a model of gluino pair production where each gluino decays via an off-shell top squark to two top quarks and the lightest neutralino, with the neutralino decaying to three light quarks (neutralino -> uds) via the RPV coupling lambda''_112 (m_gluino = 2000 GeV, m_neutralino = 941 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.
Cut flow for a model of gluino pair production where each gluino decays via an off-shell top squark to two top quarks and the lightest neutralino, with the neutralino decaying to three light quarks (neutralino -> uds) via the RPV coupling lambda''_112 (m_gluino = 2000 GeV, m_neutralino = 941 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.
Cut flow for a model of right-handed top squark pair production with the top squark decaying to the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) which is considered to be purely higgsino. The higgsino-like LSP decays through the non-zero RPV coupling lambda''_323 (m_stop = 975 GeV, m_neutralino = 600 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.
Cut flow for a model of right-handed top squark pair production with the top squark decaying to the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) which is considered to be purely higgsino. The higgsino-like LSP decays through the non-zero RPV coupling lambda''_323 (m_stop = 975 GeV, m_neutralino = 600 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.
Cut flow for a model of right-handed top squark pair production with the top squark decaying to the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) which is considered to be purely higgsino. The higgsino-like LSP decays through the non-zero RPV coupling lambda''_323 (m_stop = 975 GeV, m_neutralino = 600 GeV). The events are skimmed by requiring at least one electron or muon that satisfies very loose identification criteria, where the lepton satisfies pT > 25 GeV. The efficiency of this cut is considered in the quoted efficiency of the lepton trigger requirement. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed.
Two related searches for phenomena beyond the standard model (BSM) are performed using events with hadronic jets and significant transverse momentum imbalance. The results are based on a sample of proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV, collected by the CMS experiment at the LHC in 2016-2018 and corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 137 fb$^{-1}$. The first search is inclusive, based on signal regions defined by the hadronic energy in the event, the jet multiplicity, the number of jets identified as originating from bottom quarks, and the value of the kinematic variable $M_\mathrm{T2}$ for events with at least two jets. For events with exactly one jet, the transverse momentum of the jet is used instead. The second search looks in addition for disappearing tracks produced by BSM long-lived charged particles that decay within the volume of the tracking detector. No excess event yield is observed above the predicted standard model background. This is used to constrain a range of BSM models that predict the following: the pair production of gluinos and squarks in the context of supersymmetry models conserving $R$-parity, with or without intermediate long-lived charginos produced in the decay chain; the resonant production of a colored scalar state decaying to a massive Dirac fermion and a quark; or the pair production of scalar and vector leptoquarks each decaying to a neutrino and a top, bottom, or light-flavor quark. In most of the cases, the results obtained are the most stringent constraints to date.
Cross section limits for $\mathrm{LQ}\to\mathrm{q}\nu$, where $q=u,\,d,\,s,\,\mathrm{or}\,c$. Limits are at the 95% confidence level. Theory cross sections are LO for vector LQ, and NLO for scalar LQ. Branching ratio is assumed to be 100% to $\mathrm{q}\nu$.
Cross section limits for $\mathrm{LQ}\to\mathrm{b}\nu$. Limits are at the 95% confidence level. Theory cross sections are LO for vector LQ, and NLO for scalar LQ. Branching ratio is assumed to be 100% to $\mathrm{b}\nu$.
Cross section limits for $\mathrm{LQ}\to\mathrm{t}\nu$. Limits are at the 95% confidence level. Theory cross sections are LO for vector LQ, and NLO for scalar LQ. Branching ratios are assumed to be $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{LQ}\to\mathrm{t}\nu)=1-\beta$, and $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{LQ}\to\mathrm{b}\tau)=\beta$.
Results are reported from a search for supersymmetric particles in proton-proton collisions in the final state with a single, high transverse momentum lepton; multiple jets, including at least one b-tagged jet; and large missing transverse momentum. The data sample corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 2.3 inverse femtobarns at sqrt(s) = 13 TeV, recorded by the CMS experiment at the LHC. The search focuses on processes leading to high jet multiplicities, such as gluino pair production with gluinos to t t-bar neutralino[1]. The quantity M[J], defined as the sum of the masses of the large-radius jets in the event, is used in conjunction with other kinematic variables to provide discrimination between signal and background and as a key part of the background estimation method. The observed event yields in the signal regions in data are consistent with those expected for standard model backgrounds, estimated from control regions in data. Exclusion limits are obtained for a simplified model corresponding to gluino pair production with three-body decays into top quarks and neutralinos. Gluinos with a mass below 1600 GeV are excluded at a 95% confidence level for scenarios with low neutralino[1] mass, and neutralinos with a mass below 800 GeV are excluded for a gluino mass of about 1300 GeV. For models with two-body gluino decays producing on-shell top squarks, the excluded region is only weakly sensitive to the top squark mass.
Event yields obtained from simulated event samples, as the event selection criteria are applied. The category Other includes Drell-Yan, $t\bar{t}H(\rightarrow b\bar{b})$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $WZ$, and $WW$. The yields for $t\bar{t}$ events in fully hadronic final states are included in the QCD multijet category. The category $t\bar{t}{\rm V}$ includes $t\bar{t}W$, $t\bar{t}Z$, and $t\bar{t}\gamma$. The benchmark signal models, T1tttt(NC) and T1tttt(C), are described in Section 3. The event selection requirements listed above the horizontal line in the middle of the table are defined as the baseline selection. The background estimates before the $H_{T}$ requirement are not specified because some of the simulated event samples do not extend to the low $H_{T}$ region. Given the size of the MC samples described in Section 3, rows with zero yield have statistical uncertainties of at most 0.16 events, and below 0.05 events in most cases.
Observed and predicted event yields for the signal regions (R4) and background regions (R1--R3) in data (2.3 $\textrm{fb}^{-1}$) in 200<MET<400 GeV region. Expected yields for the two SUSY T1tttt benchmark scenarios are also given. The results from two types of fits are reported: the predictive fit (PF) and the version of the global fit (GF) performed under the assumption of the null hypothesis ($r=0$). The predictive fit uses the observed yields in regions R1, R2, and R3 only and is effectively just a propagation of uncertainties. The global fit uses all four regions. The values of $\kappa$ obtained from the simulation fit are also listed. The first uncertainty in $\kappa$ is statistical, while the second corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty.
Observed and predicted event yields for the signal regions (R4) and background regions (R1--R3) in data (2.3 $\textrm{fb}^{-1}$) in MET>400 GeV region. Expected yields for the two SUSY T1tttt benchmark scenarios are also given. The results from two types of fits are reported: the predictive fit (PF) and the version of the global fit (GF) performed under the assumption of the null hypothesis ($r=0$). The predictive fit uses the observed yields in regions R1, R2, and R3 only and is effectively just a propagation of uncertainties. The global fit uses all four regions. The values of $\kappa$ obtained from the simulation fit are also listed. The first uncertainty in $\kappa$ is statistical, while the second corresponds to the total systematic uncertainty.
