Showing 10 of 31 results
A combination of the results of several searches for the electroweak production of the supersymmetric partners of standard model bosons, and of charged leptons, is presented. All searches use proton-proton collision data at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV recorded with the CMS detector at the LHC in 2016-2018. The analyzed data correspond to an integrated luminosity of up to 137 fb$^{-1}$. The results are interpreted in terms of simplified models of supersymmetry. Two new interpretations are added with this combination: a model spectrum with the bino as the lightest supersymmetric particle together with mass-degenerate higgsinos decaying to the bino and a standard model boson, and the compressed-spectrum region of a previously studied model of slepton pair production. Improved analysis techniques are employed to optimize sensitivity for the compressed spectra in the wino and slepton pair production models. The results are consistent with expectations from the standard model. The combination provides a more comprehensive coverage of the model parameter space than the individual searches, extending the exclusion by up to 125 GeV, and also targets some of the intermediate gaps in the mass coverage.
A search for long-lived particles decaying in the outer regions of the CMS silicon tracker or in the calorimeters is presented. The search is based on a data sample of proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV recorded with the CMS detector at the LHC in 2016-2018, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$. A novel technique, using trackless and out-of-time jet information combined in a deep neural network discriminator, is employed to identify decays of long-lived particles. The results are interpreted in a simplified model of chargino-neutralino production, where the neutralino is the next-to-lightest supersymmetric particle, is long-lived, and decays to a gravitino and either a Higgs or Z boson. This search is most sensitive to neutralino proper decay lengths of approximately 0.5 m, for which masses up to 1.18 TeV are excluded at 95% confidence level. The current search is the best result to date in the mass range from the kinematic limit imposed by the Higgs mass up to 1.8 TeV.
Summary of combined statistical and systematic uncertainties, the size of their effect, and whether it applies to the signal or background yield predictions. Ranges for signal systematic uncertainties reflect their impact on different signal parameter space points.
Summary of combined statistical and systematic uncertainties, the size of their effect, and whether it applies to the signal or background yield predictions. Ranges for signal systematic uncertainties reflect their impact on different signal parameter space points.
Feynman diagrams of the effective neutralino pair production in the GMSB simplified model in which the two neutralinos decay into two gravitinos ($\tilde{G}$) and two $Z$ bosons (left), a $Z$ and a Higgs boson ($H$) (center), or two Higgs bosons (right).
Feynman diagrams of the effective neutralino pair production in the GMSB simplified model in which the two neutralinos decay into two gravitinos ($\tilde{G}$) and two $Z$ bosons (left), a $Z$ and a Higgs boson ($H$) (center), or two Higgs bosons (right).
Feynman diagrams of the effective neutralino pair production in the GMSB simplified model in which the two neutralinos decay into two gravitinos ($\tilde{G}$) and two $Z$ bosons (left), a $Z$ and a Higgs boson ($H$) (center), or two Higgs bosons (right).
Feynman diagrams of the effective neutralino pair production in the GMSB simplified model in which the two neutralinos decay into two gravitinos ($\tilde{G}$) and two $Z$ bosons (left), a $Z$ and a Higgs boson ($H$) (center), or two Higgs bosons (right).
Feynman diagrams of the effective neutralino pair production in the GMSB simplified model in which the two neutralinos decay into two gravitinos ($\tilde{G}$) and two $Z$ bosons (left), a $Z$ and a Higgs boson ($H$) (center), or two Higgs bosons (right).
Feynman diagrams of the effective neutralino pair production in the GMSB simplified model in which the two neutralinos decay into two gravitinos ($\tilde{G}$) and two $Z$ bosons (left), a $Z$ and a Higgs boson ($H$) (center), or two Higgs bosons (right).
The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).
The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).
The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).
The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).
The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).
The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).
The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).
The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).
The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).
The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).
TD jet tagger score distributions (left) for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). Identification probability for the signal versus the misidentification probability for the background (right) with the tagger working point (w.~p.) used in the analysis shown as a blue marker.
TD jet tagger score distributions (left) for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). Identification probability for the signal versus the misidentification probability for the background (right) with the tagger working point (w.~p.) used in the analysis shown as a blue marker. Both are evaluated using an independent sample of testing events.
TD jet tagger score distributions (left) for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). Identification probability for the signal versus the misidentification probability for the background (right) with the tagger working point (w.~p.) used in the analysis shown as a blue marker.
TD jet tagger score distributions (left) for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). Identification probability for the signal versus the misidentification probability for the background (right) with the tagger working point (w.~p.) used in the analysis shown as a blue marker. Both are evaluated using an independent sample of testing events.
The TD jet tagger score distributions for simulation (shaded histogram) and data (black markers) when using electrons from $W\to e\nu_e$ events as proxy objects for signal jets. The last bin contains jets with tagger scores greater than 0.996, the threshold used to tag signal jets. Similar levels of agreement are observed for photon proxy objects from the $Z\to\ell^+\ell^-\gamma$ sample.
The efficiency of the TD jet tagger working point used in the analysis is shown as a function of the lab frame transverse decay length for simulated signals with $\chi$ mass of 400 GeV. The uncertainties shown account for lifetime dependence and statistical uncertainty.
The TD jet tagger misidentification probability measured using the nominal $W$+jets MR is shown along with the systematic uncertainty, quantifying the degree of process dependence measured from alternative MRs. On the left, this probability is shown for the first 19.9 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016, while on the right it is shown for the last 16.4 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016combined with data collected in 2017-2018.
The TD jet tagger score distributions for simulation (shaded histogram) and data (black markers) when using electrons from $W\to e\nu_e$ events as proxy objects for signal jets. The histograms and data points have been normalized to unit area. The last bin contains jets with tagger scores greater than 0.996, the threshold used to tag signal jets. Similar levels of agreement are observed for photon proxy objects from the $Z\to\ell^+\ell^-\gamma$ sample.
The TD jet tagger misidentification probability measured using the nominal $W$+jets MR is shown along with the systematic uncertainty, quantifying the degree of process dependence measured from alternative MRs. On the left, this probability is shown for the first 19.9 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016, while on the right it is shown for the last 16.4 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016combined with data collected in 2017-2018.
The TD jet tagger misidentification probability measured using the nominal $W$+jets MR (black round markers) is shown along with the systematic uncertainty (gray band), quantifying the degree of process dependence measured from alternative MRs. The measurements in the alternative MRs are displayed as well ($Z$+jets MR as green round markers, $t\bar{t}$ MR as red squared markers, QCD MR as blue triangular markers) along with their respective statistical uncertainty. On the left, this probability is shown for the first 19.9 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016, while on the right it is shown for the last 16.4 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016combined with data collected in 2017-2018.
Distribution of the number of TD tagged jets for the $m_{\chi} = 400$ GeVsimulated signal samples with $c\tau_{\chi} = 0.5$ m (solid red line) and $c\tau_{\chi} = 3.0$ m (dotted green line), estimated background (blue square markers), and data (black round markers). The blue shaded region indicates the systematic uncertainty in the background prediction. No background prediction is shown for the bin with zero TD tagged jets as it is the main control region used to predict the background for the other two bins. There are zero observed events in the bin with two or more TD tagged jets.
The TD jet tagger misidentification probability measured using the nominal $W$+jets MR (black round markers) is shown along with the systematic uncertainty (gray band), quantifying the degree of process dependence measured from alternative MRs. The measurements in the alternative MRs are displayed as well ($Z$+jets MR as green round markers, $t\bar{t}$ MR as red squared markers, QCD MR as blue triangular markers) along with their respective statistical uncertainty. On the left, this probability is shown for the first 19.9 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016, while on the right it is shown for the last 16.4 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016combined with data collected in 2017-2018.
Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as functions of $m_\chi$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to HG) = 0.5$ and $c\tau = 0.5$ m (left) or 3 m (right).
Distribution of the number of TD tagged jets for the $m_{\chi} = 400$ GeVsimulated signal samples with $c\tau_{\chi} = 0.5$ m (solid red line) and $c\tau_{\chi} = 3.0$ m (dotted green line), estimated background (blue square markers), and data (black round markers). The signal distributions are normalized to the expected cross section limit. The blue shaded region indicates the systematic uncertainty in the background prediction. No background prediction is shown for the bin with zero TD tagged jets as it is the main control region used to predict the background for the other two bins. There are zero observed events in the bin with two or more TD tagged jets.
Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as functions of $m_\chi$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to HG) = 0.5$ and $c\tau = 0.5$ m (left) or 3 m (right).
Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as functions of $m_\chi$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to HG) = 0.5$ and $c\tau = 0.5$ m (left) or 3 m (right).
Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as functions of $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 0.5$ and $m_{\chi} = 400$ GeV (left) or 1000 GeV (right).
Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as functions of $m_\chi$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to HG) = 0.5$ and $c\tau = 0.5$ m (left) or 3 m (right).
Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as functions of $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 0.5$ and $m_{\chi} = 400$ GeV (left) or 1000 GeV (right).
Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as functions of $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 0.5$ and $m_{\chi} = 400$ GeV (left) or 1000 GeV (right).
The observed 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as a function of $m_{\chi}$ and $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 0.5$. The area enclosed by the dotted black line corresponds to the observed excluded region.
Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as functions of $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 0.5$ and $m_{\chi} = 400$ GeV (left) or 1000 GeV (right).
The observed 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as a function of $m_{\chi}$ and $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 0.5$. The area enclosed by the dotted black line corresponds to the observed excluded region.
