A search for high-mass charged and neutral bosons decaying to $W\gamma$ and $Z\gamma$ final states is presented in this paper. The analysis uses a data sample of $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV proton-proton collisions with an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$ collected by the ATLAS detector during LHC Run 2 operation. The sensitivity of the search is determined using models of the production and decay of spin-1 charged bosons and spin-0/2 neutral bosons. The range of resonance masses explored extends from 1.0 TeV to 6.8 TeV. At these high resonance masses, it is beneficial to target the hadronic decays of the $W$ and $Z$ bosons because of their large branching fractions. The decay products of the high-momentum $W/Z$ bosons are strongly collimated and boosted-boson tagging techniques are employed to improve the sensitivity. No evidence of a signal above the Standard Model backgrounds is observed, and upper limits on the production cross-sections of these bosons times their branching fractions to $W\gamma$ and $Z\gamma$ are derived for various boson production models.
The jet mass distribution of large-$R$ jets originating from the hadronic decay of $W$ and $Z$ bosons produced from the decay of BSM bosons with mass $m_X = 1000$ GeV. The decays simulated are for the production models $q\bar{q}' \to X^{\pm} \to W^{\pm}\gamma$ with a spin-1 resonance $X^{\pm}$ and $gg\to X^0 \to Z\gamma$ with a spin-0 resonance $X^{0}$.
The jet mass distribution of large-$R$ jets originating from the hadronic decay of $W$ and $Z$ bosons produced from the decay of BSM bosons with mass $m_X = 4000$ GeV. The decays simulated are for the production models $q\bar{q'}\to X^{\pm} \to W^{\pm}\gamma$ with a spin-1 resonance $X^{\pm}$ and $gg\to X^0 \to Z\gamma$ with a spin-0 resonance $X^{0}$.
Total efficiencies for the selection of signal events after categorization and application of the tighter photon $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\gamma}$ selection used to optimize the signal significance spin-0 $gg\to X^0 \to Z\gamma$. In addition to the total efficiency, contributions to the signal selection from each of the separate event categories are shown. The efficiencies calculated from MC samples with $W/Z$ hadronic decays are shown as the points on each curve. The line presents interpolated results.
A search for a charged Higgs boson, $H^{\pm}$, produced in top-quark decays, $t \rightarrow H^{\pm}b$, is presented. The search targets $H^{\pm}$ decays into a bottom and a charm quark, $H^{\pm} \rightarrow cb$. The analysis focuses on a selection enriched in top-quark pair production, where one top quark decays into a leptonically decaying $W$ boson and a bottom quark, and the other top quark decays into a charged Higgs boson and a bottom quark. This topology leads to a lepton-plus-jets final state, characterised by an isolated electron or muon and at least four jets. The search exploits the high multiplicity of jets containing $b$-hadrons, and deploys a neural network classifier that uses the kinematic differences between the signal and the background. The search uses a dataset of proton-proton collisions collected at a centre-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV between 2015 and 2018 with the ATLAS detector at CERN's Large Hadron Collider, amounting to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. Observed (expected) 95% confidence-level upper limits between 0.15% (0.09%) and 0.42% (0.25%) are derived for the product of branching fractions $\mathscr{B}(t\rightarrow H^{\pm}b) \times \mathscr{B}(H^{\pm}\rightarrow cb)$ for charged Higgs boson masses between 60 and 160 GeV, assuming the SM production of the top-quark pairs.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\mathscr{B}=\mathscr{B}(t\rightarrow H^{\pm}b) \times \mathscr{B}(H^{\pm}\rightarrow cb)$ as a function of $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and the expectation (dashed) under the background-only hypothesis. The inner green and outer yellow shaded bands show the $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ uncertainties of the expected limits. The exclusion limits are presented for $m_{H^{\pm}}$ between 60 and 160 GeV with 10 GeV $m_{H^{\pm}}$ spacing and linear interpolation between adjacent mass points. Superimposed on the upper limits, the predictions from the 3HDM are shown, corresponding to three benchmark values for the parameters $X$, $Y$, and $Z$
Pre-fit event yields in each of the nine analysis regions. The $H^{\pm}$ signal yields for $m_{H^{\pm}}=130$ GeV and $m_{H^{\pm}}=70$ GeV are normalised to $\mathscr{B}_{\mathrm{ref}}=1\%$. The quoted uncertainties are the sum in quadrature of statistical and systematic uncertainties of the yields, computed taking into account correlations among processes resulting from the data-based $t\bar{t}$ correction procedure.