Interpretation of results in the T1tttt model. The colored regions show the upper limits (95\% CL) on the production cross section for $pp\rightarrow \tilde{g}\tilde{g},\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ in the $m_{\tilde{g}}$-$m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ plane.
Interpretation of results in the T1tttt model. The colored regions show the upper limits (95\% CL) on the production cross section for $pp\rightarrow \tilde{g}\tilde{g},\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ in the $m_{\tilde{g}}$-$m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ plane. The curve shows the observed limit on the corresponding SUSY particle masses obtained by comparing the excluded cross section with theoretical cross sections.
Interpretation of results in the T1tttt model. The colored regions show the upper limits (95\% CL) on the production cross section for $pp\rightarrow \tilde{g}\tilde{g},\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ in the $m_{\tilde{g}}$-$m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ plane. The curve shows the observed limit on the corresponding SUSY particle masses obtained by comparing the excluded cross section with $+1\sigma$ theoretical cross sections.
Interpretation of results in the T1tttt model. The colored regions show the upper limits (95\% CL) on the production cross section for $pp\rightarrow \tilde{g}\tilde{g},\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ in the $m_{\tilde{g}}$-$m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ plane. The curve shows the observed limit on the corresponding SUSY particle masses obtained by comparing the excluded cross section with $-1\sigma$ theoretical cross sections.
Interpretation of results in the T1tttt model. The colored regions show the upper limits (95\% CL) on the production cross section for $pp\rightarrow \tilde{g}\tilde{g},\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ in the $m_{\tilde{g}}$-$m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ plane. The curve shows the expected limit on the corresponding SUSY particle masses obtained by comparing the excluded cross section with theoretical cross sections.
Interpretation of results in the T1tttt model. The colored regions show the upper limits (95\% CL) on the production cross section for $pp\rightarrow \tilde{g}\tilde{g},\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ in the $m_{\tilde{g}}$-$m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ plane. The curve shows the expected limit on the corresponding SUSY particle masses corresponding to a $+1\sigma$ variation of the experimental uncertainty.
Interpretation of results in the T1tttt model. The colored regions show the upper limits (95\% CL) on the production cross section for $pp\rightarrow \tilde{g}\tilde{g},\tilde{g}\rightarrow t\bar{t}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ in the $m_{\tilde{g}}$-$m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ plane. The curve shows the expected limit on the corresponding SUSY particle masses corresponding to a $-1\sigma$ variation of the experimental uncertainty.
Observed excluded region (95\% CL), shown in blue, in the $m_{\tilde{g}}$-$m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ plane for a model combining T5tttt, gluino pair production, followed by gluino decay to an on-shell top squark, together with a model for direct top squark pair production. The top squarks decay via the two-body process $\tilde{t}\rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$. The neutralino and top squark masses are related by the constraint $m_{\tilde{t}} = m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} + 175$ GeV.
Expected excluded region (95\% CL), shown in blue, in the $m_{\tilde{g}}$-$m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ plane for a model combining T5tttt, gluino pair production, followed by gluino decay to an on-shell top squark, together with a model for direct top squark pair production. The top squarks decay via the two-body process $\tilde{t}\rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$. The neutralino and top squark masses are related by the constraint $m_{\tilde{t}} = m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} + 175$ GeV.
A search is presented for particles that decay producing a large jet multiplicity and invisible particles. The event selection applies a veto on the presence of isolated electrons or muons and additional requirements on the number of b-tagged jets and the scalar sum of masses of large-radius jets. Having explored the full ATLAS 2015-2016 dataset of LHC proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13~\mathrm{TeV}$, which corresponds to 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity, no evidence is found for physics beyond the Standard Model. The results are interpreted in the context of simplified models inspired by R-parity-conserving and R-parity-violating supersymmetry, where gluinos are pair-produced. More generic models within the phenomenological minimal supersymmetric Standard Model are also considered.
Post-fit yields for each signal region in the multijets analysis. Summary of all 27 signal regions (post-fit).
Post-fit yields for each signal region in the multijets analysis. Summary of all 27 signal regions (post-fit).
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-7j80-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-7j80-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-7j80-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-7j80-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-7j80-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-7j80-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j80-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j80-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j80-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j80-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j80-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j80-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j80-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j80-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j80-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j80-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j80-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j80-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j50-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j50-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j50-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j50-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j50-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j50-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j50-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j50-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-10j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-10j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-10j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-10j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-10j50-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-10j50-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-10j50-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-10j50-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-11j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-11j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-11j50-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-11j50-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-11j50-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-11j50-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j50-0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j50-0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j50-1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j50-1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j50-2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j50-2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j50-0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j50-0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j50-1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j50-1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j50-2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j50-2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-10j50-0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-10j50-0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-10j50-1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-10j50-1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-10j50-2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-10j50-2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-11j50-0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-11j50-0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-11j50-1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-11j50-1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-11j50-2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-11j50-2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-7j80-0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-7j80-0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-7j80-1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-7j80-1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-7j80-2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-7j80-2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j80-0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j80-0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j80-1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j80-1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j80-2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j80-2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j80-0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j80-0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j80-1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j80-1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j80-2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j80-2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j50-0b-MJ340. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j50-0b-MJ340. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j50-0b-MJ500. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j50-0b-MJ500. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j50-0b-MJ340. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j50-0b-MJ340. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j50-0b-MJ500. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j50-0b-MJ500. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-10j50-0b-MJ340. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-10j50-0b-MJ340. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-10j50-0b-MJ500. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-10j50-0b-MJ500. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with no b-jet requirement and a minimum transverse momentum of 50 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with no b-jet requirement and a minimum transverse momentum of 50 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with one inclusive b-jet required and a minimum transverse momentum of 50 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with one inclusive b-jet required and a minimum transverse momentum of 50 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with two inclusive b-jets required and a minimum transverse momentum of 50 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with two inclusive b-jets required and a minimum transverse momentum of 50 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with no b-jet requirement and a minimum transverse momentum of 80 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with no b-jet requirement and a minimum transverse momentum of 80 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with one inclusive b-jet required and a minimum transverse momentum of 80 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with one inclusive b-jet required and a minimum transverse momentum of 80 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with two inclusive b-jets required and a minimum transverse momentum of 80 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with two inclusive b-jets required and a minimum transverse momentum of 80 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the fat-jet stream with MJSigma above 340 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the fat-jet stream with MJSigma above 340 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the fat-jet stream with MJSigma above 500 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the fat-jet stream with MJSigma above 500 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
95% CLs observed upper limit on model cross-section (in fb) for 2Step signal points for the best-expected signal region.
