This paper presents a new $\tau$-lepton reconstruction and identification procedure at the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider, which leads to significantly improved performance in the case of physics processes where a highly boosted pair of $\tau$-leptons is produced and one $\tau$-lepton decays into a muon and two neutrinos ($\tau_{\mu}$), and the other decays into hadrons and one neutrino ($\tau_{had}$). By removing the muon information from the signals used for reconstruction and identification of the $\tau_{had}$ candidate in the boosted pair, the efficiency is raised to the level expected for an isolated $\tau_{had}$. The new procedure is validated by selecting a sample of highly boosted $Z\rightarrow\tau_{\mu}\tau_{had}$ candidates from the data sample of $140$${fb}^{-1}$ of proton-proton collisions at $13$ TeV recorded with the ATLAS detector. Good agreement is found between data and simulation predictions in both the $Z\rightarrow\tau_{\mu}\tau_{had}$ signal region and in a background validation region. The results presented in this paper demonstrate the effectiveness of the $\tau_{had}$ reconstruction with muon removal in enhancing the signal sensitivity of the boosted $\tau_{\mu}\tau_{had}$ channel at the ATLAS detector.
The distribution of the TauID jet RNN score for $\tau_\mathrm{had}^{\mu\mkern-10mu\backslash}$ in the SR. `$Z(\rightarrow\tau\tau)$+jets' represents the contributions from the signal process. `Top' represents the predicted contributions from the $t\bar{t}$, single-top-quark, and $tW$ processes. `Diboson' indicates the contributions from $WW$, $WZ$, and $ZZ$ processes. `Other' includes the contributions from the $Z(\rightarrow\ell\ell)$+jets, $W$+jets, and Higgs boson processes. The uncertainties shown include both statistical and systematic sources.
The distribution of the TauID jet RNN score for $\tau_\mathrm{had}^{\mu\mkern-10mu\backslash}$ in the VR. `$Z(\rightarrow\tau\tau)$+jets' represents the contributions from the signal process. `Top' represents the predicted contributions from the $t\bar{t}$, single-top-quark, and $tW$ processes. `Diboson' indicates the contributions from $WW$, $WZ$, and $ZZ$ processes. `Other' includes the contributions from the $Z(\rightarrow\ell\ell)$+jets, $W$+jets, and Higgs boson processes. The uncertainties shown include both statistical and systematic sources.
The distribution of the $p_\mathrm{T}{}_{\mu\mathrm{-had}}^\mathrm{col}$ in the SR. `$Z(\rightarrow\tau\tau)+\text{jets}$' represents the contributions from the signal process. `Diboson' indicates the contributions from $WW$, $WZ$, and $ZZ$ processes. `Top' represents the predicted contributions from the $t\bar{t}$, single-top-quark, and $tW$ processes. `Other' includes the contributions from the $Z(\rightarrow\ell\ell)$+jets, $W$+jets, and Higgs boson processes. The uncertainties shown include both statistical and systematic sources.
A measurement of off-shell Higgs boson production in the $H^*\to ZZ\to 4\ell$ decay channel is presented. The measurement uses 140 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV collected by the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider and supersedes the previous result in this decay channel using the same dataset. The data analysis is performed using a neural simulation-based inference method, which builds per-event likelihood ratios using neural networks. The observed (expected) off-shell Higgs boson production signal strength in the $ZZ\to 4\ell$ decay channel at 68% CL is $0.87^{+0.75}_{-0.54}$ ($1.00^{+1.04}_{-0.95}$). The evidence for off-shell Higgs boson production using the $ZZ\to 4\ell$ decay channel has an observed (expected) significance of $2.5\sigma$ ($1.3\sigma$). The expected result represents a significant improvement relative to that of the previous analysis of the same dataset, which obtained an expected significance of $0.5\sigma$. When combined with the most recent ATLAS measurement in the $ZZ\to 2\ell 2\nu$ decay channel, the evidence for off-shell Higgs boson production has an observed (expected) significance of $3.7\sigma$ ($2.4\sigma$). The off-shell measurements are combined with the measurement of on-shell Higgs boson production to obtain constraints on the Higgs boson total width. The observed (expected) value of the Higgs boson width at 68% CL is $4.3^{+2.7}_{-1.9}$ ($4.1^{+3.5}_{-3.4}$) MeV.