The distribution of the jet charged hadron energy fraction, a variable used as input to the TD jet tagger score, for simulation (shaded histogram) and data (black markers) when using electrons from $W\to e\nu_e$ events as proxy objects for signal jets. The histograms and data points have been normalized to unit area. Similar levels of agreement are observed for photon proxy objects from the $Z\to\ell^+\ell^-\gamma$ sample.
The distribution of the jet neutral hadron energy fraction, a variable used as input to the TD jet tagger score, for simulation (shaded histogram) and data (black markers) when using electrons from $W\to e\nu_e$ events as proxy objects for signal jets. The histograms and data points have been normalized to unit area. Similar levels of agreement are observed for photon proxy objects from the $Z\to\ell^+\ell^-\gamma$ sample.
The distribution of the number of track constituents in the jet, a variable used as input to the TD jet tagger score, for simulation (shaded histogram) and data (black markers) when using electrons from $W\to e\nu_e$ events as proxy objects for signal jets. The histograms and data points have been normalized to unit area. Similar levels of agreement are observed for photon proxy objects from the $Z\to\ell^+\ell^-\gamma$ sample.
The $\eta$ distribution of TD-tagged jets in a background-enriched control region that comprises events with exactly one TD-tagged jet. Observed data (black round markers) and the corresponding prediction based on control samples in data (empty squared markers), measured using the nominal $W$+jets MR, are compared. The prediction uncertainty (gray band) includes the systematic uncertainty quantifying the degree of process dependence measured from alternative MRs. The predictions for the shape and the normalization of the $\eta$ distribution are consistent with the data.
Jet time distribution in a sample of b-tagged jets from dilepton $t \bar{t}$ events in 2017 data-taking period (black round markers) and simulation (filled histogram). A Gaussian smearing procedure is applied to the jet time in the $t \bar{t}$ sample (green line) to correct for effects that are difficult to simulate (timing drift caused by crystals transparency loss due to detector aging, electronics jitter).
The observed 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as a function of $m_{\chi}$ and $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 1$. The area enclosed by the dotted black line corresponds to the observed excluded region.
The observed 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as a function of $m_{\chi}$ and $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 0.75$, $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to Z\tilde{G}) = 0.25$. The area enclosed by the dotted black line corresponds to the observed excluded region.
The observed 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as a function of $m_{\chi}$ and $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 0.25$, $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to Z\tilde{G}) = 0.75$. The area enclosed by the dotted black line corresponds to the observed excluded region.
The observed 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as a function of $m_{\chi}$ and $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to Z\tilde{G}) = 1$. The area enclosed by the dotted black line corresponds to the observed excluded region.
The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 127 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.
The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 127 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.
The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 127 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.
The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 150 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.
The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 150 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.
The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 150 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.
The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 175 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.
The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 175 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.
The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 175 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.
The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 200 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.
The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 200 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.
The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 200 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.
The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 250 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.
The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 250 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.
The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 250 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.
The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 300 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.
The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 300 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.
The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 300 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.
The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 400 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.
The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 400 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.
The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 400 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.
The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 600 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.
The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 600 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.
The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 600 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.
The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 800 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.
The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 800 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.
The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 800 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.
The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1000 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.
The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1000 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.
The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1000 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.
The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1250 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.
The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1250 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.
The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1250 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.
The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1500 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.
The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1500 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.
The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1500 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.
The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1800 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.
The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1800 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.
The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1800 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.
Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 127 GeV.
Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 127 GeV.
Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 150 GeV.
Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 150 GeV.
Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 175 GeV.
Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 175 GeV.
Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 200 GeV.
Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 200 GeV.
Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 250 GeV.
Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 250 GeV.
Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 300 GeV.
Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 300 GeV.
Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 400 GeV.
Three searches are presented for signatures of physics beyond the standard model (SM) in $\tau\tau$ final states in proton-proton collisions at the LHC, using a data sample collected with the CMS detector at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$. Upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) are set on the products of the branching fraction for the decay into $\tau$ leptons and the cross sections for the production of a new boson $\phi$, in addition to the H(125) boson, via gluon fusion (gg$\phi$) or in association with b quarks, ranging from $\mathcal{O}$(10 pb) for a mass of 60 GeV to 0.3 fb for a mass of 3.5 TeV each. The data reveal two excesses for gg$\phi$ production with local $p$-values equivalent to about three standard deviations at $m_\phi$ = 0.1 and 1.2 TeV. In a search for $t$-channel exchange of a vector leptoquark U$_1$, 95% CL upper limits are set on the dimensionless U$_1$ leptoquark coupling to quarks and $\tau$ leptons ranging from 1 for a mass of 1 TeV to 6 for a mass of 5 TeV, depending on the scenario. In the interpretations of the $M_\mathrm{h}^{125}$ and $M_\mathrm{h, EFT}^{125}$ minimal supersymmetric SM benchmark scenarios, additional Higgs bosons with masses below 350 GeV are excluded at 95% CL.
Expected and observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ upper limits on the product of the cross sections and branching fraction for the decay into $\tau$ leptons for $gg\phi$ production in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$, in addition to $\text{H}(125)$. The central $68$ and $95\%$ intervals are given in addition to the expected median value. In this case, $bb\phi$ production rate has been profiled. The peak in the expected $gg\phi$ limit is tribute to a loss of sensitivity around $90\text{ GeV}$ due to the background from $Z/\gamma^\ast\rightarrow\tau\tau$ events. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 10a of the publication.
Expected and observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ upper limits on the product of the cross sections and branching fraction for the decay into $\tau$ leptons for $bb\phi$ production in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$, in addition to $\text{H}(125)$. The central $68$ and $95\%$ intervals are given in addition to the expected median value. In this case, $gg\phi$ production rate has been profiled. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 10b of the publication.
Expected and observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ upper limits on the product of the cross sections and branching fraction for the decay into $\tau$ leptons for $gg\phi$ production in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$, in addition to $\text{H}(125)$. The central $68$ and $95\%$ intervals are given in addition to the expected median value. In this case, $bb\phi$ production rate has been fixed to zero. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 37 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected and observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ upper limits on the product of the cross sections and branching fraction for the decay into $\tau$ leptons for $bb\phi$ production in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$, in addition to $\text{H}(125)$. The central $68$ and $95\%$ intervals are given in addition to the expected median value. In this case, $gg\phi$ production rate has been fixed to zero. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 38 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected and observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ upper limits on the product of the cross sections and branching fraction for the decay into $\tau$ leptons for $gg\phi$ production in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$, in addition to $\text{H}(125)$. The central $68$ and $95\%$ intervals are given in addition to the expected median value. In this case, $bb\phi$ production rate has been profiled and only top quarks have been considered in the $gg\phi$ loop. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 39 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected and observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ upper limits on the product of the cross sections and branching fraction for the decay into $\tau$ leptons for $gg\phi$ production in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$, in addition to $\text{H}(125)$. The central $68$ and $95\%$ intervals are given in addition to the expected median value. In this case, $bb\phi$ production rate has been profiled and only bottom quarks have been considered in the $gg\phi$ loop. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 40 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Local significance for a $gg\phi$ signal in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$. In this case, $bb\phi$ production rate has been profiled. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 31 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Local significance for a $bb\phi$ signal in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$. In this case, $gg\phi$ production rate has been profiled. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 32 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Local significance for a $gg\phi$ signal in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$. In this case, $bb\phi$ production rate has been fixed to zero. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 33 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Local significance for a $bb\phi$ signal in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$. In this case, $gg\phi$ production rate has been fixed to zero. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 34 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Local significance for a $gg\phi$ signal in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$. In this case, $bb\phi$ production rate has been profiled and only top quarks have been considered in the $gg\phi$ loop. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 35 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Local significance for a $gg\phi$ signal in a mass range of $60\leq m_\phi\leq 3500\text{ GeV}$. In this case, $bb\phi$ production rate has been profiled and only bottom quarks have been considered in the $gg\phi$ loop. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 36 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $95\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$), via vector boson fusion ($qq\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). In this case, $bb\phi$ production rate is profiled, whereas the scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $qq\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 64 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $60\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 65 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $60\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 66 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $80\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 67 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $80\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 68 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $95\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 69 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $95\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 70 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $100\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 71 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $100\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 72 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $120\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 73 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $120\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 74 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $125\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 75 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $125\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 76 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $130\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 77 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $130\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 78 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $140\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 79 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $140\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 80 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $160\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 81 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $160\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 82 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $180\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 83 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $180\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 84 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a scalar resonance ($H$) with a mass of $200\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggH$ and $bbH$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{H}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $H\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $H$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 85 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a pseudoscalar resonance ($A$) with a mass of $200\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion or in association with b quarks. For this scan, we assume the $ggA$ and $bbA$ processes are only influenced by the Yukawa couplings to the top and bottom quarks and we scale the cross sections predicted for a SM-like Higgs boson of the same mass depending on these couplings. For the $ggA$ process, there is also an enhancement to the cross section for a pseudoscalar resonance compared to the equivalent process for the production of a scalar. This enhancement is taken into account when scaling the cross sections for the SM-like Higgs boson. The scans are displayed for the product of the reduced Yukawa couplings $g_{b,\,t}^{A}$ and the square root of the branching fraction for the $A\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process, where the former is defined as the ratio of the Yukawa coupling of $A$ to the Yukawa coupling expected for a SM-like Higgs boson. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 86 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected and observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ upper limits on $g_U$ in the VLQ BM 1 scenario in a mass range of $1\leq m_U\leq 5\text{ TeV}$. The central $68$ and $95\%$ intervals are given in addition to the expected median value. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 12a of the publication.