95% CLs observed upper limit on model cross-section (in fb) for 2Step signal points for the best-expected signal region.
95% CLs observed upper limit on model cross-section (in fb) for RPV signal points for the best-expected signal region.
95% CLs observed upper limit on model cross-section (in fb) for RPV signal points for the best-expected signal region.
95% CLs observed upper limit on model cross-section (in fb) for gtt off-shell signal points for the best-expected signal region.
95% CLs observed upper limit on model cross-section (in fb) for gtt off-shell signal points for the best-expected signal region.
Performance of the SR-8j50-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-8j50-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-8j50-0b-MJ340 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-8j50-0b-MJ340 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-8j50-0b-MJ500 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-8j50-0b-MJ500 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-8j50-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-8j50-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-8j50-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-8j50-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-9j50-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-9j50-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-9j50-0b-MJ340 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-9j50-0b-MJ340 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-9j50-0b-MJ500 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-9j50-0b-MJ500 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-9j50-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-9j50-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-9j50-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-9j50-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-10j50-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-10j50-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-10j50-0b-MJ340 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-10j50-0b-MJ340 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-10j50-0b-MJ500 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-10j50-0b-MJ500 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-10j50-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-10j50-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-10j50-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-10j50-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-11j50-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-11j50-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-11j50-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-11j50-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-11j50-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-11j50-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-7j80-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-7j80-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-7j80-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-7j80-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-7j80-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-7j80-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-8j80-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-8j80-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-8j80-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-8j80-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-8j80-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-8j80-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-9j80-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-9j80-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-9j80-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-9j80-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-9j80-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-9j80-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
This paper presents a search for direct electroweak gaugino or gluino pair production with a chargino nearly mass-degenerate with a stable neutralino. It is based on an integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ of $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV collected by the ATLAS experiment at the LHC. The final state of interest is a disappearing track accompanied by at least one jet with high transverse momentum from initial-state radiation or by four jets from the gluino decay chain. The use of short track segments reconstructed from the innermost tracking layers significantly improves the sensitivity to short chargino lifetimes. The results are found to be consistent with Standard Model predictions. Exclusion limits are set at 95% confidence level on the mass of charginos and gluinos for different chargino lifetimes. For a pure wino with a lifetime of about 0.2 ns, chargino masses up to 460 GeV are excluded. For the strong production channel, gluino masses up to 1.65 TeV are excluded assuming a chargino mass of 460 GeV and lifetime of 0.2 ns.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 0.2 ns and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV) in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 0.2 ns and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV) in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 0.2 ns and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV) in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 0.2 ns and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV) in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 0.2 ns and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV) in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}} = 500 GeV$) in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}} = 500 GeV$) in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}} = 500 GeV$) in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}} = 500 GeV$) in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}} = 500 GeV$) in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 0.2 ns and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV) in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 0.2 ns and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV) in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 0.2 ns and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV) in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 0.2 ns and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV) in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 0.2 ns and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV) in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}} = 500 GeV$) in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}} = 500 GeV$) in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}} = 500 GeV$) in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}} = 500 GeV$) in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}} = 500 GeV$) in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 0.2 ns.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 0.2 ns.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 0.2 ns.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 0.2 ns.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 0.2 ns.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 0.2 ns.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 0.2 ns.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 0.2 ns.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 0.2 ns.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 0.2 ns.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 1.0 ns.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 1.0 ns.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 1.0 ns.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 1.0 ns.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 1.0 ns.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 1.0 ns.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 1.0 ns.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 1.0 ns.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 1.0 ns.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 1.0 ns.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Model dependent upper limits on cross-section (pb) for the electroweak production are shown by grey numbers in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Model dependent upper limits on cross-section (fb) for the electroweak production are shown by grey numbers in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Model dependent upper limits on cross-section (pb) for the electroweak production are shown by grey numbers in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Model dependent upper limits on cross-section (pb) for the electroweak production are shown by grey numbers in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Model dependent upper limits on cross-section (pb) for the electroweak production are shown by grey numbers in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Total acceptance $\times$ efficiency of the electroweak channel. The total signal acceptance $\times$ efficiency is defined as the probability of an event passing the signal region selection when an electroweak gaugino pair is produced in a pp collision.
Total acceptance $\times$ efficiency of the electroweak channel. The total signal acceptance $\times$ efficiency is defined as the probability of an event passing the signal region selection when an electroweak gaugino pair is produced in a pp collision.
Total acceptance $\times$ efficiency of the electroweak channel. The total signal acceptance $\times$ efficiency is defined as the probability of an event passing the signal region selection when an electroweak gaugino pair is produced in a pp collision.
Total acceptance $\times$ efficiency of the electroweak channel. The total signal acceptance $\times$ efficiency is defined as the probability of an event passing the signal region selection when an electroweak gaugino pair is produced in a pp collision.
Total acceptance $\times$ efficiency of the electroweak channel. The total signal acceptance $\times$ efficiency is defined as the probability of an event passing the signal region selection when an electroweak gaugino pair is produced in a pp collision.
Total acceptance $\times$ efficiency of the strong channel. In white regions, no simulation sample is available. The left-upper triangle region is not allowed kinematically in wino-LSP scenarios. The total signal acceptance $\times$ efficiency is calculated relative to events in which the gluinos decay into electroweak gaugino pairs.
Total acceptance $\times$ efficiency of the strong channel. In white regions, no simulation sample is available. The left-upper triangle region is not allowed kinematically in wino-LSP scenarios. The total signal acceptance $\times$ efficiency is calculated relative to events in which the gluinos decay into electroweak gaugino pairs.
Total acceptance $\times$ efficiency of the strong channel. In white regions, no simulation sample is available. The left-upper triangle region is not allowed kinematically in wino-LSP scenarios. The total signal acceptance $\times$ efficiency is calculated relative to events in which the gluinos decay into electroweak gaugino pairs.
Total acceptance $\times$ efficiency of the strong channel. In white regions, no simulation sample is available. The left-upper triangle region is not allowed kinematically in wino-LSP scenarios. The total signal acceptance $\times$ efficiency is calculated relative to events in which the gluinos decay into electroweak gaugino pairs.
Total acceptance $\times$ efficiency of the strong channel. In white regions, no simulation sample is available. The left-upper triangle region is not allowed kinematically in wino-LSP scenarios. The total signal acceptance $\times$ efficiency is calculated relative to events in which the gluinos decay into electroweak gaugino pairs.
