Showing 4 of 4 results
A search is presented for flavour-changing neutral-current interactions involving the top quark, the Higgs boson and an up-type quark ($q=u,c$) with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider. The analysis considers leptonic decays of the top quark along with Higgs boson decays into two $W$ bosons, two $Z$ bosons or a $\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$ pair. It focuses on final states containing either two leptons (electrons or muons) of the same charge or three leptons. The considered processes are $t\bar{t}$ and $Ht$ production. For the $t\bar{t}$ production, one top quark decays via $t\to Hq$. The proton-proton collision data set analysed amounts to 140 fb$^{-1}$ at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV. No significant excess beyond Standard Model expectations is observed and upper limits are set on the $t\to Hq$ branching ratios at 95% confidence level, amounting to observed (expected) limits of $\mathcal{B}(t\to Hu)<2.8\,(3.0) \times 10^{-4}$ and $\mathcal{B}(t\to Hc)<3.3\,(3.8) \times 10^{-4}$. Combining this search with other searches for $tHq$ flavour-changing neutral-current interactions previously conducted by ATLAS, considering $H\to b\bar{b}$ and $H\to\gamma\gamma$ decays, as well as $H\to\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$ decays with one or two hadronically decaying $\tau$-leptons, yields observed (expected) upper limits on the branching ratios of $\mathcal{B}(t\to Hu)<2.6\,(1.8) \times 10^{-4}$ and $\mathcal{B}(t\to Hc)<3.4\,(2.3) \times 10^{-4}$.
Pre-fit background composition of the SR$2\ell$ Dec. The table shows the event yields as opposed to just the percentages of the relevant background processes.
Pre-fit background composition of the SR$2\ell$ Prod. The table shows the event yields as opposed to just the percentages of the relevant background processes.
Pre-fit background composition of the SR$3\ell$ Dec. The table shows the event yields as opposed to just the percentages of the relevant background processes.
Pre-fit background composition of the SR$3\ell$ Prod. The table shows the event yields as opposed to just the percentages of the relevant background processes.
Post-fit plot of $H_\text{T}(\text{jets})$ in the SR$2\ell$ Dec from a signal-blinded background-only fit.
Post-fit plot of $m(t_\text{SM}, b\text{-jet}_0)$ in the SR$2\ell$ Prod from a signal-blinded background-only fit.
Post-fit plot of $m(\ell_\text{OS},\ell_\text{SS,1})$ in the SR$3\ell$ Dec from a signal-blinded background-only fit.
Post-fit plot of $m(\ell_\text{OS},\ell_\text{SS,1})$ in the SR$3\ell$ Prod from a signal-blinded background-only fit.
Post-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHc)$ in the SR$2\ell$ Dec from the full fit to data.
Post-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHc)$ in the SR$2\ell$ Prod from the full fit to data.
Post-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHc)$ in the SR$3\ell$ Dec from the full fit to data.
Post-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHc)$ in the SR$3\ell$ Prod from the full fit to data.
Post-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(\ell_1)$ in the CR$2\ell$ HF$e$ from the full fit to data.
Post-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(\ell_1)$ in the CR$2\ell$ HF$\mu$ from the full fit to data.
Post-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(\ell_1)$ in the CR$2\ell$ $t\bar{t}V$ from the full fit to data.
Post-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(\ell_2)$ in the CR$3\ell$ HF$e$ from the full fit to data.
Post-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(\ell_2)$ in the CR$3\ell$ HF$\mu$ from the full fit to data.
Post-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(b\text{-jet}_0)$ in the CR$3\ell$ $t\bar{t}W$ from the full fit to data.
Post-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(b\text{-jet}_0)$ in the CR$3\ell$ $t\bar{t}Z$ from the full fit to data.
Observed and expected upper exclusion limits on the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(t\to Hu)$ for different analyses and their statistical combination.
Observed and expected upper exclusion limits on the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(t\to Hc)$ for different analyses and their statistical combination.
Post-fit normalisation factors of free-floating background processes and the signal normalisation.
Post-fit predicted and observed yields in all $2\ell$SS signal and control regions. Pre-fit signal contributions for a signal cross section equivalent to $\mathcal{B}(t\to Hq)=0.1\,\%$ are given as well.
Post-fit predicted and observed yields in all $3\ell$ signal and control regions. Pre-fit signal contributions for a signal cross section equivalent to $\mathcal{B}(t\to Hq)=0.1\,\%$ are given as well.