Values of the test statistic $t_{\mu_{\mathrm{off-shell}}}$ assuming a single parameter of interest $\mu_{\mathrm{off-shell}}$ obtained with an Asimov dataset and with data in the $H^*\rightarrow ZZ\rightarrow 4\ell$ decay channel. The values from the histogram-based analysis (Phys. Lett. B 846 (2023) 138223) are added for comparison. The 68% and 95% confidence intervals obtained from the Neyman construction are also added.
Values of the test statistic $t_{\mu_{\mathrm{off-shell}}}$ assuming a single parameter of interest $\mu_{\mathrm{off-shell}}$ obtained with an Asimov dataset and with data in the $H^*\rightarrow ZZ\rightarrow 4\ell$ decay channel. The values with all nuisance parameters fixed at their best-fit values (stat-only) are added for comparison. The 68% and 95% confidence intervals obtained from the Neyman construction are also added.
Values of the test statistic $t_{\mu_{\mathrm{off-shell}}}$ assuming a single parameter of interest $\mu_{\mathrm{off-shell}}$ obtained with an Asimov dataset and with data when combining the $H^*\rightarrow ZZ\rightarrow 4\ell$ and $H^*\rightarrow ZZ\rightarrow 2\ell 2\nu$ decay channels. The values with all nuisance parameters fixed at their best-fit values (stat-only) are added for comparison. The 68% and 95% confidence intervals obtained from the Neyman construction are also added.
A search for decays of the Higgs boson into a $Z$ boson and a light resonance, with a mass of 0.5-3.5 GeV, is performed using the full 140 fb$^{-1}$ dataset of 13 TeV proton-proton collisions recorded by the ATLAS detector during Run~2 of the LHC. Leptonic decays of the $Z$ boson and hadronic decays of the light resonance are considered. The resonance can be interpreted as a $J/\psi$ or $\eta_c$ meson, an axion-like particle, or a light pseudoscalar in two-Higgs-doublet models. Due to its low mass, it would be produced with high boost and reconstructed as a single small-radius jet of hadrons. A neural network is used to correct the Monte Carlo simulation of the background in a data-driven way. Two additional neural networks are used to distinguish signal from background. A binned profile-likelihood fit is performed on the final-state invariant mass distribution. No significant excess of events relative to the expected background is observed, and upper limits at 95% confidence level are set on the Higgs boson's branching fraction to a $Z$ boson and a light resonance. The exclusion limit is 10% for the lower masses, and increases for higher masses. Upper limits on the effective coupling $C^\text{eff}_{ZH}/\Lambda$ of an axion-like particle to a Higgs boson and $Z$ boson are also set at 95% confidence level, and range from 0.9 to 2 TeV$^{-1}$.
The angularity, for data, background (pre- and post-reweighting) and three $H\rightarrow Za$ signal hypotheses (for $a\rightarrow q\bar{q}/gg$ inclusively). Events are required to pass the complete event selection but not the classification NN requirement. The background normalization is set equal to that of the data for events passing the preselection and being in the $m_{\ell\ell j}$ 100-180 GeV region. The signal normalization assumes the SM Higgs boson inclusive production cross-section, $\mathcal{B}(H\to Za)=100\%$, and it is scaled up by a factor of 100. The error bars (hatched regions) represent the data (MC) sample's statistical uncertainty in the histograms and the ratio plots. Vertical arrows indicate data points that fall outside the displayed $y$-axis range.