The generator-level acceptance for charginos produced in the electroweak channel as a function of the chargino $eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level).
The generator-level acceptance after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos as a function of the chargino $eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level).
The generator-level acceptance for charginos produced in the electroweak channel as a function of the chargino $eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level).
The generator-level acceptance for charginos produced in the electroweak channel as a function of the chargino $eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level).
The generator-level acceptance for charginos produced in the electroweak channel as a function of the chargino $eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level).
The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos produced in the electroweak channel as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level). The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction is the probability of a signal event, which passes all the event-level requirements, passing all the track/tracklet requirements after reconstruction.
The generator-level acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level). The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction is the probability of a signal event, which passes all the event-level requirements, passing all the track/tracklet requirements after reconstruction.
The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos produced in the electroweak channel as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level). The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction is the probability of a signal event, which passes all the event-level requirements, passing all the track/tracklet requirements after reconstruction.
The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos produced in the electroweak channel as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level). The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction is the probability of a signal event, which passes all the event-level requirements, passing all the track/tracklet requirements after reconstruction.
The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos produced in the electroweak channel as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level). The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction is the probability of a signal event, which passes all the event-level requirements, passing all the track/tracklet requirements after reconstruction.
The generator-level acceptance for charginos produced in the strong channel as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level).
The generator-level acceptance after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level).
The generator-level acceptance for charginos produced in the strong channel as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level).
The generator-level acceptance for charginos produced in the strong channel as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level).
The generator-level acceptance for charginos produced in the strong channel as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level).
The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos produced in the strong channel as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level). The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction is the probability of a signal event, which passes all the event-level requirements, passing all the track/tracklet requirements after reconstruction.
The generator-level acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level). The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction is the probability of a signal event, which passes all the event-level requirements, passing all the track/tracklet requirements after reconstruction.
The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos produced in the strong channel as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level). The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction is the probability of a signal event, which passes all the event-level requirements, passing all the track/tracklet requirements after reconstruction.
The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos produced in the strong channel as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level). The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction is the probability of a signal event, which passes all the event-level requirements, passing all the track/tracklet requirements after reconstruction.
The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos produced in the strong channel as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level). The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction is the probability of a signal event, which passes all the event-level requirements, passing all the track/tracklet requirements after reconstruction.
Summary of the selection criteria, and the corresponding observed number of events in data as well as the expected number of signal events in simulation for two benchmark models: a chargino produced in direct electroweak production with ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (400 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. The expected number of signal events is normalised to 36.1 fb${}^{-1}$. The signal selection efficiencies are also shown in parentheses. The first row shows the number of events after the application of detector and data quality conditions. Requirements below the dashed line are applied to tracks and tracklets.
Summary of the selection criteria, and the corresponding observed number of events in data as well as the expected number of signal events in simulation for two benchmark models: a chargino produced in direct electroweak production with ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (400 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. The expected number of signal events is normalised to 36.1 fb${}^{-1}$. The signal selection efficiencies are also shown in parentheses. The first row shows the number of events after the application of detector and data quality conditions. Requirements below the dashed line are applied to tracks and tracklets.
Summary of the selection criteria, and the corresponding observed number of events in data as well as the expected number of signal events in simulation for two benchmark models: a chargino produced in direct electroweak production with ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (400 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. The expected number of signal events is normalised to 36.1 fb${}^{-1}$. The signal selection efficiencies are also shown in parentheses. The first row shows the number of events after the application of detector and data quality conditions. Requirements below the dashed line are applied to tracks and tracklets.
Summary of the selection criteria, and the corresponding observed number of events in data as well as the expected number of signal events in simulation for two benchmark models: a chargino produced in direct electroweak production with ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (400 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. The expected number of signal events is normalised to 36.1 fb${}^{-1}$. The signal selection efficiencies are also shown in parentheses. The first row shows the number of events after the application of detector and data quality conditions. Requirements below the dashed line are applied to tracks and tracklets.
Summary of the selection criteria, and the corresponding observed number of events in data as well as the expected number of signal events in simulation for two benchmark models: a chargino produced in direct electroweak production with ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (400 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. The expected number of signal events is normalised to 36.1 fb${}^{-1}$. The signal selection efficiencies are also shown in parentheses. The first row shows the number of events after the application of detector and data quality conditions. Requirements below the dashed line are applied to tracks and tracklets.
Summary of the selection criteria, and the corresponding observed number of events in data as well as the expected number of signal events in simulation for two benchmark models: a chargino produced in the strong channel with ($m_{\tilde{g}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1600 GeV, 500 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. The expected number of signal events is normalised to 36.1 fb${}^{-1}$. The signal selection efficiencies are also shown in parentheses. The first row shows the number of events after the application of detector and data quality conditions. Requirements below the dashed line are applied to tracks and tracklets.
Summary of the selection criteria, and the corresponding observed number of events in data as well as the expected number of signal events in simulation for two benchmark models: a chargino produced in the strong channel with ($m_{\tilde{g}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1600 GeV, 500 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. The expected number of signal events is normalised to 36.1 fb${}^{-1}$. The signal selection efficiencies are also shown in parentheses. The first row shows the number of events after the application of detector and data quality conditions. Requirements below the dashed line are applied to tracks and tracklets.
Summary of the selection criteria, and the corresponding observed number of events in data as well as the expected number of signal events in simulation for two benchmark models: a chargino produced in the strong channel with ($m_{\tilde{g}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1600 GeV, 500 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. The expected number of signal events is normalised to 36.1 fb${}^{-1}$. The signal selection efficiencies are also shown in parentheses. The first row shows the number of events after the application of detector and data quality conditions. Requirements below the dashed line are applied to tracks and tracklets.
Summary of the selection criteria, and the corresponding observed number of events in data as well as the expected number of signal events in simulation for two benchmark models: a chargino produced in the strong channel with ($m_{\tilde{g}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1600 GeV, 500 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. The expected number of signal events is normalised to 36.1 fb${}^{-1}$. The signal selection efficiencies are also shown in parentheses. The first row shows the number of events after the application of detector and data quality conditions. Requirements below the dashed line are applied to tracks and tracklets.
Summary of the selection criteria, and the corresponding observed number of events in data as well as the expected number of signal events in simulation for two benchmark models: a chargino produced in the strong channel with ($m_{\tilde{g}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1600 GeV, 500 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. The expected number of signal events is normalised to 36.1 fb${}^{-1}$. The signal selection efficiencies are also shown in parentheses. The first row shows the number of events after the application of detector and data quality conditions. Requirements below the dashed line are applied to tracks and tracklets.
The event and tracklet generator-level acceptance and selection efficiency for a few electroweak signal models studied in this search. The last column shows the probability ($P$) for a reconstructed tracklet to have $p_{T}$ greater than 100 GeV.