Expected upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(t\to Hq)$ for the nominal fit and alternative fit configurations. One contains the full phase space but only considers statistical uncertainties. Two other configurations consider the full set of systematic uncertainties, but only encompass one final state.
Expected and observed upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(t\to Hq)$ and $|C_{u\phi}^{qt,tq}|$ for the full fit containing all systematic uncertainties.
Pre-fit plot of $H_\text{T}(\text{jets})$ in the SR$2\ell$ Dec from a signal-blinded background-only fit.
Pre-fit plot of $m(t_\text{SM}, b\text{-jet}_0)$ in the SR$2\ell$ Prod from a signal-blinded background-only fit.
Pre-fit plot of $m(\ell_\text{OS},\ell_\text{SS,1})$ in the SR$3\ell$ Dec from a signal-blinded background-only fit.
Pre-fit plot of $m(\ell_\text{OS},\ell_\text{SS,1})$ in the SR$3\ell$ Prod from a signal-blinded background-only fit.
Post-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHu)$ in the SR$2\ell$ Dec from the full fit to data.
Post-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHu)$ in the SR$2\ell$ Prod from the full fit to data.
Post-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHu)$ in the SR$3\ell$ Dec from the full fit to data.
Post-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHu)$ in the SR$3\ell$ Prod from the full fit to data.
Pre-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHc)$ in the SR$2\ell$ Dec from the full fit to data.
Pre-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHc)$ in the SR$2\ell$ Prod from the full fit to data.
Pre-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHc)$ in the SR$3\ell$ Dec from the full fit to data.
Pre-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHc)$ in the SR$3\ell$ Prod from the full fit to data.
Pre-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHu)$ in the SR$2\ell$ Dec from the full fit to data.
Pre-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHu)$ in the SR$2\ell$ Prod from the full fit to data.
Pre-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHu)$ in the SR$3\ell$ Dec from the full fit to data.
Pre-fit plot of $D_\text{NN}(tHu)$ in the SR$3\ell$ Prod from the full fit to data.
Pre-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(\ell_1)$ in the CR$2\ell$ HF$e$ from the full fit to data.
Pre-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(\ell_1)$ in the CR$2\ell$ HF$\mu$ from the full fit to data.
Pre-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(\ell_1)$ in the CR$2\ell$ $t\bar{t}V$ from the full fit to data.
Pre-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(\ell_2)$ in the CR$3\ell$ HF$e$ from the full fit to data.
Pre-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(\ell_2)$ in the CR$3\ell$ HF$\mu$ from the full fit to data.
Pre-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(b\text{-jet}_0)$ in the CR$3\ell$ $t\bar{t}W$ from the full fit to data.
Pre-fit plot of $p_\text{T}(b\text{-jet}_0)$ in the CR$3\ell$ $t\bar{t}Z$ from the full fit to data.
Ranking of fit nuisance parameters according to their impact on the post-fit $tHu$ signal normalisation when fixed to $\pm1\sigma$
Ranking of fit nuisance parameters according to their impact on the post-fit $tHc$ signal normalisation when fixed to $\pm1\sigma$
Expected upper exclusion limits on the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(t\to Hu)$ for each individual final state and the full analysis.
Expected upper exclusion limits on the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(t\to Hc)$ for each individual final state and the full analysis.
A search for charged-lepton-flavour violating $\mu\tau qt$ ($q=u,c$) interactions is presented, considering both top-quark production and decay. The data analysed correspond to 140 $\textrm{fb}^{-1}$ of proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}= $13 TeV recorded with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider. The analysis targets events containing two muons with the same electric charge, a hadronically decaying $\tau$-lepton and at least one jet, with exactly one $b$-tagged jet, produced by a $\mu\tau qt$ interaction. Agreement with the Standard Model expectation within $1.6\sigma$ is observed, and limits are set at the 95% CL on the charged-lepton-flavour violation branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(t \to \mu\tau q) < 8.7 \times 10^{-7}$. An Effective Field Theory interpretation is performed yielding 95% CL limits on Wilson coefficients, dependent on the flavour of the associated light quark and the Lorentz structure of the coupling. These range from $|c_{\mathsf{lequ}}^{3(2313)}| / \Lambda^{2} < 0.10\textrm{ TeV}^{-2}$ for $\mu\tau ut$ to $|c_{\mathsf{ lequ}}^{1(2323)}| / \Lambda^{2} < 1.8\textrm{ TeV}^{-2}$ for $\mu\tau ct$. An additional interpretation is performed for scalar leptoquark production inducing charged lepton flavour violation, with fixed inter-generational couplings. Upper limits on leptoquark coupling strengths are set at the 95% CL, ranging from $\lambda^{\textrm{LQ}} = $1.3 to $\lambda^{\textrm{LQ}} = $3.7 for leptoquark masses between 0.5 and 2.0 TeV.