The modified energy correlation function, for data, background (pre- and post-reweighting) and three $H\rightarrow Za$ signal hypotheses (for $a\rightarrow q\bar{q}/gg$ inclusively). Events are required to pass the complete event selection but not the classification NN requirement. The background normalization is set equal to that of the data for events passing the preselection and being in the $m_{\ell\ell j}$ 100-180 GeV region. The signal normalization assumes the SM Higgs boson inclusive production cross-section, $\mathcal{B}(H\to Za)=100\%$, and it is scaled up by a factor of 100. The error bars (hatched regions) represent the data (MC) sample's statistical uncertainty in the histograms and the ratio plots. Vertical arrows indicate data points that fall outside the displayed $y$-axis range.
$Z$ boson transverse momentum, for data, background (pre- and post-reweighting) and three $H\rightarrow Za$ signal hypotheses (for $a\rightarrow q\bar{q}/gg$ inclusively). Events are required to pass the complete event selection but not the classification NN requirement. The background normalization is set equal to that of the data for events passing the preselection and being in the $m_{\ell\ell j}$ 100-180 GeV region. The signal normalization assumes the SM Higgs boson inclusive production cross-section, $\mathcal{B}(H\to Za)=100\%$, and it is scaled up by a factor of 100. The error bars (hatched regions) represent the data (MC) sample's statistical uncertainty in the histograms and the ratio plots. Vertical arrows indicate data points that fall outside the displayed $y$-axis range.
Top-quark pair production is observed in lead-lead (Pb+Pb) collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=5.02$ TeV at the Large Hadron Collider with the ATLAS detector. The data sample was recorded in 2015 and 2018, amounting to an integrated luminosity of 1.9 nb$^{-1}$. Events with exactly one electron and one muon and at least two jets are selected. Top-quark pair production is measured with an observed (expected) significance of 5.0 (4.1) standard deviations. The measured top-quark pair production cross-section is $\sigma_{t\bar{t}} = 3.6\;^{+1.0}_{-0.9}\;\mathrm{(stat.)}\;^{+0.8}_{-0.5}\;\mathrm{(syst.)} ~\mathrm{\mu b}$, with a total relative uncertainty of 31%, and is consistent with theoretical predictions using a range of different nuclear parton distribution functions. The observation of this process consolidates the evidence of the existence of all quark flavors in the pre-equilibrium stage of the quark-gluon plasma at very high energy densities, similar to the conditions present in the early universe.
The figure shows the post-fit distribution of events as a function of the dilepton invariant mass ($m_{e\mu}$), in lead-lead (Pb+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 5.02$ TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 1.9 nb$^{-1}$. The data correspond to the SR1 (Signal Region 1 (SR\(_1\)):} Events with exactly one muon and one oppositely charged electron, a dilepton invariant mass \( m_{e\mu} \geq 30 \, \mathrm{GeV} \), at least two jets with \( p_T \geq 35 \, \mathrm{GeV} \), and a dilepton transverse momentum \( p_T^{e\mu} > 40 \, \mathrm{GeV} \). This region is expected to be signal-dominated) channel in a pre-fit configuration. The stacked histograms represent different processes contributing to the event yield.
The figure shows the post-fit distribution of events as a function of the dilepton invariant mass ($m_{e\mu}$), in lead-lead (Pb+Pb) collisions at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 5.02$ TeV, with an integrated luminosity of 1.9 nb$^{-1}$. The data correspond to the SR2 (Signal Region 2 (SR\(_2\)):} Events meeting the same criteria as SR\(_1\), but with a dilepton transverse momentum \( p_T^{e\mu} \leq 40 \, \mathrm{GeV} \). This region includes events with a lower \( p_T^{e\mu} \) and has a larger background contribution) channel in a pre-fit configuration. The stacked histograms represent different processes contributing to the event yield.