The event and tracklet generator-level acceptance and selection efficiency for a few electroweak signal models studied in this search. The last column shows the probability ($P$) for a reconstructed tracklet to have $p_{T}$ greater than 100 GeV.
The event and tracklet generator-level acceptance and selection efficiency for a few electroweak signal models studied in this search. The last column shows the probability ($P$) for a reconstructed tracklet to have $p_{T}$ greater than 100 GeV.
The event and tracklet generator-level acceptance and selection efficiency for a few electroweak signal models studied in this search. The last column shows the probability ($P$) for a reconstructed tracklet to have $p_{T}$ greater than 100 GeV.
The event and tracklet generator-level acceptance and selection efficiency for a few electroweak signal models studied in this search. The last column shows the probability ($P$) for a reconstructed tracklet to have $p_{T}$ greater than 100 GeV.
The event and tracklet generator-level acceptance and selection efficiency for a few strong signal models studied in this search. The last column shows the probability ($P$) for a reconstructed tracklet to have $p_{T}$ greater than 100 GeV.
The event and tracklet generator-level acceptance and selection efficiency for a few strong signal models studied in this search. The last column shows the probability ($P$) for a reconstructed tracklet to have $p_{T}$ greater than 100 GeV.
The event and tracklet generator-level acceptance and selection efficiency for a few strong signal models studied in this search. The last column shows the probability ($P$) for a reconstructed tracklet to have $p_{T}$ greater than 100 GeV.
The event and tracklet generator-level acceptance and selection efficiency for a few strong signal models studied in this search. The last column shows the probability ($P$) for a reconstructed tracklet to have $p_{T}$ greater than 100 GeV.
The event and tracklet generator-level acceptance and selection efficiency for a few strong signal models studied in this search. The last column shows the probability ($P$) for a reconstructed tracklet to have $p_{T}$ greater than 100 GeV.
Systematic uncertainties in the signal event yields at $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV for the electroweak channel and at $m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 500 GeV for the strong channel. The lifetime of the chargino is not relevant here. The uncertainty in the cross-section of the strong production is large due to the large effect from the PDF uncertainty.
Systematic uncertainties in the signal event yields at $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV for the electroweak channel and at $m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 500 GeV for the strong channel. The lifetime of the chargino is not relevant here. The uncertainty in the cross-section of the strong production is large due to the large effect from the PDF uncertainty.
Systematic uncertainties in the signal event yields at $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV for the electroweak channel and at $m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 500 GeV for the strong channel. The lifetime of the chargino is not relevant here. The uncertainty in the cross-section of the strong production is large due to the large effect from the PDF uncertainty.
Systematic uncertainties in the signal event yields at $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV for the electroweak channel and at $m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 500 GeV for the strong channel. The lifetime of the chargino is not relevant here. The uncertainty in the cross-section of the strong production is large due to the large effect from the PDF uncertainty.
Systematic uncertainties in the signal event yields at $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV for the electroweak channel and at $m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 500 GeV for the strong channel. The lifetime of the chargino is not relevant here. The uncertainty in the cross-section of the strong production is large due to the large effect from the PDF uncertainty.
Observed events, expected background for null signal, and expected signal yields for two benchmark models: electroweak channel with ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (400 GeV, 0.2 ns) and strong channel with ($m_{\tilde{g}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1600 GeV, 500 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. Also shown are the probability of a background-only experiment being more signal-like than observed ($p_0$) and the upper limit on the model-independent visible cross-section at 95\% CL. The uncertainty in the total background yield is different from the sum of uncertainties in quadrature due to anti-correlation between different backgrounds.
Observed events, expected background for null signal, and expected signal yields for two benchmark models: electroweak channel with ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (400 GeV, 0.2 ns) and strong channel with ($m_{\tilde{g}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1600 GeV, 500 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. Also shown are the probability of a background-only experiment being more signal-like than observed ($p_0$) and the upper limit on the model-independent visible cross-section at 95\% CL. The uncertainty in the total background yield is different from the sum of uncertainties in quadrature due to anticorrelation between different backgrounds.
Observed events, expected background for null signal, and expected signal yields for two benchmark models: electroweak channel with ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (400 GeV, 0.2 ns) and strong channel with ($m_{\tilde{g}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1600 GeV, 500 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. Also shown are the probability of a background-only experiment being more signal-like than observed ($p_0$) and the upper limit on the model-independent visible cross-section at 95\% CL. The uncertainty in the total background yield is different from the sum of uncertainties in quadrature due to anti-correlation between different backgrounds.
Observed events, expected background for null signal, and expected signal yields for two benchmark models: electroweak channel with ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (400 GeV, 0.2 ns) and strong channel with ($m_{\tilde{g}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1600 GeV, 500 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. Also shown are the probability of a background-only experiment being more signal-like than observed ($p_0$) and the upper limit on the model-independent visible cross-section at 95\% CL. The uncertainty in the total background yield is different from the sum of uncertainties in quadrature due to anti-correlation between different backgrounds.
Observed events, expected background for null signal, and expected signal yields for two benchmark models: electroweak channel with ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (400 GeV, 0.2 ns) and strong channel with ($m_{\tilde{g}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1600 GeV, 500 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. Also shown are the probability of a background-only experiment being more signal-like than observed ($p_0$) and the upper limit on the model-independent visible cross-section at 95\% CL. The uncertainty in the total background yield is different from the sum of uncertainties in quadrature due to anti-correlation between different backgrounds.
Effects of systematic uncertainties on the signal exclusion significance at $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV for the electroweak channel and at $m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 500 GeV for the strong channel. The lifetime of the chargino is not relevant here. Effects of uncertainties on the fake-tracklet background is smaller in the strong channel analysis because the estimated number of the fake-tracklet background events is small.
Effects of systematic uncertainties on the signal exclusion significance at $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV for the electroweak channel and at $m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 500 GeV for the strong channel. The lifetime of the chargino is not relevant here. Effects of uncertainties on the fake-tracklet background is smaller in the strong channel analysis because the estimated number of the fake-tracket background events is small.
Effects of systematic uncertainties on the signal exclusion significance at $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV for the electroweak channel and at $m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 500 GeV for the strong channel. The lifetime of the chargino is not relevant here. Effects of uncertainties on the fake-tracklet background is smaller in the strong channel analysis because the estimated number of the fake-tracklet background events is small.
Effects of systematic uncertainties on the signal exclusion significance at $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV for the electroweak channel and at $m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 500 GeV for the strong channel. The lifetime of the chargino is not relevant here. Effects of uncertainties on the fake-tracklet background is smaller in the strong channel analysis because the estimated number of the fake-tracklet background events is small.