Expected and observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ upper limits on $g_U$ in the VLQ BM 2 scenario in a mass range of $1\leq m_U\leq 5\text{ TeV}$. The central $68$ and $95\%$ intervals are given in addition to the expected median value. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 12b of the publication.
Expected and observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ upper limits on $g_U$ in the VLQ BM 3 scenario in a mass range of $1\leq m_U\leq 5\text{ TeV}$. The central $68$ and $95\%$ intervals are given in addition to the expected median value. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 92 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $60\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11a of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $80\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 41 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $95\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 42 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $100\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11b of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $120\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 43 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $125\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11c of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $130\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 44 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $140\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 45 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $160\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11d of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $180\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 46 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $200\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 47 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $250\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11e of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $300\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 48 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $350\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 49 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $400\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 50 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $450\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 51 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $500\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11f of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $600\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 52 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $700\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 53 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $800\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 54 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $900\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 55 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1000\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11g of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1200\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11h of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1400\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 56 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1600\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 57 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1800\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 58 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $2000\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 59 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $2300\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 60 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $2600\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 61 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $2900\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 62 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $3200\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 63 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $3500\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11i of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $60\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11a of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $80\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 41 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $95\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 42 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $100\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11b of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $120\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 43 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $125\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11c of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $130\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 44 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $140\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 45 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $160\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11d of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $180\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 46 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $200\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 47 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $250\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11e of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $300\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 48 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $350\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 49 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $400\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 50 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $450\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 51 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $500\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11f of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $600\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 52 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $700\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 53 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $800\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 54 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $900\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 55 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1000\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11g of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1200\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11h of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1400\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 56 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1600\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 57 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $1800\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 58 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $2000\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 59 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $2300\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 60 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $2600\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 61 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $2900\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 62 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $3200\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 63 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a resonance ($\phi$) with a mass of $3500\text{ GeV}$, produced via gluon-fusion ($gg\phi$) or in association with b quarks ($bb\phi$). The scan is performed in the $gg\phi$ and $bb\phi$ production cross-sections, both multiplied with the branching fraction for the $\phi\rightarrow\tau\tau$ decay process. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11i of the publication, but evaluated on Asimov pseudodata.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 1\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 1 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 99 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 2\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 1 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 100 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 3\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 1 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 101 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 4\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 1 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 102 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 5\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 1 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 103 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 1\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 2 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 104 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 2\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 2 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 105 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 3\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 2 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 106 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 4\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 2 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 107 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 5\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 2 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 108 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 1\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 3 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 109 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 2\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 3 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 110 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 3\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 3 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 111 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 4\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 3 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 112 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Scan of the likelihood function for the search for a vector leptoquark with $m_{U} = 5\text{ TeV}$, in the VLQ BM 3 scenario. The scan is performed in the $g_{U}$ coupling, for three different categorization strategies, combining only "No b tag" categories, only "b tag" categories, and all categories. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 113 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 13a of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 13a of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ quantile contour of Figure 13a of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ quantile contour of Figure 13a of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ quantile contour of Figure 13a of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ quantile contour of Figure 13a of the publication.
Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 13b of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 13b of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ quantile contour of Figure 13b of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ quantile contour of Figure 13b of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ quantile contour of Figure 13b of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ quantile contour of Figure 13b of the publication.
Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\tau})$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 114 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\tau})$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 114 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\tau})$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 114 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\tau})$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 114 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\tau})$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 114 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\tau})$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 114 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 115 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 115 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 115 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 115 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 115 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 115 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{1}-}$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 116 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{1}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 116 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{1}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 116 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{1}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 116 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{1}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 116 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{1}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 116 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{2}-}$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 117 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{2}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 117 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{2}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 117 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{2}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 117 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{2}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 117 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{2}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 117 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{3}-}$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 118 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{3}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 118 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{3}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 118 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{3}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 118 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{3}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 118 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_h^{125\,\mu_{3}-}$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 118 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h_{1}}^{125}(CPV)$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 119 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h_{1}}^{125}(CPV)$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 119 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h_{1}}^{125}(CPV)$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 119 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h_{1}}^{125}(CPV)$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 119 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h_{1}}^{125}(CPV)$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 119 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h_{1}}^{125}(CPV)$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 119 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM hMSSM scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 120 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM hMSSM scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 120 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM hMSSM scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 120 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM hMSSM scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 120 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM hMSSM scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 120 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM hMSSM scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 120 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 122 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 122 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 122 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 122 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 122 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h,\,\text{EFT}}^{125}(\tilde{\chi})$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 122 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Observed $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\text{alignment})$ scenario. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the observed contour of Figure 123 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\text{alignment})$ scenario, evaluated at the median of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected median contour of Figure 123 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\text{alignment})$ scenario, evaluated at the $16\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $16\%$ contour of Figure 123 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\text{alignment})$ scenario, evaluated at the $84\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $68\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $84\%$ contour of Figure 123 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\text{alignment})$ scenario, evaluated at the $2.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $2.5\%$ contour of Figure 123 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Expected $95\%\text{ CL}$ exclusion contour in the MSSM $M_{h}^{125}(\text{alignment})$ scenario, evaluated at the $97.5\%$ quantile of the test-statistic distribution $f(\tilde{q}_\mu|\text{SM})$ under SM hypothesis. This contour is part of the $95\%$ confidence interval band. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the expected $97.5\%$ contour of Figure 123 of the auxilliary material of the publication.
Fractions of the cross-section $\sigma(gg\phi)$ as expected from SM for the loop contributions with only top quarks, only bottom quarks and from the top-bottom interference. These values are used to scale the corresponding signal components for a given mass $m_\phi$.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the $t\bar{t}$ control region $m_{T}^{tot}$ for high-mass analysis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the $t\bar{t}$ control region of the publication, restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the $t\bar{t}$ control region $m_{T}^{tot}$ for high-mass analysis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the $t\bar{t}$ control region of the publication, restricted to 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the $t\bar{t}$ control region $m_{T}^{tot}$ for high-mass analysis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the $t\bar{t}$ control region of the publication, restricted to 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 25 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 25 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 25 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8a of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8a of the publication, but restricted to and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8a of the publication, but restricted to and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 26 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 26 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 26 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8b of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8b of the publication, but restricted to and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8b of the publication, but restricted to and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 27 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 27 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 27 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 28 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 28 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 28 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8c of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8c of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8c of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 29 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 29 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 29 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8d of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8d of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8d of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 30 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 30 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 30 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $e\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8c of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8c of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8c of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 29 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 29 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 29 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8d of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8d of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8d of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 30 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 30 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 30 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to $\mu\tau_{h}$ final state and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8e of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8e of the publication, but restricted to 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8e of the publication, but restricted to 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8f of the publication, but restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8f of the publication, but restricted to 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the high-mass analysis $m_{T}^{tot}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 8f of the publication, but restricted to 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the $t\bar{t}$ control region $m_{T}^{tot}$ for low-mass analysis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the $t\bar{t}$ control region of the publication, restricted to 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the $t\bar{t}$ control region $m_{T}^{tot}$ for low-mass analysis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the $t\bar{t}$ control region of the publication, restricted to 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the $t\bar{t}$ control region $m_{T}^{tot}$ for low-mass analysis. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to the $t\bar{t}$ control region of the publication, restricted to 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 11 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 12 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 12 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 12 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 12 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 12 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 12 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 13 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 13 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 13 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 13 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 13 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 13 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to Medium-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 14 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2016 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 14 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2017 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
Observed and expected distributions of the variable chosen for statistical inference in the low-mass analysis $m_{\tau\tau}$. Numerical values provided in this table correspond to Figure 14 of the auxilliary material of the publication, but restricted to High-$D_\zeta$ category and 2018 data-taking year. All distributions are considered after a fit to data is performed using a background-only model, which includes the $\text{H}(125)$ boson. Some details on how the distributions should be used: 1) All given uncertainties correspond to systematic variations of $\pm1\sigma$. 2) Upper values ('plus' in the yaml file) correspond to an upward systematic variation of the parameter ($+1\sigma$). 3) Lower values ('minus' in the yaml file) correspond to a downward systematic variation of the parameter ($-1\sigma$). 4) These variations can have both positive and negative values, depending on the modelled effect. 5) Uncertainties with the same name should be treated as correlated, consistently across the upper and lower variations. 6) Systematic uncertainties with 'prop_' in the name treat limited background statistics per histogram bin, and are deployed with 'Barlow-Beeston-lite' approach. Details in https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0354 section 5 7) Remaining systematic uncertainties alter the normalization, the shape, or both for a distribution. The nuisance parameter for such an uncertainty is mapped separately on the normalization and the shape variation components of the uncertainty. For normalization, $\ln$ mapping is used, for shape a spline. Details in https://cms-analysis.github.io/HiggsAnalysis-CombinedLimit/part2/settinguptheanalysis/#binned-shape-analysis 8) All nuisance parameters for the systematic uncertainties are modelled with a Gaussian pdf. 9) Gluon fusion contributions are all scaled to 1 pb. Please combine them using either the scale factors from 'Table SM Gluon Fusion Fractions', or using your own composition.
This Letter presents a search for direct production of charginos and neutralinos via electroweak interactions. The results are based on data from proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV collected with the CMS detector at the LHC, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 137 fb$^{-1}$. The search considers final states with large missing transverse momentum and pairs of hadronically decaying bosons WW, WZ, and WH, where H is the Higgs boson. These bosons are identified using novel algorithms. No significant excess of events is observed relative to the expectations from the standard model. Limits at the 95% confidence level are placed on the cross section for production of mass-degenerate wino-like supersymmetric particles $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0$, and mass-degenerate higgsino-like supersymmetric particles $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$, $\tilde{\chi}_2^0$, and $\tilde{\chi}_3^0$. In the limit of a nearly-massless lightest supersymmetric particle $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$, wino-like particles with masses up to 870 and 960 GeV are excluded in the cases of $\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\to$ Z$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\to$ H$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$, respectively, and higgsino-like particles are excluded between 300 and 650 GeV.