Post-fit yields in each of the nine analysis regions considered. The total prediction is shown after the fit to data under the signal-plus-background hypothesis assuming $H^{\pm}$ signal with $m_{H^{\pm}}=130$ GeV. The predicted yileds for the $H^{\pm}$ signal with $m_{H^{\pm}}=70$ GeV are also shown for reference. The best fit-values of $\mathscr{B}$ for $H^{\pm}$ signal with $m_{H^{\pm}}=130$ GeV and $m_{H^{\pm}}=70$ GeV are 0.16% and 0.07% respectively. The quoted uncertainties are the sum in quadrature of statistical and systematic uncertainties of the yields, computed taking into account correlations among nuisance parameters and among processes.
A precision measurement of the matrix elements for $\eta\to\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$ and $\eta\to\pi^0\pi^0\pi^0$ decays is performed using a sample of $(10087\pm44)\times10^6$$J/\psi$ decays collected with the BESIII detector. The decay $J/\psi \to \gamma \eta$ is used to select clean samples of 631,686 $\eta\to\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$ decays and 272,322 $\eta\to\pi^0\pi^0\pi^0$ decays. The matrix elements for both channels are in reasonable agreement with previous measurements. The non-zero $gX^2Y$ term for the decay mode $\eta\to\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$ is confirmed, as reported by the KLOE Collaboration, while the other higher-order terms are found to be insignificant. Dalitz plot asymmetries in the $\eta\to\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$ decay are also explored and are found to be consistent with charge conjugation invariance. In addition, a cusp effect is investigated in the $\eta\to\pi^0\pi^0\pi^0$ decay, and no obvious structure around the $\pi^+\pi^-$ mass threshold is observed.
The acceptance corrected $\eta\to\pi^+\pi^-\pi^0$ data from 10 billion $J/\psi$ events collected at BESIII and the corresponding statistical uncertainties in the Dalitz plot variables $X$ and $Y$. The data are divided into $20\times20$ bins in $X$ and $Y$, and only the bins with non-zero event are listed in the table. The first two columns in the table are the center values of $X$ and $Y$, respectively. The last column is the acceptance corrected data and the corresponding statistical uncertainties.
The acceptance corrected $\eta\to\pi^0\pi^0\pi^0$ data from 10 billion $J/\psi$ events collected at BESIII and the corresponding statistical uncertainties in the Dalitz plot variables $X$ and $Y$. The data are divided into $20\times20$ bins in $X$ and $Y$, and only the bins with non-zero event are listed in the table. The first two columns in the table are the center values of $X$ and $Y$, respectively. The last column is the acceptance corrected data and the corresponding statistical uncertainties.
Measurements of the suppression and correlations of dijets is performed using 3 $\mu$b$^{-1}$ of Xe+Xe data at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} = 5.44$ TeV collected with the ATLAS detector at the LHC. Dijets with jets reconstructed using the $R=0.4$ anti-$k_t$ algorithm are measured differentially in jet $p_{\text{T}}$ over the range of 32 GeV to 398 GeV and the centrality of the collisions. Significant dijet momentum imbalance is found in the most central Xe+Xe collisions, which decreases in more peripheral collisions. Results from the measurement of per-pair normalized and absolutely normalized dijet $p_{\text{T}}$ balance are compared with previous Pb+Pb measurements at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}} =5.02$ TeV. The differences between the dijet suppression in Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb are further quantified by the ratio of pair nuclear-modification factors. The results are found to be consistent with those measured in Pb+Pb data when compared in classes of the same event activity and when taking into account the difference between the center-of-mass energies of the initial parton scattering process in Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb collisions. These results should provide input for a better understanding of the role of energy density, system size, path length, and fluctuations in the parton energy loss.