Effects of systematic uncertainties on the signal exclusion significance at $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV for the electroweak channel and at $m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 500 GeV for the strong channel. The lifetime of the chargino is not relevant here. Effects of uncertainties on the fake-tracklet background is smaller in the strong channel analysis because the estimated number of the fake-tracklet background events is small.
Cross-section upper limits for the strong production, presented in unit of fb. Left-upper triangle region is unphysical because the wino mass is larger than the gluino mass.
Cross-section upper limits for the strong production, presented in unit of fb. Left-upper triangle region is unphysical because the wino mass is larger than the gluino mass.
Cross-section upper limits for the strong production, presented in unit of fb. Left-upper triangle region is unphysical because the wino mass is larger than the gluino mass.
Cross-section upper limits for the strong production, presented in unit of fb. Left-upper triangle region is unphysical because the wino mass is larger than the gluino mass.
Cross-section upper limits for the strong production, presented in unit of fb. Left-upper triangle region is unphysical because the wino mass is larger than the gluino mass.
A search for the supersymmetric partners of quarks and gluons (squarks and gluinos) in final states containing hadronic jets and missing transverse momentum, but no electrons or muons, is presented. The data used in this search were recorded in 2015 and 2016 by the ATLAS experiment in $\sqrt{s}$=13 TeV proton--proton collisions at the Large Hadron Collider, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. The results are interpreted in the context of various models where squarks and gluinos are pair-produced and the neutralino is the lightest supersymmetric particle. An exclusion limit at the 95\% confidence level on the mass of the gluino is set at 2.03 TeV for a simplified model incorporating only a gluino and the lightest neutralino, assuming the lightest neutralino is massless. For a simplified model involving the strong production of mass-degenerate first- and second-generation squarks, squark masses below 1.55 TeV are excluded if the lightest neutralino is massless. These limits substantially extend the region of supersymmetric parameter space previously excluded by searches with the ATLAS detector.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR2j-2100. For signal, a squark direct decay model where squarks have mass of 600 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 595 GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR2j-2800. For signal, a squark direct decay model where squarks have mass of 1500 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 0 GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR4j-1000. For signal, a gluino direct decay model where gluinos have mass of 1300 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 900 GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR4j-2200. For signal, a gluino direct decay model where gluinos have mass of 1800 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 800 GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR6j-2600. For signal, a gluino onestep decay model where gluinos have mass of 1705 GeV, the chargino1 has mass of 865 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 25 GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR2jB-2400. For signal, a gluino onestep decay model where gluinos have mass of 1600 GeV, the chargino1 has mass of 1590 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 60 GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR2j-1200. For signal, a squark direct decay model where squarks have mass of 900 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 500 GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR2j-1600. For signal, a squark direct decay model where squarks have mass of 1200 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 500 GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR2j-2000. For signal, a squark direct decay model where squarks have mass of 1200 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 0 GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR2j-2400. For signal, a squark direct decay model where squarks have mass of 1500 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 0 GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR2j-3600. For signal, a squark direct decay model where squarks have mass of 1200 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 0 GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR2jB-1600. For signal, a gluino onestep decay model where gluinos have mass of 1600 GeV, the chargino1 has mass of 1590 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 60 GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR3j-1300. For signal, a squark direct decay model where squarks have mass of 600 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 595 GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR4j-1400. For signal, a gluino direct decay model where gluinos have mass of 1800 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 0 GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR4j-1800. For signal, a gluino direct decay model where gluinos have mass of 1800 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 0 GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR4j-2600. For signal, a gluino direct decay model where gluinos have mass of 1800 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 0 GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR4j-3000. For signal, a gluino direct decay model where gluinos have mass of 1800 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 0 GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR5j-1600. For signal, a gluino onestep decay model where gluinos have mass of 1705 GeV, the chargino1 has mass of 865 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 25 GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR5j-1700. For signal, a gluino direct decay model where gluinos have mass of 1800 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 0 GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR5j-2000. For signal, a gluino onestep decay model where gluinos have mass of 1705 GeV, the chargino1 has mass of 865 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 25 GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR5j-2600. For signal, a gluino onestep decay model where gluinos have mass of 1705 GeV, the chargino1 has mass of 865 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 25 GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR6j-1200. For signal, a gluino onestep decay model where gluinos have mass of 1705 GeV, the chargino1 has mass of 865 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 25 GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR6j-1800. For signal, a gluino onestep decay model where gluinos have mass of 1705 GeV, the chargino1 has mass of 865 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 25 GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR6j-2200. For signal, a gluino onestep decay model where gluinos have mass of 1705 GeV, the chargino1 has mass of 865 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 25 GeV is shown.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal cross-section from searches in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from searches on the light-flavor squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from searches on the light-flavor squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the light-flavor squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the light-flavor squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from RJR-based searches on the light-flavor squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from RJR-based searches on the light-flavor squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal cross-section from searches in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from searches on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from searches on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from RJR-based searches on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from RJR-based searches on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal cross-section from searches in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow q W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from searches on the squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow q W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from searches on the squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow q W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow q W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow q W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from RJR-based searches on the squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow q W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from RJR-based searches on the squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow q W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal cross-section from Meff-based searches in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow q W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the squark mass and the mass gap ratio x in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow q W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the squark mass and the mass gap ratio x in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow q W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal cross-section from searches in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow qq W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from searches on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow qq W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from searches on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow qq W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow qq W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow qq W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from RJR-based searches on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow qq W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from RJR-based searches on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow qq W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal cross-section from Meff-based searches in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow qq W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino mass and the mass gap ratio x in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow qq W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino mass and the mass gap ratio x in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow qq W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal cross-section from Meff-based searches in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate the second lightest neutralino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow qq Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino and second lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate the second lightest neutralino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow qq Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino and second lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate the second lightest neutralino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow qq Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal cross-section from Meff-based searches in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino or second lightest neutralino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow q W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, or $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow qq Z/h \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the squark mass and the mass gap ratio x in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino or second lightest neutralino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow q W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, or $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow qq Z/h \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the squark mass and the mass gap ratio x in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino or second lightest neutralino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow q W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, or $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow qq Z/h \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal cross-section from Meff-based searches in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino or second lightest neutralino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow qq W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, or $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow qq Z/h \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino mass and the mass gap ratio x in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino or second lightest neutralino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow qq W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, or $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow qq Z/h \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino mass and the mass gap ratio x in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino or second lightest neutralino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow qq W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, or $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow qq Z/h \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal cross-section from Meff-based searches for inclusive squark-gluino production in pMSSM models with $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0}=0$ GeV.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino and squark masses for inclusive squark-gluino production in pMSSM models with $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0}=0$ GeV.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino and squark masses for inclusive squark-gluino production in pMSSM models with $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0}=0$ GeV.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal cross-section from Meff-based searches for inclusive squark-gluino production in pMSSM models with $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0}=695$ GeV.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino and squark masses for inclusive squark-gluino production in pMSSM models with $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0}=695$ GeV.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino and squark masses for inclusive squark-gluino production in pMSSM models with $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0}=695$ GeV.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal cross-section from Meff-based searches for inclusive squark-gluino production in pMSSM models with $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0}=995$ GeV.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino and squark masses for inclusive squark-gluino production in pMSSM models with $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0}=995$ GeV.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino and squark masses for inclusive squark-gluino production in pMSSM models with $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0}=995$ GeV.