A search is reported for heavy resonances and quantum black holes decaying into e$\mu$, e$\tau$, and $\mu\tau$ final states in proton-proton collision data recorded by the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC during 2016-2018 at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$. The e$\mu$, e$\tau$, and $\mu\tau$ invariant mass spectra are reconstructed, and no evidence is found for physics beyond the standard model. Upper limits are set at 95% confidence level on the product of the cross section and branching fraction for lepton flavor violating signals. Three benchmark signals are studied: resonant $\tau$ sneutrino production in $R$ parity violating supersymmetric models, heavy Z' gauge bosons with lepton flavor violating decays, and nonresonant quantum black hole production in models with extra spatial dimensions. Resonant $\tau$ sneutrinos are excluded for masses up to 4.2 TeV in the e$\mu$ channel, 3.7 TeV in the e$\tau$ channel, and 3.6 TeV in the $\mu\tau$ channel. A Z' boson with lepton flavor violating couplings is excluded up to a mass of 5.0 TeV in the e$\mu$ channel, up to 4.3 TeV in the e$\tau$ channel, and up to 4.1 TeV in the $\mu\tau$ channel. Quantum black holes in the benchmark model are excluded up to the threshold mass of 5.6 TeV in the e$\mu$ channel, 5.2 TeV in the e$\tau$ channel, and 5.0 TeV in the $\mu\tau$ channel. In addition, model-independent limits are extracted to allow comparisons with other models for the same final states and similar event selection requirements. The results of these searches provide the most stringent limits available from collider experiments for heavy particles that undergo lepton flavor violating decays.
Results are presented from a search for physics beyond the standard model in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV in channels with two Higgs bosons, each decaying via the process H $\to$$\mathrm{b\bar{b}}$, and large missing transverse momentum. The search uses a data sample corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 137 fb$^{-1}$ collected by the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC. The search is motivated by models of supersymmetry that predict the production of neutralinos, the neutral partners of the electroweak gauge and Higgs bosons. The observed event yields in the signal regions are found to be consistent with the standard model background expectations. The results are interpreted using simplified models of supersymmetry. For the electroweak production of nearly mass-degenerate higgsinos, each of whose decay chains yields a neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}^0_1$) that in turn decays to a massless goldstino and a Higgs boson, $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ masses in the range 175 to 1025 GeV are excluded at 95% confidence level. For the strong production of gluino pairs decaying via a slightly lighter $\tilde{\chi}^0_2$ to H and a light $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$, gluino masses below 2330 GeV are excluded.
A search for supersymmetry in events with two or three low-momentum leptons and missing transverse momentum is performed. The search uses proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV collected in the three-year period 2016-2018 by the CMS experiment at the LHC and corresponding to an integrated luminosity of up to 137 fb$^{-1}$. The data are found to be in agreement with expectations from standard model processes. The results are interpreted in terms of electroweakino and top squark pair production with a small mass difference between the produced supersymmetric particles and the lightest neutralino. For the electroweakino interpretation, two simplified models are used, a wino-bino model and a higgsino model. Exclusion limits at 95% confidence level are set on $\widetilde{\chi}^0_2 / \widetilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ masses up to 275 GeV for a mass difference of 10 GeV in the wino-bino case, and up to 205 (150) GeV for a mass difference of 7.5 (3) GeV in the higgsino case. The results for the higgsino are further interpreted using a phenomenological minimal supersymmetric standard model, excluding the higgsino mass parameter $\mu$ up to 180 GeV with the bino mass parameter $M_1$ at 800 GeV. In the top squark interpretation, exclusion limits are set at top squark masses up to 540 GeV for four-body top squark decays and up to 480 GeV for chargino-mediated decays with a mass difference of 30 GeV.
The post-fit distribution of the $M(\ell\ell)$ variable is shown for the low-MET bin for the DY CR. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components.
The post-fit distribution of the $M(\ell\ell)$ variable is shown for the high-MET bin for the DY CR. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components.
The post-fit distribution of the $M(\ell\ell)$ variable is shown for the low-MET bin for the $\text{t}\bar{\text{t}}$ CR. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components.
The post-fit distribution of the $M(\ell\ell)$ variable is shown for the high-MET bin for the $\text{t}\bar{\text{t}}$ CR. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components.
The post-fit distribution of the $M(\ell\ell)$ variable is shown for the low-MET bin for the WZ-enriched region. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components.
The post-fit distribution of the $M(\ell\ell)$ variable is shown for the high-MET bin for the WZ-enriched region. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components.
The post-fit distribution of the $M(\ell\ell)$ variable is shown for the high-MET bin for the SS CR. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components.
The 2$\ell$-Ewk SR: the post-fit distribution of the $M(\ell\ell)$ variable is shown for the low-MET bin. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components. The signal distributions overlaid on the plot are from the TChiWZ and the simplified higgsino models in the scenario where the product of $\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2}\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ eigenvalues is positive and negative, respectively. The numbers after the model name in the legend indicate the mass of the NLSP and the mass splitting between the NLSP and LSP, in GeV.
The 2$\ell$-Ewk SR: the post-fit distribution of the $M(\ell\ell)$ variable is shown for the med-MET bin. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components. The signal distributions overlaid on the plot are from the TChiWZ and the simplified higgsino models in the scenario where the product of $\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2}\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ eigenvalues is positive and negative, respectively. The numbers after the model name in the legend indicate the mass of the NLSP and the mass splitting between the NLSP and LSP, in GeV.
The 2$\ell$-Ewk SR: the post-fit distribution of the $M(\ell\ell)$ variable is shown for the high-MET bin. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components. The signal distributions overlaid on the plot are from the TChiWZ and the simplified higgsino models in the scenario where the product of $\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2}\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ eigenvalues is positive and negative, respectively. The numbers after the model name in the legend indicate the mass of the NLSP and the mass splitting between the NLSP and LSP, in GeV.
The 2$\ell$-Ewk SR: the post-fit distribution of the $M(\ell\ell)$ variable is shown for the ultra-MET bin. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components. The signal distributions overlaid on the plot are from the TChiWZ and the simplified higgsino models in the scenario where the product of $\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2}\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ eigenvalues is positive and negative, respectively. The numbers after the model name in the legend indicate the mass of the NLSP and the mass splitting between the NLSP and LSP, in GeV.
The 3$\ell$-Ewk search regions: the post-fit distribution of the $M^{\text{min}}_{\text{SFOS}}(\ell\ell)$ variable is shown for the low-MET bin. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components. The signal distributions overlaid on the plot are from the TChiWZ and the simplified higgsino models in the scenario where the product of $\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2}\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ eigenvalues is positive and negative, respectively. The numbers after the model name in the legend indicate the mass of the NLSP and the mass splitting between the NLSP and LSP, in GeV.
The 3$\ell$-Ewk search regions: the post-fit distribution of the $M^{\text{min}}_{\text{SFOS}}(\ell\ell)$ variable is shown for the high-MET bin. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components. The signal distributions overlaid on the plot are from the TChiWZ and the simplified higgsino models in the scenario where the product of $\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2}\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ eigenvalues is positive and negative, respectively. The numbers after the model name in the legend indicate the mass of the NLSP and the mass splitting between the NLSP and LSP, in GeV.
The 2$\ell$-Stop SR: the post-fit distribution of the leading lepton $p_{T}$ variable is shown for the low-MET bin. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components. The signal distributions overlaid on the plot are from the T2bff$\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ and the T2bW models. The numbers after the model name in the legend indicate the mass of the top squark and the mass splitting between the top squark and LSP, in GeV.
The 2$\ell$-Stop SR: the post-fit distribution of the leading lepton $p_{T}$ variable is shown for the med-MET bin. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components. The signal distributions overlaid on the plot are from the T2bff$\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ and the T2bW models. The numbers after the model name in the legend indicate the mass of the top squark and the mass splitting between the top squark and LSP, in GeV.
The 2$\ell$-Stop SR: the post-fit distribution of the leading lepton $p_{T}$ variable is shown for the high-MET bin. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components. The signal distributions overlaid on the plot are from the T2bff$\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ and the T2bW models. The numbers after the model name in the legend indicate the mass of the top squark and the mass splitting between the top squark and LSP, in GeV.
The 2$\ell$-Stop SR: the post-fit distribution of the leading lepton $p_{T}$ variable is shown for the ultra-MET bin. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components. The signal distributions overlaid on the plot are from the T2bff$\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ and the T2bW models. The numbers after the model name in the legend indicate the mass of the top squark and the mass splitting between the top squark and LSP, in GeV.
The observed 95% CL exclusion contours (black curves) assuming the NLO+NLL cross sections, with the variations (thin lines) corresponding to the uncertainty in the cross section for the TChiWZ model. The red curves present the 95% CL expected limits with the band (thin lines) covering 68% of the limits in the absence of signal. Results are reported for the $\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2} \widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} > 0$ $M(\ell\ell)$ spectrum reweighting scenario. The range of luminosities of the analysis regions included in the fit is indicated on the plot.