The impact of systematic uncertainties on the fitted signal-strength parameter $\hat{\mu}$ for the combined fit of all channels. Only the 10 most significant systematic uncertainties are shown and listed in decreasing order of their impact on $\mu$ on the $y$-axis. The empty (filled) blue/cyan boxes correspond to the pre-fit (post-fit) impact on $\mu$, referring to the upper $x$-axis. The impact of each systematic uncertainty, $\Delta \mu$, is calculated by comparing the nominal best-fit value of $\mu$ with the result of the fit when fixing the corresponding nuisance parameter $\theta$ to its best-fit value $\hat{\theta}$ shifted by its pre-fit (post-fit) uncertainties $\hat{\theta} \pm \Delta \theta(\hat{\theta} \pm \Delta \hat{\theta})$. The black points, which refer to the lower $x$-axis, show the pulls of the fitted nuisance parameters, i.e., the deviations of the fitted parameters $\hat{\theta}$ from their nominal values $\theta_0$, normalized to their nominal uncertainties $\Delta \theta$. The black lines show the post-fit uncertainties of the nuisance parameters, relative to their nominal uncertainties, which are indicated by the dashed lines.
The $p_{\rm T}$-differential cross section of $\omega$ meson production in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV at midrapidity ($|y|<0.5$) was measured with the ALICE detector at the LHC, covering an unprecedented transverse-momentum range of $1.6 < p_{\rm T} <50$ GeV/$c$. The meson is reconstructed via the $\omega\rightarrow\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$ decay channel. The results are compared with various theoretical calculations: PYTHIA8.2 with the Monash 2013 tune overestimates the data by up to 50%, whereas good agreement is observed with Next-to-Leading Order (NLO) calculations incorporating $\omega$ fragmentation using a broken SU(3) model. The $\omega/\pi^0$ ratio is presented and compared with theoretical calculations and the available measurements at lower collision energies. The presented data triples the $p_{\rm T}$ ranges of previously available measurements. A constant ratio of $C^{\omega/\pi^0}=0.578\pm0.006~\text{(stat.)}\pm 0.013~\text{(syst.)}$ is found above a transverse momentum of 4 GeV/$c$, which is in agreement with previous findings at lower collision energies within the systematic and statistical uncertainties.
Invariant differential cross section of OMEGA mesons produced in inelastic pp collisions at center-of-mass energy 13 TeV, the uncertainty of sigma_{MB} of 1.58% is not included in the systematic error.
The measured ratio of cross sections for inclusive OMEGA to PI0 production at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV.
The first measurements of proton emission accompanied by neutron emission in the electromagnetic dissociation (EMD) of $^{208}$Pb nuclei in the ALICE experiment at the LHC are presented. The EMD protons and neutrons emitted at very forward rapidities are detected by the proton and neutron Zero Degree Calorimeters of the ALICE experiment. The emission cross sections of zero, one, two, and three protons accompanied by at least one neutron were measured in ultraperipheral $^{208}$Pb-$^{208}$Pb collisions at a center-of-mass energy per nucleon pair $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=5.02$~TeV. These 0p, 1p, 2p, and 3p cross sections are described by the RELDIS model, and according to this model, they are associated with the production of various isotopes of Pb, Tl, Hg, and Au in the EMD of $^{208}$Pb. The cross sections of the emission of a single proton accompanied by the emission of one, two, or three neutrons in EMD were also measured. The data are significantly overestimated by the RELDIS model, which predicts that the (1p,1n), (1p,2n), and (1p,3n) cross sections are very similar to the cross sections for the production of the thallium isotopes $^{206,205,204}$Tl.
Measured cross sections of the emission of a given number of protons k accompanied by at least one neutron i in UPC of Pb nuclei.
Measured cross sections of the emission of a given number of neutrons i accompanied by a single proton in UPC of Pb nuclei.
This article presents a search for a heavy charged Higgs boson produced in association with a top quark and a bottom quark, and decaying into a $W$ boson and a $125$ GeV Higgs boson $h$. The search is performed in final states with one charged lepton, missing transverse momentum, and jets using proton-proton collision data at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV recorded with the ATLAS detector during Run 2 of the LHC at CERN. This data set corresponds to a total integrated luminosity of 140 fb$^{-1}$. The search is conducted by examining the reconstructed invariant mass distribution of the $Wh$ candidates for evidence of a localised excess in the charged Higgs boson mass range from $250$ GeV to $3$ TeV. No significant excess is observed and 95% confidence-level upper limits between $2.8$ pb and $1.2$ fb are placed on the production cross-section times branching ratio for charged Higgs bosons decaying into $Wh$.