Observed event yields in $\textrm{CR}t\bar{t}\mu$ compared with pre-fit expectations from Monte Carlo simulations, as a function of the scalar sum of lepton and jet transverse momenta, $H_{\mathrm{T}}$. The last bin includes overflow events. `Signal (prod.)' and `Signal (dec.)' refer to the single-top-quark production and top-quark pair decay signal contributions, respectively. The pre-fit signal yield represents all Wilson coefficients set to 0.1 simultaneously for a new physics scale of $\Lambda=1$ TeV.
Observed event yields in $\textrm{CR}t\bar{t}\mu$ compared with post-fit expectations from Monte Carlo simulations, as a function of the scalar sum of lepton and jet transverse momenta, $H_{\mathrm{T}}$. The last bin includes overflow events. `Signal (prod.)' and `Signal (dec.)' refer to the single-top-quark production and top-quark pair decay signal contributions, respectively.
Observed event yields in $\textrm{SR}$ compared with pre-fit expectations from Monte Carlo simulations, as a function of the scalar sum of lepton and jet transverse momenta, $H_{\mathrm{T}}$. The last bin includes overflow events. `Signal (prod.)' and `Signal (dec.)' refer to the single-top-quark production and top-quark pair decay signal contributions, respectively. The pre-fit signal yield represents all Wilson coefficients set to 0.1 simultaneously for a new physics scale of $\Lambda=1$ TeV.
Observed event yields in $\textrm{SR}$ compared with post-fit expectations from Monte Carlo simulations, as a function of the scalar sum of lepton and jet transverse momenta, $H_{\mathrm{T}}$. The last bin includes overflow events. `Signal (prod.)' and `Signal (dec.)' refer to the single-top-quark production and top-quark pair decay signal contributions, respectively.
Expected and observed 95$\%$ CL upper limits on the branching ratio corresponding to the decay of a top quark to a muon and a tau lepton through a cLFV process for scalar, vector and tensor couplings. In the vector case, all vector operators are assumed to contribute simultaneously with the same effective coupling strength. The table shows the endpoint values of $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mu\tau\mathrm{u})$ and $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mu\tau\mathrm{c})$, which are interpolated linearly for each limit.
Expected and observed 95$\%$ CL upper limits on the Wilson coefficients for scalar, vector and tensor couplings of a top quark to a muon and a tau lepton through a cLFV process. In the vector case, all vector operators are assumed to contribute simultaneously with the same effective coupling strength. The table shows the endpoint values of the $|c^{\mu\tau\mathrm{ut}}|$ and $|c^{\mu\tau\mathrm{ct}}|$ Wilson coefficients, which are interpolated assuming a linear relationship between $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mu\tau\mathrm{u})$ and $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{t}\to\mu\tau\mathrm{c})$.
Observed event yields in $\textrm{SR}$ compared with pre-fit expectations from Monte Carlo simulations, as a function of the scalar sum of lepton and jet transverse momenta, $H_{\mathrm{T}}$. The last bin includes overflow events. The signal yields represent a leptoquark mass of $m_{S_{1}} = 1$ TeV and a coupling strength of $\lambda^{\textrm{LQ}} = 2.0$.
Observed event yields in $\textrm{SR}$ compared with post-fit expectations from Monte Carlo simulations, as a function of the scalar sum of lepton and jet transverse momenta, $H_{\mathrm{T}}$. The last bin includes overflow events. The signal yields represent a leptoquark mass of $m_{S_{1}} = 1$ TeV and a coupling strength of $\lambda^{\textrm{LQ}} = 2.0$.
Observed and expected exclusion 95$\%$ CL upper limits on the $S_{1}$ leptoquark coupling strength $\lambda^{\textrm{LQ}}$ as a function of LQ mass, $m_{S_{1}}$.