The observed 95% CL exclusion contours (black curves) assuming the NLO+NLL cross sections, with the variations (thin lines) corresponding to the uncertainty in the cross section for the TChiWZ model. The red curves present the 95% CL expected limits with the band (thin lines) covering 68% of the limits in the absence of signal. Results are reported for the $\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2} \widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} < 0$ $M(\ell\ell)$ spectrum reweighting scenario. The range of luminosities of the analysis regions included in the fit is indicated on the plot.
The observed 95% CL exclusion contours (black curves) assuming the NLO+NLL cross sections, with the variations (thin lines) corresponding to the uncertainty in the cross section for the simplified higgsino model. The simplified model includes both neutralino pair and neutralino-chargino production modes. The red curves present the 95% CL expected limits with the band (thin lines) covering 68% of the limits in the absence of signal. The results are reported for the $\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2}\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ $M(\ell\ell)$ spectrum reweighting scenario. The range of luminosities of the analysis regions included in the fit is indicated on the plot.
The observed 95% CL exclusion contours (black curves) assuming the NLO+NLL cross sections, with the variations (thin lines) corresponding to the uncertainty in the cross section for the pMSSM higgsino model. The pMSSM one includes all possible production modes. The red curves present the 95% CL expected limits with the band (thin lines) covering 68% of the limits in the absence of signal. The results are reported for the $\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2}\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ $M(\ell\ell)$ spectrum reweighting scenario. The range of luminosities of the analysis regions included in the fit is indicated on the plot.
The observed 95% CL exclusion contours (black curves) assuming the NLO+NLL cross sections, with the variations (thin lines) corresponding to the uncertainty in the cross section for the T2bff$\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ simplified model. The red curves present the 95% CL expected limits with the band (thin lines) covering 68% of the limits in the absence of signal. The range of luminosities of the analysis regions included in the fit is indicated on the plot.
The observed 95% CL exclusion contours (black curves) assuming the NLO+NLL cross sections, with the variations (thin lines) corresponding to the uncertainty in the cross section for the T2bW simplified model. The red curves present the 95% CL expected limits with the band (thin lines) covering 68% of the limits in the absence of signal. The range of luminosities of the analysis regions included in the fit is indicated on the plot.
A search for long-lived particles decaying into hadrons and at least one muon is presented. The analysis selects events that pass a muon or missing-transverse-momentum trigger and contain a displaced muon track and a displaced vertex. The analyzed dataset of proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV was collected with the ATLAS detector and corresponds to 136 fb$^{-1}$. The search employs dedicated reconstruction techniques that significantly increase the sensitivity to long-lived particle decays that occur in the ATLAS inner detector. Background estimates for Standard Model processes and instrumental effects are extracted from data. The observed event yields are compatible with those expected from background processes. The results are presented as limits at 95% confidence level on model-independent cross sections for processes beyond the Standard Model, and interpreted as exclusion limits in scenarios with pair-production of long-lived top squarks that decay via a small $R$-parity-violating coupling into a quark and a muon. Top squarks with masses up to 1.7 TeV are excluded for a lifetime of 0.1 ns, and masses below 1.3 TeV are excluded for lifetimes between 0.01 ns and 30 ns.
Vertex selection acceptance for the $\tilde{t}$ $R$-hadron benchmark model as a function of the transverse decay distance $r_{DV}$.
Vertex selection acceptance for the $\tilde{t}$ $R$-hadron benchmark model as a function of the transverse decay distance $r_{DV}$.
Vertex selection efficiency for the $\tilde{t}$ $R$-hadron benchmark model as a function of the transverse decay distance $r_{DV}$.
Vertex selection efficiency for the $\tilde{t}$ $R$-hadron benchmark model as a function of the transverse decay distance $r_{DV}$.
Track multiplicity $n_{Tracks}$ for preselected DVs in MET-triggered events with at least one muon passing the full selection. Along with the data shown with black markers, the stacked filled histograms represent the background estimates, and predictions for signal scenarios are overlaid with dashed lines. The errors include statistical and systematic uncertainties and are indicated by hatched bands. The DV full selection requirements, $n_{Tracks} \geq 3$ and $m_{DV} > 20$ GeV are visualized with a black arrow.
Track multiplicity $n_{Tracks}$ for preselected DVs in MET-triggered events with at least one muon passing the full selection. Along with the data shown with black markers, the stacked filled histograms represent the background estimates, and predictions for signal scenarios are overlaid with dashed lines. The errors include statistical and systematic uncertainties and are indicated by hatched bands. The DV full selection requirements, $n_{Tracks} \geq 3$ and $m_{DV} > 20$ GeV are visualized with a black arrow.
Track multiplicity $n_{Tracks}$ for preselected DVs in muon-triggered events with at least one muon passing the full selection. Along with the data shown with black markers, the stacked filled histograms represent the background estimates, and predictions for signal scenarios are overlaid with dashed lines. The errors include statistical and systematic uncertainties and are indicated by hatched bands. The DV full selection requirements, $n_{Tracks} \geq 3$ and $m_{DV} > 20$ GeV are visualized with a black arrow.
Track multiplicity $n_{Tracks}$ for preselected DVs in muon-triggered events with at least one muon passing the full selection. Along with the data shown with black markers, the stacked filled histograms represent the background estimates, and predictions for signal scenarios are overlaid with dashed lines. The errors include statistical and systematic uncertainties and are indicated by hatched bands. The DV full selection requirements, $n_{Tracks} \geq 3$ and $m_{DV} > 20$ GeV are visualized with a black arrow.
Invariant mass $m_{DV}$ for the highest-mass preselected DV with at least three associated tracks in MET-triggered events with at least one muon passing the full selection. Along with the data shown with black markers, the stacked filled histograms represent the background estimates, and predictions for signal scenarios are overlaid with dashed lines. The errors include statistical and systematic uncertainties and are indicated by hatched bands. The DV full selection requirements, $n_{Tracks} \geq 3$ and $m_{DV} > 20$ GeV are visualized with a black arrow.
Invariant mass $m_{DV}$ for the highest-mass preselected DV with at least three associated tracks in MET-triggered events with at least one muon passing the full selection. Along with the data shown with black markers, the stacked filled histograms represent the background estimates, and predictions for signal scenarios are overlaid with dashed lines. The errors include statistical and systematic uncertainties and are indicated by hatched bands. The DV full selection requirements, $n_{Tracks} \geq 3$ and $m_{DV} > 20$ GeV are visualized with a black arrow.
Invariant mass $m_{DV}$ for the highest-mass preselected DV with at least three associated tracks in muon-triggered events with at least one muon passing the full selection. Along with the data shown with black markers, the stacked filled histograms represent the background estimates, and predictions for signal scenarios are overlaid with dashed lines. The errors include statistical and systematic uncertainties and are indicated by hatched bands. The DV full selection requirements, $n_{Tracks} \geq 3$ and $m_{DV} > 20$ GeV are visualized with a black arrow.
Invariant mass $m_{DV}$ for the highest-mass preselected DV with at least three associated tracks in muon-triggered events with at least one muon passing the full selection. Along with the data shown with black markers, the stacked filled histograms represent the background estimates, and predictions for signal scenarios are overlaid with dashed lines. The errors include statistical and systematic uncertainties and are indicated by hatched bands. The DV full selection requirements, $n_{Tracks} \geq 3$ and $m_{DV} > 20$ GeV are visualized with a black arrow.
The observed event yields in the control, validation and signal regions are shown for the MET Trigger selections, along with the predicted background yields. The bottom panel shows the ratio of observed events to the total background yields. The errors represent the total uncertainty of the backgrounds prediction, including the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.
The observed event yields in the control, validation and signal regions are shown for the MET Trigger selections, along with the predicted background yields. The bottom panel shows the ratio of observed events to the total background yields. The errors represent the total uncertainty of the backgrounds prediction, including the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.
The observed event yields in the control, validation and signal regions are shown for the Muon Trigger selections, along with the predicted background yields. The bottom panel shows the ratio of observed events to the total background yields. The errors represent the total uncertainty of the backgrounds prediction, including the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.
The observed event yields in the control, validation and signal regions are shown for the Muon Trigger selections, along with the predicted background yields. The bottom panel shows the ratio of observed events to the total background yields. The errors represent the total uncertainty of the backgrounds prediction, including the statistical and systematic uncertainties added in quadrature.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on m($\tilde{t}$) as a function of $\tau(\tilde{t})$.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on m($\tilde{t}$) as a function of $\tau(\tilde{t})$.
Expected (1 sigma band) exclusion limits at 95% CL on m($\tilde{t}$) as a function of $\tau(\tilde{t})$.
Expected (1 sigma band) exclusion limits at 95% CL on m($\tilde{t}$) as a function of $\tau(\tilde{t})$.
Expected (2 sigma band) exclusion limits at 95% CL on m($\tilde{t}$) as a function of $\tau(\tilde{t})$.
Expected (2 sigma band) exclusion limits at 95% CL on m($\tilde{t}$) as a function of $\tau(\tilde{t})$.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on m($\tilde{t}$) as a function of $\tau(\tilde{t})$.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on m($\tilde{t}$) as a function of $\tau(\tilde{t})$.
Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on m($\tilde{t}$) as a function of $\tau(\tilde{t})$.
Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on m($\tilde{t}$) as a function of $\tau(\tilde{t})$.
Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on m($\tilde{t}$) as a function of $\tau(\tilde{t})$.
Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on m($\tilde{t}$) as a function of $\tau(\tilde{t})$.
Exclusion limits on the production cross section as a function of m($\tilde{t}$) are shown for several values of $\tau(\tilde{t})$ along with the nominal signal production cross section and its theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limits on the production cross section as a function of m($\tilde{t}$) are shown for several values of $\tau(\tilde{t})$ along with the nominal signal production cross section and its theoretical uncertainty.