Upper limit at the 95% CL on the product of the cross-section for the $pp \rightarrow tb H^{\pm}$ process and the branching ratio $B(W^{\pm} \times B (h \rightarrow b \bar{b} ))$ from the combined fit to all signal and control regions of the resolved analysis.
Upper limit at the 95% CL on the product of the cross-section for the $pp \rightarrow tb H^{\pm}$ process and the branching ratio $B(W^{\pm} \times B (h \rightarrow b \bar{b} ))$ from the combined fit to all signal and control regions of the merged analysis.
Product of acceptance and efficiency for pp->tbH(->Wh) as function of the charged Higgs boson mass for the resolved qqbb low-purity signal region.
The ALICE Collaboration presents a new suite of jet substructure measurements in Pb-Pb and pp collisions at a center-of-mass energy per nucleon pair $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV. These measurements provide access to the internal structure of jets via the momentum and angle of their constituents, probing how the quark-gluon plasma modifies jets, an effect known as jet quenching. Jet grooming additionally removes soft wide-angle radiation to enhance perturbative accuracy and reduce experimental uncertainties. We report the groomed and ungroomed jet mass $m_\mathrm{jet}$ and jet angularities $\lambda_\alpha^\kappa$ using $\kappa=1$ and $\alpha>0$. Charged-particle jets are reconstructed at midrapidity using the anti-$k_\mathrm{T}$ algorithm with resolution parameter $R = 0.2$. A narrowing of the jet mass and angularity distributions in Pb-Pb collisions with respect to pp is observed and is enhanced for groomed results, confirming modification of the jet core. By using consistent jet definitions and kinematic cuts between the mass and angularities for the first time, previous inconsistencies in the interpretation of quenching measurements are resolved, rectifying a hurdle for understanding how jet quenching arises from first principles and highlighting the importance of a well-controlled baseline. These results are compared with a variety of theoretical models of jet quenching, providing constraints on jet energy-loss mechanisms in the quark-gluon plasma.
Jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha = 1$. $40<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<60$. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).
Jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha = 1.5$. $40<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<60$ GeV/$c$. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).
Jet angularity $\lambda_{\alpha}$ for $\alpha = 2$. $40<p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{ch jet}}<60$ GeV/$c$. For the "trkeff" and "generator" systematic uncertainty sources, the signed systematic uncertainty breakdowns ($\pm$ vs. $\mp$), denote correlation across bins (both within this table, and across tables). For the remaining sources ("unfolding", "random_mass") no correlation information is specified ($\pm$ is always used).
The paper presents a search for supersymmetric particles produced in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV and decaying into final states with missing transverse momentum and jets originating from charm quarks. The data were taken with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN from 2015 to 2018 and correspond to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. No significant excess of events over the expected Standard Model background expectation is observed in optimized signal regions, and limits are set on the production cross-sections of the supersymmetric particles. Pair production of charm squarks or top squarks, each decaying into a charm quark and the lightest supersymmetric particle $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$, is excluded at 95% confidence level for squarks with masses up to 900 GeV for scenarios where the mass of $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ is below 50 GeV. Additionally, the production of leptoquarks with masses up to 900 GeV is excluded for the scenario where up-type leptoquarks decay into a charm quark and a neutrino. Model-independent limits on cross-sections and event yields for processes beyond the Standard Model are also reported.