Cut-flow of Meff-2j for three supersymmetric models: a gluino direct decay model where gluinos have mass of 2000 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ and the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ has mass of 0 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ (10000 generated events); and a squark direct decay model where squarks have mass of 1200 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ and the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ has mass of 600 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ (20000 generated events); and a squark direct decay model where squarks have mass of 1500 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ and the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ has mass of 0 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ (10000 generated events). The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.
Cut-flow of Meff-3j,4j for three supersymmetric models: a gluino direct decay model where gluinos have mass of 2000 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ and the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ has mass of 0 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ (10000 generated events); and a squark direct decay model where squarks have mass of 1200 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ and the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ has mass of 600 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ (20000 generated events); and a squark direct decay model where squarks have mass of 1500 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ and the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ has mass of 0 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ (10000 generated events). The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.
Cut-flow of Meff-5j,6j for three supersymmetric models: a gluino direct decay model where gluinos have mass of 2000 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ and the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ has mass of 0 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ (10000 generated events); and a squark direct decay model where squarks have mass of 1200 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ and the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ has mass of 600 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ (20000 generated events); and a squark direct decay model where squarks have mass of 1500 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ and the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ has mass of 0 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ (10000 generated events). The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.
Cut-flow for RJR-based SR's targeting squarks for SS direct model points. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.
Cut-flow for RJR-based SR's targeting gluinos for GG direct model points. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.
Cut-flow for RJR-based SR's targeting compressed mass-spectra signals for SS direct and GG direct model points. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.
Results are reported of a search for new phenomena, such as supersymmetric particle production, that could be observed in high-energy proton--proton collisions. Events with large numbers of jets, together with missing transverse momentum from unobserved particles, are selected. The data analysed were recorded by the ATLAS experiment during 2015 using the 13 TeV centre-of-mass proton--proton collisions at the Large Hadron Collider, and correspond to an integrated luminosity of 3.2 fb$^{-1}$. The search selected events with various jet multiplicities from $\ge 7$ to $\ge 10$ jets, and with various $b$-jet multiplicity requirements to enhance sensitivity. No excess above Standard Model expectations is observed. The results are interpreted within two supersymmetry models, where gluino masses up to 1400 GeV are excluded at 95% confidence level, significantly extending previous limits.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in validation region 7ej50 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in validation region 6ej80 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 10j50 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 10j50 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j50 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j50 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j50 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 9j50 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 9j50 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 9j50 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 10j50 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 10j50 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 10j50 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 7j80 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 7j80 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 7j80 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions with at no b-jet requirement. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The bins labelled in bold are signal regions, while the others are validation regions. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions with at least 1 b-jet. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The bins labelled in bold are signal regions, while the others are validation regions. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions with at least 2 b-jets. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The bins labelled in bold are signal regions, while the others are validation regions. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Summary of all 15 signal regions (post-fit).
Signal region yielding the best-expected CLs value, the best expected CLs value, and the corresponding observed CLs value for the 2Step grid.
Signal region yielding the best-expected CLs value, the best expected CLs value, and the corresponding observed CLs value for the pMSSM grid.
95% CLs observed upper limit on model cross-section for 2-step signal points for the best-expected signal region.
Performance of the 8j50-0b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 8j50-1b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 8j50-2b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 9j50-0b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 9j50-1b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 9j50-2b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 10j50-0b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 10j50-1b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 10j50-2b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 7j80-0b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 7j80-1b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 7j80-2b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 8j80-0b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 8j80-1b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 8j80-2b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 8j50-0b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 8j50-1b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 8j50-2b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 9j50-0b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 9j50-1b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 9j50-2b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 10j50-0b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 10j50-1b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 10j50-2b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 7j80-0b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 7j80-1b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 7j80-2b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 8j80-0b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 8j80-1b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 8j80-2b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
A search for squarks and gluinos in final states containing hadronic jets, missing transverse momentum but no electrons or muons is presented. The data were recorded in 2015 by the ATLAS experiment in $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV proton--proton collisions at the Large Hadron Collider. No excess above the Standard Model background expectation was observed in 3.2 fb$^{-1}$ of analyzed data. Results are interpreted within simplified models that assume R-parity is conserved and the neutralino is the lightest supersymmetric particle. An exclusion limit at the 95% confidence level on the mass of the gluino is set at 1.51 TeV for a simplified model incorporating only a gluino octet and the lightest neutralino, assuming the lightest neutralino is massless. For a simplified model involving the strong production of mass-degenerate first- and second-generation squarks, squark masses below 1.03 TeV are excluded for a massless lightest neutralino. These limits substantially extend the region of supersymmetric parameter space excluded by previous measurements with the ATLAS detector.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRgamma for SR4jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRW for SR4jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRT for SR4jt.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR2jl. For signal, a squark direct decay model with $m(\tilde q)=800$ GeV and $m(\tilde\chi^0_1)=400$ GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR2jm. For signal, a gluino direct decay model with $m(\tilde g)=750$ GeV and $m(\tilde\chi^0_1)=660$ GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR2jt. For signal, a squark direct decay model with $m(\tilde q)=1200$ GeV and $m(\tilde\chi^0_1)=0$ GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR4jt. For signal, a gluino direct decay model with $m(\tilde g)=1400$ GeV and $m(\tilde\chi^0_1)=0$ GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR5j. For signal, a gluino one-step decay model with $m(\tilde g)=1265$ GeV, $m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)=945$ GeV and $m(\tilde\chi^0_1)=625$ GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR6jm. For signal, a gluino one-step decay model with $m(\tilde g)=1265$ GeV, $m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)=945$ GeV and $m(\tilde\chi^0_1)=625$ GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR6jt. For signal, a gluino one-step decay model with $m(\tilde g)=1385$ GeV, $m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)=705$ GeV and $m(\tilde\chi^0_1)=25$ GeV is shown.