Parameterized event selection efficiencies for the $E_{T}^{miss}$ Trigger SR. The event-level efficiencies for each SR are extracted for all events passing the acceptance of the corresponding SR.
Parameterized event selection efficiencies for the $E_{T}^{miss}$ Trigger SR. The event-level efficiencies for each SR are extracted for all events passing the acceptance of the corresponding SR.
Parameterized event selection efficiencies for the Muon Trigger SR. The event-level efficiencies for each SR are extracted for all events passing the acceptance of the corresponding SR.
Parameterized event selection efficiencies for the Muon Trigger SR. The event-level efficiencies for each SR are extracted for all events passing the acceptance of the corresponding SR.
Parameterized muon-level reconstruction efficiencies as a function of the muon $p_{T}$ and $d_{0}$. The muon-level efficiencies are extracted using muons passing the muon acceptance criteria.
Parameterized muon-level reconstruction efficiencies as a function of the muon $p_{T}$ and $d_{0}$. The muon-level efficiencies are extracted using muons passing the muon acceptance criteria.
Parameterized vertex-level reconstruction efficiencies as a function of the radial position of the truth vertex. The efficiency is calculated independent of the muons originating from this truth vertex.
Parameterized vertex-level reconstruction efficiencies as a function of the radial position of the truth vertex. The efficiency is calculated independent of the muons originating from this truth vertex.
Parameterized vertex-level reconstruction efficiencies as a function of the radial position of the truth vertex. The efficiency is calculated only for truth vertices which have a muon originating from them which is matched to a reconstructed muon.
Parameterized vertex-level reconstruction efficiencies as a function of the radial position of the truth vertex. The efficiency is calculated only for truth vertices which have a muon originating from them which is matched to a reconstructed muon.
The $p_{T}$ distribution of all muons originating from LLP decays in the samples used to calculate and validate the efficiencies.
The $p_{T}$ distribution of all muons originating from LLP decays in the samples used to calculate and validate the efficiencies.
The invariant mass and multiplicity of selected decay products of all truth vertices used in the calculation and validation of the reconstructed efficiencies.
The invariant mass and multiplicity of selected decay products of all truth vertices used in the calculation and validation of the reconstructed efficiencies.
A search for supersymmetry through the pair production of electroweakinos with mass splittings near the electroweak scale and decaying via on-shell $W$ and $Z$ bosons is presented for a three-lepton final state. The analyzed proton-proton collision data taken at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV were collected between 2015 and 2018 by the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. A search, emulating the recursive jigsaw reconstruction technique with easily reproducible laboratory-frame variables, is performed. The two excesses observed in the 2015-2016 data recursive jigsaw analysis in the low-mass three-lepton phase space are reproduced. Results with the full dataset are in agreement with the Standard Model expectations. They are interpreted to set exclusion limits at 95% confidence level on simplified models of chargino-neutralino pair production for masses up to 345 GeV.
Distributions in SR-low of the data and post-fit background prediction for m<sub>T</sub>. The SR-low event selections are applied for each distribution except for the variable shown, where the selection is indicated by a red arrow. The normalization factor for the WZ background is derived from the background-only estimation described in Section 7. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model is included for comparison. The first (last) bin includes underflow (overflow). The "Top-quark like" category contains the tt̄, Wt, and WW processes while the "Others" category contains backgrounds from triboson production and processes that include a Higgs boson, 3 or more tops, and tops produced in association with W or Z bosons. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background prediction. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Distributions in SR-low of the data and post-fit background prediction for m<sub>T</sub>. The SR-low event selections are applied for each distribution except for the variable shown, where the selection is indicated by a red arrow. The normalization factor for the WZ background is derived from the background-only estimation described in Section 7. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model is included for comparison. The first (last) bin includes underflow (overflow). The "Top-quark like" category contains the tt̄, Wt, and WW processes while the "Others" category contains backgrounds from triboson production and processes that include a Higgs boson, 3 or more tops, and tops produced in association with W or Z bosons. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background prediction. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Distributions in SR-low of the data and post-fit background prediction for H<sup>boost</sup>. The SR-low event selections are applied for each distribution except for the variable shown, where the selection is indicated by a red arrow. The normalization factor for the WZ background is derived from the background-only estimation described in Section 7. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model is included for comparison. The first (last) bin includes underflow (overflow). The "Top-quark like" category contains the tt̄, Wt, and WW processes while the "Others" category contains backgrounds from triboson production and processes that include a Higgs boson, 3 or more tops, and tops produced in association with W or Z bosons. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background prediction. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Distributions in SR-low of the data and post-fit background prediction for H<sup>boost</sup>. The SR-low event selections are applied for each distribution except for the variable shown, where the selection is indicated by a red arrow. The normalization factor for the WZ background is derived from the background-only estimation described in Section 7. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model is included for comparison. The first (last) bin includes underflow (overflow). The "Top-quark like" category contains the tt̄, Wt, and WW processes while the "Others" category contains backgrounds from triboson production and processes that include a Higgs boson, 3 or more tops, and tops produced in association with W or Z bosons. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background prediction. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Distributions in SR-low of the data and post-fit background prediction for m<sub>eff</sub><sup>3ℓ</sup>/H<sup>boost</sup>. The SR-low event selections are applied for each distribution except for the variable shown, where the selection is indicated by a red arrow. The normalization factor for the WZ background is derived from the background-only estimation described in Section 7. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model is included for comparison. The first (last) bin includes underflow (overflow). The "Top-quark like" category contains the tt̄, Wt, and WW processes while the "Others" category contains backgrounds from triboson production and processes that include a Higgs boson, 3 or more tops, and tops produced in association with W or Z bosons. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background prediction. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Distributions in SR-low of the data and post-fit background prediction for m<sub>eff</sub><sup>3ℓ</sup>/H<sup>boost</sup>. The SR-low event selections are applied for each distribution except for the variable shown, where the selection is indicated by a red arrow. The normalization factor for the WZ background is derived from the background-only estimation described in Section 7. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model is included for comparison. The first (last) bin includes underflow (overflow). The "Top-quark like" category contains the tt̄, Wt, and WW processes while the "Others" category contains backgrounds from triboson production and processes that include a Higgs boson, 3 or more tops, and tops produced in association with W or Z bosons. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background prediction. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Distributions in SR-low of the data and post-fit background prediction for p<sub>T</sub><sup>soft</sup>/(p<sub>T</sub><sup>soft</sup> + m<sub>eff</sub><sup>3ℓ</sup>). The SR-low event selections are applied for each distribution except for the variable shown, where the selection is indicated by a red arrow. The normalization factor for the WZ background is derived from the background-only estimation described in Section 7. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model is included for comparison. The first (last) bin includes underflow (overflow). The "Top-quark like" category contains the tt̄, Wt, and WW processes while the "Others" category contains backgrounds from triboson production and processes that include a Higgs boson, 3 or more tops, and tops produced in association with W or Z bosons. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background prediction. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Distributions in SR-low of the data and post-fit background prediction for p<sub>T</sub><sup>soft</sup>/(p<sub>T</sub><sup>soft</sup> + m<sub>eff</sub><sup>3ℓ</sup>). The SR-low event selections are applied for each distribution except for the variable shown, where the selection is indicated by a red arrow. The normalization factor for the WZ background is derived from the background-only estimation described in Section 7. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model is included for comparison. The first (last) bin includes underflow (overflow). The "Top-quark like" category contains the tt̄, Wt, and WW processes while the "Others" category contains backgrounds from triboson production and processes that include a Higgs boson, 3 or more tops, and tops produced in association with W or Z bosons. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background prediction. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Distributions in SR-ISR of the data and post-fit background prediction for m<sub>T</sub>. The SR-ISR event selections are applied for each distribution except for the variable shown, where the selection is indicated by a red arrow. The normalization factor for the WZ background is derived from the background-only estimation described in Section 7. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model is included for comparison. The first (last) bin includes underflow (overflow). The "Top-quark like" category contains the tt̄, Wt, and WW processes while the "Others" category contains backgrounds from triboson production and processes that include a Higgs boson, 3 or more tops, and tops produced in association with W or Z bosons. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background prediction. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Distributions in SR-ISR of the data and post-fit background prediction for m<sub>T</sub>. The SR-ISR event selections are applied for each distribution except for the variable shown, where the selection is indicated by a red arrow. The normalization factor for the WZ background is derived from the background-only estimation described in Section 7. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model is included for comparison. The first (last) bin includes underflow (overflow). The "Top-quark like" category contains the tt̄, Wt, and WW processes while the "Others" category contains backgrounds from triboson production and processes that include a Higgs boson, 3 or more tops, and tops produced in association with W or Z bosons. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background prediction. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Distributions in SR-ISR of the data and post-fit background prediction for R(E<sub>T</sub><sup>miss</sup>,jets). The SR-ISR event selections are applied for each distribution except for the variable shown, where the selection is indicated by a red arrow. The normalization factor for the WZ background is derived from the background-only estimation described in Section 7. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model is included for comparison. The first (last) bin includes underflow (overflow). The "Top-quark like" category contains the tt̄, Wt, and WW processes while the "Others" category contains backgrounds from triboson production and processes that include a Higgs boson, 3 or more tops, and tops produced in association with W or Z bosons. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background prediction. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Distributions in SR-ISR of the data and post-fit background prediction for R(E<sub>T</sub><sup>miss</sup>,jets). The SR-ISR event selections are applied for each distribution except for the variable shown, where the selection is indicated by a red arrow. The normalization factor for the WZ background is derived from the background-only estimation described in Section 7. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model is included for comparison. The first (last) bin includes underflow (overflow). The "Top-quark like" category contains the tt̄, Wt, and WW processes while the "Others" category contains backgrounds from triboson production and processes that include a Higgs boson, 3 or more tops, and tops produced in association with W or Z bosons. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background prediction. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Distributions in SR-ISR of the data and post-fit background prediction for p<sub>T</sub><sup>soft</sup>. The SR-ISR event selections are applied for each distribution except for the variable shown, where the selection is indicated by a red arrow. The normalization factor for the WZ background is derived from the background-only estimation described in Section 7. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model is included for comparison. The first (last) bin includes underflow (overflow). The "Top-quark like" category contains the tt̄, Wt, and WW processes while the "Others" category contains backgrounds from triboson production and processes that include a Higgs boson, 3 or more tops, and tops produced in association with W or Z bosons. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background prediction. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Distributions in SR-ISR of the data and post-fit background prediction for p<sub>T</sub><sup>soft</sup>. The SR-ISR event selections are applied for each distribution except for the variable shown, where the selection is indicated by a red arrow. The normalization factor for the WZ background is derived from the background-only estimation described in Section 7. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model is included for comparison. The first (last) bin includes underflow (overflow). The "Top-quark like" category contains the tt̄, Wt, and WW processes while the "Others" category contains backgrounds from triboson production and processes that include a Higgs boson, 3 or more tops, and tops produced in association with W or Z bosons. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background prediction. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Distributions in SR-ISR of the data and post-fit background prediction for p<sub>T</sub><sup>jets</sup>. The SR-ISR event selections are applied for each distribution except for the variable shown, where the selection is indicated by a red arrow. The normalization factor for the WZ background is derived from the background-only estimation described in Section 7. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model is included for comparison. The first (last) bin includes underflow (overflow). The "Top-quark like" category contains the tt̄, Wt, and WW processes while the "Others" category contains backgrounds from triboson production and processes that include a Higgs boson, 3 or more tops, and tops produced in association with W or Z bosons. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background prediction. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Distributions in SR-ISR of the data and post-fit background prediction for p<sub>T</sub><sup>jets</sup>. The SR-ISR event selections are applied for each distribution except for the variable shown, where the selection is indicated by a red arrow. The normalization factor for the WZ background is derived from the background-only estimation described in Section 7. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model is included for comparison. The first (last) bin includes underflow (overflow). The "Top-quark like" category contains the tt̄, Wt, and WW processes while the "Others" category contains backgrounds from triboson production and processes that include a Higgs boson, 3 or more tops, and tops produced in association with W or Z bosons. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background prediction. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Observed exclusion contour on C1N2 production assuming on-shell $W/Z$ decays as a function of the C1/N2 and N1 masses, and derived from the combined fit of low-mass and ISR regions.