Summary of material in this HEPData record. <br/><br/> Truth Code snippets, SLHA files, Madgraph process cards and UFO files for the leptoquark models are available under "Additional Resources" (purple button on the left). <br/><br/> <b>Contours:</b> <ul> SUSY exclusion limits (best-expected SR combination) <ul> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour1">Expected</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour3">+1$\sigma$</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour2">-1$\sigma$</a> <br/> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour4">Observed</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour5">+1$\sigma$</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour6">-1$\sigma$</a> <br/> </ul> SUSY exclusion limits (best-expected SR combination) as a function of $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ <ul> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour7">Expected</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour9">+1$\sigma$</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour8">-1$\sigma$</a> <br/> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour10">Observed</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour11">+1$\sigma$</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour12">-1$\sigma$</a> <br/> </ul> SUSY exclusion limits (SR-HM1) <ul> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour15">Expected</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour14">+1$\sigma$</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour13">-1$\sigma$</a> <br/> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour18">Observed</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour16">+1$\sigma$</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour17">-1$\sigma$</a> <br/> </ul> SUSY exclusion limits (SR-HM2) <ul> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour21">Expected</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour20">+1$\sigma$</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour19">-1$\sigma$</a> <br/> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour24">Observed</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour22">+1$\sigma$</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour23">-1$\sigma$</a> <br/> </ul> SUSY exclusion limits (SR-HM3) <ul> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour27">Expected</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour26">+1$\sigma$</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour25">-1$\sigma$</a> <br/> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour30">Observed</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour28">+1$\sigma$</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour29">-1$\sigma$</a> <br/> </ul> SUSY exclusion limits (SR-Comp1) <ul> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour33">Expected</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour32">+1$\sigma$</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour31">-1$\sigma$</a> <br/> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour36">Observed</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour34">+1$\sigma$</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour35">-1$\sigma$</a> <br/> </ul> SUSY exclusion limits (SR-Comp2) <ul> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour39">Expected</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour38">+1$\sigma$</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour37">-1$\sigma$</a> <br/> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour42">Observed</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour40">+1$\sigma$</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour41">-1$\sigma$</a> <br/> </ul> SUSY exclusion limits (SR-Comp3) <ul> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour45">Expected</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour44">+1$\sigma$</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour43">-1$\sigma$</a> <br/> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour48">Observed</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour46">+1$\sigma$</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour47">-1$\sigma$</a> <br/> </ul> SUSY exclusion limits (SR-Comp-1c) <ul> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour50">Expected</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour49">-1$\sigma$</a> <br/> </ul> SUSY exclusion limits (scan over branching fraction for $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)=1$ GeV) <ul> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour51">Expected</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour53">+1$\sigma$</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour52">-1$\sigma$</a> <br/> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour54">Observed</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour55">+1$\sigma$</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour56">-1$\sigma$</a> <br/> </ul> SUSY exclusion limits (scan over branching fraction for $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)=200$ GeV) <ul> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour57">Expected</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour59">+1$\sigma$</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour58">-1$\sigma$</a> <br/> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour60">Observed</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour61">+1$\sigma$</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour62">-1$\sigma$</a> <br/> </ul> $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{21}$ exclusion limits <ul> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour65">Expected</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour64">+1$\sigma$</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour63">-1$\sigma$</a> <br/> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour68">Observed</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour66">+1$\sigma$</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour67">-1$\sigma$</a> <br/> </ul> $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{22}$ exclusion limits <ul> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour71">Expected</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour70">+1$\sigma$</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour69">-1$\sigma$</a> <br/> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour74">Observed</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour72">+1$\sigma$</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Contour73">-1$\sigma$</a> <br/> </ul> </ul> <b>Cross-section upper limits:</b> <ul> SUSY signals (best-expected SR combination): <a href="155678?version=1&table=Cross-sectionupperlimit1">Observed</a> <br/> $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{21}$ (combined High-Mass SRs): <a href="155678?version=1&table=Cross-sectionupperlimit2">Observed</a> <br/> $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{22}$ (combined High-Mass SRs): <a href="155678?version=1&table=Cross-sectionupperlimit3">Observed</a> <br/> $U(1)$ pair (min) (combined High-Mass SRs): <a