Theoretical cross-sections for single-top-quark production and top-quark decays through cLFV interactions involving vector, scalar and tensor EFT Wilson coefficients. The column titled as $c^{(ijk3)}_{\textrm{vector}}$ represents the individual cross-section contributions from each of $c_{\mathsf{lq}}^{-(ijk3)}$, $c_{\mathsf{eq}}^{(ijk3)}$, $c_{\mathsf{lu}}^{(ijk3)}$ and $c_{\mathsf{eu}}^{(ijk3)}$. The coefficient indices represent the lepton flavour generations ($i,j = 1,2,3$ where $i \neq j$) and light quark flavour generations ($k = 1,2$). The single-top-quark production cross-sections are quoted for $u$- and $c$-quark couplings separately, while they are combined for the $t\bar{t}$ decay process ($q_k = u,c$). The scale and PDF uncertainties are given. The value of each Wilson coefficient is set to 1.0 for the calculation of the cross-section.
Requirements for each analysis region. The symbol $\ell_{3}$ denotes the lowest $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ lepton. In $\mathrm{CR}t\bar{t}\mu$ an additional requirement is placed on the leading muon $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ ($p^{\mu_1}_\mathrm{T}$) and dilepton invariant masses in order to reject signal events.
Post-fit event yields for each analysis region entering the fit, with correlations on the full systematic uncertainties taken into account as determined in the fit under a signal+background hypothesis. The 'fake electron' category in the CR$t\bar{t}\mu$ control region collects small contributions primarily from $t\bar{t}\gamma$ and $Z\gamma$ which enter the event selection due to photon conversions.
Expected and observed 95$\%$ CL upper limits on Wilson coefficients corresponding to 2Q2L EFT operators which could introduce a cLFV top decay in the $\mu\tau$ channel, and existing limits from JHEP04 (2019) 014 (previous). The previous limits shown for $c^{1(ijk3)}_{\mathsf{lequ}}$ and $c^{3(ijk3)}_{\mathsf{lequ}}$ are tightened by a factor of $\sqrt{2}$, as JHEP04 (2019) 014 does not assume that these operators are Hermitian. Results are shown separately for the $\mu\tau ut$ and $\mu\tau ct$ interactions. The lepton generations are denoted by $i,j=2,3$ for $\mu$ and $\tau$ (where $i \neq j$) and the quark generations are denoted by $k=1,2$ for $u$ and $c$, respectively.
Expected and observed 95$\%$ CL upper limits on the branching ratio ($\mathcal{B}$) corresponding to the decay of a top quark to a muon and a $\tau$ lepton through a cLFV process using specific Wilson coefficients corresponding to 2Q2L EFT operators. Results are shown separately for $\mu\tau ut$ and $\mu\tau ct$ interactions. The lepton generations are denoted by $i,j=2,3$ for $\mu$ and $\tau$ (where $i \neq j$) and the quark generations are denoted by $k=1,2$ for $u$ and $c$, respectively.
Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the inclusive branching ratio ($\mathcal{B}$) corresponding to the decay of a top quark to a muon and a $\tau$-lepton through a cLFV process. Limits are shown for the statistical uncertainty only and for the full set of statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Expected and observed 95$\%$ CL upper limits on the Wilson coefficients corresponding to EFT operators inducing the decay of a top quark to a muon, a tau lepton and an up quark through a cLFV process ($\mu\tau ut$ interaction).
Expected and observed 95$\%$ CL upper limits on the Wilson coefficients corresponding to EFT operators inducing the decay of a top quark to a muon, a tau lepton and a charm quark through a cLFV process ($\mu\tau ct$ interaction).
Ranking of nuisance parameters by post-fit impact on cLFV signal strength $\mu$ (the parameter of interest, POI). The pre-fit (post-fit) impact of each nuisance parameter is calculated as the difference to the fitted value of cLFV signal strength between the nominal fit and a fit when fixing the corresponding nuisance parameter to $\hat{\theta}\pm\Delta\theta$ ($\hat{\theta}\pm\Delta\hat{\theta}$), where $\hat{\theta}$ is the best-fit value of the nuisance parameter and $\Delta\theta$ ($\Delta\hat{\theta}$) is its pre-fit (post-fit) uncertainty. The pulls of the nuisance parameters are calculated relative to zero. These pulls and their post-fit errors, $\Delta\hat{\theta} / \Delta\theta$, are given in the second column of the table.