Observed exclusion contour on C1N2 production assuming on-shell $W/Z$ decays as a function of the C1/N2 and N1 masses, and derived from the combined fit of low-mass and ISR regions.
Expected exclusion contour on C1N2 production assuming on-shell $W/Z$ decays as a function of the C1/N2 and N1 masses, and derived from the combined fit of low-mass and ISR regions.
Expected exclusion contour on C1N2 production assuming on-shell $W/Z$ decays as a function of the C1/N2 and N1 masses, and derived from the combined fit of low-mass and ISR regions.
Plus 1$\sigma$ uncertainty, varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty, on the observed exclusion contour on C1N2 production assuming on-shell $W/Z$ decays as a function of the C1/N2 and N1 masses, and derived from the combined fit of low-mass and ISR regions.
Plus 1$\sigma$ uncertainty, varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty, on the observed exclusion contour on C1N2 production assuming on-shell $W/Z$ decays as a function of the C1/N2 and N1 masses, and derived from the combined fit of low-mass and ISR regions.
Minus 1$\sigma$ uncertainty, varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty, on the observed exclusion contour on C1N2 production assuming on-shell $W/Z$ decays as a function of the C1/N2 and N1 masses, and derived from the combined fit of low-mass and ISR regions.
Minus 1$\sigma$ uncertainty, varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty, on the observed exclusion contour on C1N2 production assuming on-shell $W/Z$ decays as a function of the C1/N2 and N1 masses, and derived from the combined fit of low-mass and ISR regions.
Plus 1$\sigma$ uncertainty, due to uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties affecting the signal, on the expected exclusion contour on C1N2 production assuming on-shell $W/Z$ decays as a function of the C1/N2 and N1 masses, and derived from the combined fit of low-mass and ISR regions.
Plus 1$\sigma$ uncertainty, due to uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties affecting the signal, on the expected exclusion contour on C1N2 production assuming on-shell $W/Z$ decays as a function of the C1/N2 and N1 masses, and derived from the combined fit of low-mass and ISR regions.
Minus 1$\sigma$ uncertainty, due to uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties affecting the signal, on the expected exclusion contour on C1N2 production assuming on-shell $W/Z$ decays as a function of the C1/N2 and N1 masses, and derived from the combined fit of low-mass and ISR regions.
Minus 1$\sigma$ uncertainty, due to uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties affecting the signal, on the expected exclusion contour on C1N2 production assuming on-shell $W/Z$ decays as a function of the C1/N2 and N1 masses, and derived from the combined fit of low-mass and ISR regions.
Upper limits on observed wino-bino simplified model signal cross section $\sigma_\text{obs}^\text{95}$.
Upper limits on observed wino-bino simplified model signal cross section $\sigma_\text{obs}^\text{95}$.
Upper limits on expected wino-bino simplified model signal cross section $\sigma_\text{exp}^\text{95}$.
Upper limits on expected wino-bino simplified model signal cross section $\sigma_\text{exp}^\text{95}$.
Signal acceptance in SR-low, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \geq 100$ GeV.
Signal acceptance in SR-low, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \geq 100$ GeV.
Signal efficiency in SR-low, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \geq 100$ GeV.
Signal efficiency in SR-low, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \geq 100$ GeV.
Signal acceptance in SR-ISR, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \geq 100$ GeV.
Signal acceptance in SR-ISR, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \geq 100$ GeV.
Signal efficiency in SR-ISR, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \geq 100$ GeV.
Signal efficiency in SR-ISR, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \geq 100$ GeV.
Signal acceptance in SR-low, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} < 100$ GeV.
Signal acceptance in SR-low, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} < 100$ GeV.
Signal efficiency in SR-low, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} < 100$ GeV.
Signal efficiency in SR-low, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} < 100$ GeV.
Signal acceptance in SR-ISR, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} < 100$ GeV.
Signal acceptance in SR-ISR, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} < 100$ GeV.
Signal efficiency in SR-ISR, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} < 100$ GeV.
Signal efficiency in SR-ISR, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} < 100$ GeV.
The observed and expected yields after the background-only fit in the SRs. The normalization factors of the $WZ$ sample for the low-mass and ISR regions are different and are treated separately in the combined fit. \The "Top-quark like" category contains the tt̄, Wt, and WW processes while the "Others" category contains backgrounds from triboson production and processes that include a Higgs boson, 3 or more tops, and tops produced in association with W or Z bosons. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are presented. The individual uncertainties can be correlated and do not necessarily add in quadrature to equal the total background uncertainty.
The observed and expected yields after the background-only fit in the SRs. The normalization factors of the $WZ$ sample for the low-mass and ISR regions are different and are treated separately in the combined fit. \The "Top-quark like" category contains the tt̄, Wt, and WW processes while the "Others" category contains backgrounds from triboson production and processes that include a Higgs boson, 3 or more tops, and tops produced in association with W or Z bosons. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are presented. The individual uncertainties can be correlated and do not necessarily add in quadrature to equal the total background uncertainty.
Summary of the expected background and data yields in $\text{SR-low}$ and $\text{SR-ISR}$. The second and third columns show the data and total expected background with systematic uncertainties. The fourth column gives the model-independent upper limits at 95\% CL on the visible cross section ($\sigma_\text{vis}$). The fifth and sixth columns give the visible number of observed ($S^{95}_\text{obs}$) and expected ($S^{95}_\text{exp}$) events of a generic beyond-the-SM process, where uncertainties on $S^{95}_\text{exp}$ reflect the $\pm 1 \sigma$ uncertainties on the background estimation. The last column shows the discovery $p$-value and Gaussian significance $Z$ assuming no signal.
Summary of the expected background and data yields in $\text{SR-low}$ and $\text{SR-ISR}$. The second and third columns show the data and total expected background with systematic uncertainties. The fourth column gives the model-independent upper limits at 95\% CL on the visible cross section ($\sigma_\text{vis}$). The fifth and sixth columns give the visible number of observed ($S^{95}_\text{obs}$) and expected ($S^{95}_\text{exp}$) events of a generic beyond-the-SM process, where uncertainties on $S^{95}_\text{exp}$ reflect the $\pm 1 \sigma$ uncertainties on the background estimation. The last column shows the discovery $p$-value and Gaussian significance $Z$ assuming no signal.
Upper limits on observed (expected) wino-bino simplified model signal cross section $\sigma_\text{obs(exp)}^\text{95}$.
Upper limits on observed (expected) wino-bino simplified model signal cross section $\sigma_\text{obs(exp)}^\text{95}$.
Full list of event selections and MC generator-weighted yields and in $\text{SR-ISR}$ for the main $WZ$ background and a representative $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ signal point of mass 200 GeV and mass splitting $\Delta m = 100$ GeV normalized to 139 fb$^{-1}$. 40000 events were generated.