href="155678?version=1&table=Cross-sectionupperlimit6">Expected</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Cross-sectionupperlimit5">+1$\sigma$</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Cross-sectionupperlimit4">-1$\sigma$</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Cross-sectionupperlimit7">Observed</a> <br/> $U(1)$ pair (YM) (combined High-Mass SRs): <a href="155678?version=1&table=Cross-sectionupperlimit10">Expected</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Cross-sectionupperlimit9">+1$\sigma$</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Cross-sectionupperlimit8">-1$\sigma$</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Cross-sectionupperlimit11">Observed</a> <br/> </ul> <b>Signal region distributions:</b> <ul> <a href="155678?version=1&table=SRdistribution2">$E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ Sig. in SR-HM1</a> <br/> <a href="155678?version=1&table=SRdistribution3">$m_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{min}(c)$ in SR-HM2</a> <br/> <a href="155678?version=1&table=SRdistribution4">$R_\mathrm{ISR}$ in SR-Comp1</a> <br/> <a href="155678?version=1&table=SRdistribution5">$R_\mathrm{ISR}$ in SR-Comp2</a> <br/> <a href="155678?version=1&table=SRdistribution6">$R_\mathrm{ISR}$ in SR-Comp3</a> <br/> <a href="155678?version=1&table=SRdistribution1">$R_\mathrm{ISR}$ in SR-Comp-1c</a> <br/> </ul> <b>Acceptances:</b> <ul> SUSY signals: <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptance2">SR-HM1</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptance3">SR-HM2</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptance4">SR-HM3</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptance5">SR-HM-Disc</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptance6">SR-Comp1</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptance7">SR-Comp2</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptance8">SR-Comp3</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptance1">SR-Comp-1c</a> <br/> $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{21}$: <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptance9">SR-HM1</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptance10">SR-HM2</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptance11">SR-HM3</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptance12">SR-HM-Disc</a> <br/> $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{22}$: <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptance13">SR-HM1</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptance14">SR-HM2</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptance15">SR-HM3</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptance16">SR-HM-Disc</a> <br/> $U(1)$ pair (min): <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptance17">SR-HM1</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptance18">SR-HM2</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptance19">SR-HM3</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptance20">SR-HM-Disc</a> <br/> $U(1)$ pair (YM): <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptance21">SR-HM1</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptance22">SR-HM2</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptance23">SR-HM3</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptance24">SR-HM-Disc</a> <br/> </ul> <b>Efficiencies:</b> <ul> $U(1)$ pair (min): <a href="155678?version=1&table=Efficiency1">SR-HM1</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Efficiency2">SR-HM2</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Efficiency3">SR-HM3</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Efficiency4">SR-HM-Disc</a> <br/> $U(1)$ pair (YM): <a href="155678?version=1&table=Efficiency5">SR-HM1</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Efficiency6">SR-HM2</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Efficiency7">SR-HM3</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Efficiency8">SR-HM-Disc</a> <br/> </ul> <b>Acceptance times efficiency:</b> <ul> SUSY signals: <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptancetimesefficiency2">SR-HM1</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptancetimesefficiency3">SR-HM2</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptancetimesefficiency4">SR-HM3</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptancetimesefficiency5">SR-HM-Disc</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptancetimesefficiency6">SR-Comp1</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptancetimesefficiency7">SR-Comp2</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptancetimesefficiency8">SR-Comp3</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptancetimesefficiency1">SR-Comp-1c</a> <br/> $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{21}$: <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptancetimesefficiency9">SR-HM1</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptancetimesefficiency10">SR-HM2</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptancetimesefficiency11">SR-HM3</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptancetimesefficiency12">SR-HM-Disc</a> <br/> $\mathrm{LQ}^\mathrm{u}_{22}$: <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptancetimesefficiency13">SR-HM1</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptancetimesefficiency14">SR-HM2</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptancetimesefficiency15">SR-HM3</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptancetimesefficiency16">SR-HM-Disc</a> <br/> $U(1)$ pair (min): <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptancetimesefficiency17">SR-HM1</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptancetimesefficiency18">SR-HM2</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptancetimesefficiency19">SR-HM3</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptancetimesefficiency20">SR-HM-Disc</a> <br/> $U(1)$ pair (YM): <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptancetimesefficiency21">SR-HM1</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptancetimesefficiency22">SR-HM2</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptancetimesefficiency23">SR-HM3</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Acceptancetimesefficiency24">SR-HM-Disc</a> <br/> </ul> <b>Cutflow:</b> <ul> SUSY benchmarks: <a href="155678?version=1&table=Cutflow5">SR-HM1</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Cutflow6">SR-HM2</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Cutflow7">SR-HM3</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Cutflow8">SR-HM-Disc</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Cutflow2">SR-Comp1</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Cutflow3">SR-Comp2</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Cutflow4">SR-Comp3</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Cutflow1">SR-Comp-1c</a> <br/> LQ benchmarks: <a href="155678?version=1&table=Cutflow9">SR-HM1</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Cutflow10">SR-HM2</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Cutflow11">SR-HM3</a> <a href="155678?version=1&table=Cutflow12">SR-HM-Disc</a> <br/> </ul>
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.