Measurements of differential and double-differential cross sections of top quark pair ($\text{t}\overline{\text{t}}$) production are presented in the lepton+jets channels with a single electron or muon and jets in the final state. The analysis combines for the first time signatures of top quarks with low transverse momentum $p_\text{T}$, where the top quark decay products can be identified as separated jets and isolated leptons, and with high $p_\text{T}$, where the decay products are collimated and overlap. The measurements are based on proton-proton collision data at $\sqrt{s} = $ 13 TeV collected by the CMS experiment at the LHC, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 137 fb$^{-1}$. The cross sections are presented at the parton and particle levels, where the latter minimizes extrapolations based on theoretical assumptions. Most of the measured differential cross sections are well described by standard model predictions with the exception of some double-differential distributions. The inclusive $\text{t}\overline{\text{t}}$ production cross section is measured to be $\sigma_{\text{t}\overline{\text{t}}} = $ 791 $\pm$ 25 pb, which constitutes the most precise measurement in the lepton+jets channel to date.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
differential cross sections.
A search for supersymmetry in events with large missing transverse momentum, jets, and at least one hadronically decaying $\tau$-lepton is presented. Two exclusive final states with either exactly one or at least two $\tau$-leptons are considered. The analysis is based on proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ delivered by the Large Hadron Collider and recorded by the ATLAS detector in 2015 and 2016. No significant excess is observed over the Standard Model expectation. At 95% confidence level, model-independent upper limits on the cross section are set and exclusion limits are provided for two signal scenarios: a simplified model of gluino pair production with $\tau$-rich cascade decays, and a model with gauge-mediated supersymmetry breaking (GMSB). In the simplified model, gluino masses up to 2000 GeV are excluded for low values of the mass of the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP), while LSP masses up to 1000 GeV are excluded for gluino masses around 1400 GeV. In the GMSB model, values of the supersymmetry-breaking scale are excluded below 110 TeV for all values of $\tan\beta$ in the range $2 \leq \tan\beta \leq 60$, and below 120 TeV for $\tan\beta>30$.
1$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.
1$\tau$ MediumMass SR eff.
2$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.
2$\tau$ HighMass SR eff.
2$\tau$ multibin SR eff.
2$\tau$ GMSB SR eff.
1$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.
1$\tau$ MediumMass SR eff.
2$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.
2$\tau$ HighMass SR eff.
2$\tau$ multibin SR eff.
2$\tau$ GMSB SR eff.
1$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.
1$\tau$ MediumMass SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ HighMass SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ multibin SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ GMSB SR acceptance.
1$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.
1$\tau$ MediumMass SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ HighMass SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ multibin SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ GMSB SR acceptance.
Cutflow table of the $1\tau$ compressed SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.
Cutflow table of the $1\tau$ medium-mass SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.
Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ compressed SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.
Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ high-mass SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.
Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ multibin SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.
Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ GMSB SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.
Best performing fit setups entering the final combination as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass. 'S' marks the simultaneous fit of the four simplified model single-bin SRs, 'M' denotes the simultaneous fit of the two $1\tau$ SRs and the $2\tau$ multibin SR.
Observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of tanBeta and the SUSY-breaking mass scale Lambda.
Expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of tanBeta and the SUSY-breaking mass scale Lambda.
Observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass.
Expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass.
Observed upper limits on the production cross section at 95% CL in pb as a function of tanBeta and SUSY breaking mass scale Lambda.
Observed upper limits on the production cross section at 95% CL in pb as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass.
Yields of the expected background from the SM in the bins of the multibin SR of the $2\tau$ channel with all bins being simultaneously used to constrain the background prediction. Expectation is given with the scalings computed in the combined fit applied. Uncertainties are statistial plus systematrics. Only the subsamples contributing the respective region are considered.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ in the compressed $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ in the compressed $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ in the medium-mass $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ in the medium-mass $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the medium-mass $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_1}$ + $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_2}$ in the top VR of the $2\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the $W$ VR of the $2\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_1}$ + $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_2}$ in the $Z$ VR of the $2\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ in the compressed SR of the $1\tau$ channel before application of the $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ > 80 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.
$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the medium-mass SR of the $1\tau$ channel before application of the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1000 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{sum}}$ in the compressed SR of the $2\tau$ channel before application of the $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{sum}}$ > 1600 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.
$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the high-mass SR of the $2\tau$ channel before application of the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1100 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.
mT(tau_1) + mT(tau_2) in the multibin SR of the 2T channel. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.
$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the GMSB SR of the $2\tau$ channel before application of the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1900 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.
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.
We support searching for a range of records using their HEPData record ID or Inspire ID.
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.