Full list of event selections and MC generator-weighted yields and in $\text{SR-ISR}$ for the main $WZ$ background and a representative $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ signal point of mass 200 GeV and mass splitting $\Delta m = 100$ GeV normalized to 139 fb$^{-1}$. 40000 events were generated.
Full list of event selections and MC generator-weighted yields and in $\text{SR-low}$ for the main $WZ$ background and a representative $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ signal point of mass 200 GeV and mass splitting $\Delta m = 100$ GeV normalized to 139 fb$^{-1}$. 40000 events were generated.
Full list of event selections and MC generator-weighted yields and in $\text{SR-low}$ for the main $WZ$ background and a representative $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ signal point of mass 200 GeV and mass splitting $\Delta m = 100$ GeV normalized to 139 fb$^{-1}$. 40000 events were generated.
This paper presents results of searches for electroweak production of supersymmetric particles in models with compressed mass spectra. The searches use 139 fb$^{-1}$ of $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV proton-proton collision data collected by the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider. Events with missing transverse momentum and two same-flavor, oppositely charged, low transverse momentum leptons are selected, and are further categorized by the presence of hadronic activity from initial-state radiation or a topology compatible with vector-boson fusion processes. The data are found to be consistent with predictions from the Standard Model. The results are interpreted using simplified models of $R$-parity-conserving supersymmetry in which the lightest supersymmetric partner is a neutralino with a mass similar to the lightest chargino, the second-to-lightest neutralino or the slepton. Lower limits on the masses of charginos in different simplified models range from 193 GeV to 240 GeV for moderate mass splittings, and extend down to mass splittings of 1.5 GeV to 2.4 GeV at the LEP chargino bounds (92.4 GeV). Similar lower limits on degenerate light-flavor sleptons extend up to masses of 251 GeV and down to mass splittings of 550 MeV. Constraints on vector-boson fusion production of electroweak SUSY states are also presented.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct higgsino production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct higgsino production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct higgsino production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct higgsino production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct higgsino production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct higgsino production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct higgsino production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct higgsino production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct higgsino production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct higgsino production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})<0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})<0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})<0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})<0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})<0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})<0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})<0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})<0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})<0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})<0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})>0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})>0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})>0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})>0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})>0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})>0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})>0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})>0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})>0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})>0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of VBF wino-bino production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of VBF wino-bino production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of VBF wino-bino production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of VBF wino-bino production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of VBF wino-bino production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct wino-bino production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct slepton production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct slepton production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct slepton production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct slepton production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct slepton production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct slepton production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct slepton production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct slepton production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct slepton production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct slepton production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH smuon production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH smuon production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct smuon production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct smuon production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct smuon production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH smuon production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH smuon production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct smuon production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct smuon production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct smuon production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH smuon production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH smuon production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct selectron production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct selectron production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct selectron production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH smuon production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH smuon production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct selectron production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct selectron production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct selectron production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH selectron production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH selectron production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH slepton production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH slepton production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH slepton production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH selectron production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH selectron production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH slepton production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH slepton production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH slepton production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH selectron production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH selectron production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH slepton production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH slepton production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH slepton production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH selectron production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH selectron production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH slepton production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH slepton production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH slepton production.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH smuon production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH smuon production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH smuon production.
Efficiency for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH smuon production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH smuon production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH smuon production.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH smuon production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH smuon production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH smuon production.
Efficiency for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH smuon production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH smuon production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH smuon production.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH selectron production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH selectron production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH selectron production.
Efficiency for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH selectron production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH selectron production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct LH selectron production.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH selectron production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH selectron production.
Expected 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH selectron production.
Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH selectron production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH selectron production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion sensitivity for simplified models of direct RH selectron production.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-3}$) for the slepton process in the SR-S region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-3}$) for the slepton process in the SR-S region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the slepton process in the SR-S region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Efficiency for the slepton process in the SR-S region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-3}$) for the slepton process in the SR-S-high region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-3}$) for the slepton process in the SR-S-high region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the slepton process in the SR-S-high region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Efficiency for the slepton process in the SR-S-high region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-3}$) for the slepton process in the SR-S-low region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-3}$) for the slepton process in the SR-S-low region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the slepton process in the SR-S-low region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Efficiency for the slepton process in the SR-S-low region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-med region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m higgsino process in the SR-E-1l1T region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [0.5,60] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-3}$) for the slepton process in the SR-S region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-3}$) for the slepton process in the SR-S region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-3}$) for the slepton process in the SR-S region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the slepton process in the SR-S region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Efficiency for the slepton process in the SR-S region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Efficiency for the slepton process in the SR-S region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-3}$) for the slepton process in the SR-S-high region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-3}$) for the slepton process in the SR-S-high region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-3}$) for the slepton process in the SR-S-high region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the slepton process in the SR-S-high region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Efficiency for the slepton process in the SR-S-high region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Efficiency for the slepton process in the SR-S-high region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-3}$) for the slepton process in the SR-S-low region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-3}$) for the slepton process in the SR-S-low region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-3}$) for the slepton process in the SR-S-low region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the slepton process in the SR-S-low region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Efficiency for the slepton process in the SR-S-low region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Efficiency for the slepton process in the SR-S-low region. Truth stransverse mass is constrained to be within the range [100,140] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the C1C1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2N1 VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for wino-bino scenarios, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})>0$.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for wino-bino scenarios, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})>0$.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for wino-bino scenarios, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})<0$.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for wino-bino scenarios, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})<0$.
Efficiency for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1p VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for higgsino scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for higgsino scenarios.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for higgsino scenarios, assuming VBF production..
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for higgsino scenarios, assuming VBF production..
Efficiency for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-high region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct slepton scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct slepton scenarios.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct LH slepton scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct LH slepton scenarios.
Efficiency for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF-low region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct RH slepton scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct RH slepton scenarios.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Acceptance (note the $z$-axis is in units of $10^{-4}$) for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct smuon scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct smuon scenarios.
Efficiency for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Efficiency for the N2C1m VBF higgsino process in the SR-VBF region. Truth dilepton invariant mass is constrained to be within the range [1,40] GeV.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct LH smuon scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct LH smuon scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for wino-bino scenarios, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})>0$.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for wino-bino scenarios, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})>0$.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for wino-bino scenarios, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})>0$.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct RH smuon scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct RH smuon scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for wino-bino scenarios, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})<0$.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for wino-bino scenarios, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})<0$.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for wino-bino scenarios, assuming $m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}) \times m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})<0$.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct selectron scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct selectron scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for higgsino scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for higgsino scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for higgsino scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct LH selectron scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct LH selectron scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for higgsino scenarios, assuming VBF production..
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for higgsino scenarios, assuming VBF production..
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for higgsino scenarios, assuming VBF production..
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct RH selectron scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct RH selectron scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct slepton scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct slepton scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct slepton scenarios.
Number of signal events in SR-E-1L1T for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-E-1L1T for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct LH slepton scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct LH slepton scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct LH slepton scenarios.
Number of signal events in SR-E-high for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-E-high for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct RH slepton scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct RH slepton scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct RH slepton scenarios.
Number of signal events in SR-E-low for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-E-low for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct smuon scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct smuon scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct smuon scenarios.
Number of signal events in SR-E-med for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-E-med for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct LH smuon scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct LH smuon scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct LH smuon scenarios.
Number of signal events in SR-S-high for the (m($\tilde{\ell}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (150 GeV, 140 GeV) Slepton signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-S-high for the (m($\tilde{\ell}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (150 GeV, 140 GeV) Slepton signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct RH smuon scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct RH smuon scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct RH smuon scenarios.
Number of signal events in SR-S-low for the (m($\tilde{\ell}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (150 GeV, 140 GeV) Slepton signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-S-low for the (m($\tilde{\ell}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (150 GeV, 140 GeV) Slepton signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct selectron scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct selectron scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct selectron scenarios.
Number of signal events in SR-VBF for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (100 GeV, 95 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-VBF for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (100 GeV, 95 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct LH selectron scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct LH selectron scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct LH selectron scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct RH selectron scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct RH selectron scenarios.
Observed and Expected upper cross-section limits for direct RH selectron scenarios.
Number of signal events in SR-E-1L1T for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-E-1L1T for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-E-1L1T for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-E-high for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-E-high for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-E-high for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-E-low for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-E-low for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-E-low for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-E-med for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-E-med for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-E-med for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (155 GeV, 150 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-S-high for the (m($\tilde{\ell}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (150 GeV, 140 GeV) Slepton signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-S-high for the (m($\tilde{\ell}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (150 GeV, 140 GeV) Slepton signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-S-high for the (m($\tilde{\ell}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (150 GeV, 140 GeV) Slepton signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-S-low for the (m($\tilde{\ell}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (150 GeV, 140 GeV) Slepton signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-S-low for the (m($\tilde{\ell}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (150 GeV, 140 GeV) Slepton signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-S-low for the (m($\tilde{\ell}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (150 GeV, 140 GeV) Slepton signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-VBF for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (100 GeV, 95 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-VBF for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (100 GeV, 95 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
Number of signal events in SR-VBF for the (m($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}$),m($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$)) = (100 GeV, 95 GeV) Higgsino signal model at different stages of selection before and after weighting events to correspond to 140/fb.
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 and examples on the query string syntax can be found in the Elasticsearch 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.