Expected exclusion limit $(-1\sigma)$ at 95% CL for pair production of top squarks decaying to charm quarks and neutralinos.
ALICE is a large experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider. Located 52 meters underground, its detectors are suitable to measure muons produced by cosmic-ray interactions in the atmosphere. In this paper, the studies of the cosmic muons registered by ALICE during Run 2 (2015--2018) are described. The analysis is limited to multimuon events defined as events with more than four detected muons ($N_\mu>4$) and in the zenith angle range $0^{\circ}<\theta<50^{\circ}$. The results are compared with Monte Carlo simulations using three of the main hadronic interaction models describing the air shower development in the atmosphere: QGSJET-II-04, EPOS-LHC, and SIBYLL 2.3. The interval of the primary cosmic-ray energy involved in the measured muon multiplicity distribution is about $ 4 \times 10^{15}<E_\mathrm{prim}< 6 \times 10^{16}$~eV. In this interval none of the three models is able to describe precisely the trend of the composition of cosmic rays as the energy increases. However, QGSJET is found to be the only model capable of reproducing reasonably well the muon multiplicity distribution, assuming a heavy composition of the primary cosmic rays over the whole energy range, while SIBYLL and EPOS-LHC underpredict the number of muons in a large interval of multiplicity by more than $20\%$ and $30\%$, respectively. The rate of high muon multiplicity events ($N_\mu>100$) obtained with QGSJET and SIBYLL is compatible with the data, while EPOS-LHC produces a significantly lower rate ($55\%$ of the measured rate). For both QGSJET and SIBYLL, the rate is close to the data when the composition is assumed to be dominated by heavy elements, an outcome compatible with the average energy $E_\mathrm{prim} \sim 10^{17}$~eV of these events. This result places significant constraints on more exotic production mechanisms.
Muon multiplicity distribution measured with the ALICE apparatus and obtained for the whole data sample of Run 2 corresponding to a live time of 62.5 days. The data points are grouped in multiplicity intervals with a width of five units ($N_\mu=5-9,~N_\mu=10-14,~...$), and are located at the center of each interval ($N_\mu=7,~N_\mu=12,~...$). The vertical error bars represent the statistical uncertainties.
Muon multiplicity distribution measured with the ALICE apparatus and obtained for the whole data sample of Run 2 corresponding to a live time of 62.5 days. The data are the same as Fig. 3 but each bin corresponds to a single muon multiplicity ($N_\mu=1,2,3,~...$); the distribution starts at $N_\mu=5$. The vertical error bars represent the statistical uncertainties.
Measured muon multiplicity distribution compared with simulations from CORSIKA Monte Carlo generator using QGSJET-II-04 (top), SIBYLL 2.3 (middle), and EPOS-LHC (bottom) as hadronic interaction models for proton and iron primary cosmic rays. Iron points are slightly shifted to the right to avoid overlapping with the data points. The total uncertainties in the MC simulations are given by the vertical bars, while the boxes give the systematic uncertainties of the data and the vertical bars the statistical ones.
Forum