Expected limit at 95% CL for squark direct decay model grid.
Expected limits at 95% CL +1 sigma excursion due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties for squark direct decay model grid.
Expected limits at 95% CL -1 sigma excursion due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties for squark direct decay model grid.
Observed limits at 95% CL for squark direct decay model grid.
Observed limits at 95% CL +1 sigma excursion due to the signal cross-section uncertainty for squark direct decay model grid.
Observed limits at 95% CL -1 sigma excursion due to the signal cross-section uncertainty for squark direct decay model grid.
Expected limit at 95% CL for gluino direct decay model grid.
Expected limits at 95% CL +1 sigma excursion due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties for gluino direct decay model grid.
Expected limits at 95% CL -1 sigma excursion due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties for gluino direct decay model grid.
Observed limits at 95% CL for gluino direct decay model grid.
Observed limits at 95% CL +1 sigma excursion due to the signal cross-section uncertainty for gluino direct decay model grid.
Observed limits at 95% CL -1 sigma excursion due to the signal cross-section uncertainty for gluino direct decay model grid.
Expected limit at 95% CL for gluino one-step decay model grid.
Expected limits at 95% CL +1 sigma excursion due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties for gluino one-step decay model grid.
Expected limits at 95% CL -1 sigma excursion due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties for gluino one-step decay model grid.
Observed limits at 95% CL for gluino one-step decay model grid.
Observed limits at 95% CL +1 sigma excursion due to the signal cross-section uncertainty for gluino one-step decay model grid.
Observed limits at 95% CL -1 sigma excursion due to the signal cross-section uncertainty for gluino one-step decay model grid.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRgamma for SR2jl.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in validation region VRZ for SR2jl.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRW for SR2jl.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRT for SR2jl.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRgamma for SR2jm.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in validation region VRZ for SR2jm.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRW for SR2jm.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRT for SR2jm.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRgamma for SR2jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in validation region VRZ for SR2jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRW for SR2jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRT for SR2jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRgamma for SR4jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in validation region VRZ for SR4jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRW for SR4jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRT for SR4jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRgamma for SR5j.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in validation region VRZ for SR5j.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRW for SR5j.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRT for SR5j.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRgamma for SR6jm.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in validation region VRZ for SR6jm.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRW for SR6jm.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRT for SR6jm.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRgamma for SR6jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in validation region VRZ for SR6jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRW for SR6jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRT for SR6jt.
Observed and expected event yields in VRZ as a function of signal region.
Observed and expected event yields in VRW as a function of signal region.
Observed and expected event yields in VRWv as a function of signal region.
Observed and expected event yields in VRT as a function of signal region.
Observed and expected event yields in VRTv as a function of signal region.
Observed and expected event yields in VRQa as a function of signal region.
Observed and expected event yields in VRQb as a function of signal region.
Signal acceptance for SR2jl in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jl in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR2jm in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jm in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR2jt in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jt in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR4jt in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR4jt in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR5j in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR5j in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR6jm in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR6jm in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR6jt in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR6jt in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR2jl in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jl in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR2jm in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jm in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR2jt in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jt in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR4jt in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR4jt in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR5j in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR5j in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR6jm in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR6jm in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR6jt in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR6jt in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR2jl in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jl in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR2jm in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jm in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR2j5 in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jt in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR4jt in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR4jt in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR5j in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR5j in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR6jm in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR6jm in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR6jt in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR6jt in gluino one-step decay model grid.
A search for Supersymmetry involving the pair production of gluinos decaying via third-generation squarks to the lightest neutralino is reported. It uses an LHC proton--proton dataset at a center-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV with an integrated luminosity of 3.2 fb$^{-1}$ collected with the ATLAS detector in 2015. The signal is searched for in events containing several energetic jets, of which at least three must be identified as $b$-jets, large missing transverse momentum and, potentially, isolated electrons or muons. Large-radius jets with a high mass are also used to identify highly boosted top quarks. No excess is found above the predicted background. For neutralino masses below approximately 700 GeV, gluino masses of less than 1.78 TeV and 1.76 TeV are excluded at the 95% CL in simplified models of the pair production of gluinos decaying via sbottom and stop, respectively. These results significantly extend the exclusion limits obtained with the $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV dataset.
Distribution of missing transverse energy for SR-Gbb-B.
Distribution of missing transverse energy for SR-Gtt-0L-C.
Distribution of missing transverse energy for SR-Gtt-1L-A.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the Gbb signal.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the Gbb signal.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the Gtt combination.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the Gtt combination.
Acceptances for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-A. Acceptance is evaluated at truth level, with only leptons from heavy bosons and taus considered, and no further quality or isolation criteria applied in their selection.
Acceptances for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-B. Acceptance is evaluated at truth level, with only leptons from heavy bosons and taus considered, and no further quality or isolation criteria applied in their selection.
Acceptances for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-C. Acceptance is evaluated at truth level, with only leptons from heavy bosons and taus considered, and no further quality or isolation criteria applied in their selection.
Acceptances for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-A. Acceptance is evaluated at truth level, with only leptons from heavy bosons and taus considered, and no further quality or isolation criteria applied in their selection.
Acceptances for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-B. Acceptance is evaluated at truth level, with only leptons from heavy bosons and taus considered, and no further quality or isolation criteria applied in their selection.
Acceptances for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-C. Acceptance is evaluated at truth level, with only leptons from heavy bosons and taus considered, and no further quality or isolation criteria applied in their selection.
Acceptances for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1L-A. Acceptance is evaluated at truth level, with only leptons from heavy bosons and taus considered, and no further quality or isolation criteria applied in their selection.
Acceptances for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1L-B. Acceptance is evaluated at truth level, with only leptons from heavy bosons and taus considered, and no further quality or isolation criteria applied in their selection.
Acceptance times efficiency for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-A.
Acceptance times efficiency for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-B.
Acceptance times efficiency for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-C.
Acceptance times efficiency for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-A.
Acceptance times efficiency for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-B.
Acceptance times efficiency for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-C.
Acceptance times efficiency for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1L-A.
Acceptance times efficiency for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1L-B.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-A.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-B.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-C.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-A.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-B.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-C.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1L-A.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1L-B.
Signal region yielding the best expected sensitivity for each point of the parameter space in the Gbb model.
Signal region yielding the best expected sensitivity for each point of the parameter space in the Gtt model for the 0-lepton channel.
Signal region yielding the best expected sensitivity for each point of the parameter space in the Gtt model for the 1-lepton channel.
Combination of two 0-lepton and 1-lepton signal regions yielding the best expected sensitivity for each point of the parameter space in the Gtt model.
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.