The centrality intervals in Xe+Xe collisions and their corresponding TAA with absolute uncertainties.
The centrality intervals in Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb collisions for matching SUM ET FCAL intervals and respective TAA values for Xe+Xe collisions.
The performance of the jet energy scale (JES) for jets with $|y| < 2.1$ evaluated as a function of pT_truth in different centrality bins. Simulated hard scatter events were overlaid onto events from a dedicated sample of minimum-bias Xe+Xe data.
This Letter reports the observation of single top quarks produced together with a photon, which directly probes the electroweak coupling of the top quark. The analysis uses 139 fb$^{-1}$ of 13 TeV proton-proton collision data collected with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider. Requiring a photon with transverse momentum larger than 20 GeV and within the detector acceptance, the fiducial cross section is measured to be 688 $\pm$ 23 (stat.) $^{+75}_{-71}$ (syst.) fb, to be compared with the standard model prediction of 515 $^{+36}_{-42}$ fb at next-to-leading order in QCD.
This table shows the values for $\sigma_{tq\gamma}\times\mathcal{B}(t\rightarrow l\nu b)$ and $\sigma_{tq\gamma}\times\mathcal{B}(t\rightarrow l\nu b)+\sigma_{t(\rightarrow l\nu b\gamma)q}$ obtained by a profile-likelihood fit in the fiducial parton-level phase space (defined in Table 1) and particle-level phase space (defined in Table 2), respectively.
Distribution of the reconstructed top-quark mass in the $W\gamma\,$CR before the profile-likelihood fit. The "Total" column corresponds to the sum of the expected contributions from the signal and background processes. The uncertainty represents the sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties in the signal and background predictions. The first and last bins include the underflow and overflow, respectively.
Distribution of the NN output in the 0fj$\,$SR in data and the expected contribution of the signal and background processes after the profile-likelihood fit. The "Total" column corresponds to the sum of the expected contributions from the signal and background processes. The uncertainty represents the sum of statistical and systematic uncertainties in the signal and background predictions considering the correlations of the uncertainties as obtained by the fit.
A search for flavor-changing neutral-current couplings between a top quark, an up or charm quark and a $Z$ boson is presented, using proton-proton collision data at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV collected by the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider. The analyzed dataset corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. The search targets both single-top-quark events produced as $gq\rightarrow tZ$ (with $q = u, c$) and top-quark-pair events, with one top quark decaying through the $t \rightarrow Zq$ channel. The analysis considers events with three leptons (electrons or muons), a $b$-tagged jet, possible additional jets, and missing transverse momentum. The data are found to be consistent with the background-only hypothesis and 95% confidence-level limits on the $t \rightarrow Zq$ branching ratios are set, assuming only tensor operators of the Standard Model effective field theory framework contribute to the $tZq$ vertices. These are $6.2 \times 10^{-5}$ ($13\times 10^{-5}$) for $t\rightarrow Zu$ ($t\rightarrow Zc$) for a left-handed $tZq$ coupling, and $6.6 \times 10^{-5}$ ($12\times 10^{-5}$) in the case of a right-handed coupling. These results are interpreted as 95% CL upper limits on the strength of corresponding couplings, yielding limits for $|C_{uW}^{(13)*}|$ and $|C_{uB}^{(13)*}|$ ($|C_{uW}^{(31)}|$ and $|C_{uB}^{(31)}|$) of 0.15 (0.16), and limits for $|C_{uW}^{(23)*}|$ and $|C_{uB}^{(23)*}|$ ($|C_{uW}^{(32)}|$ and $|C_{uB}^{(32)}|$) of 0.22 (0.21), assuming a new-physics energy scale $\Lambda_\text{NP}$ of 1 TeV.
Summary of the signal strength $\mu$ parameters obtained from the fits to extract LH and RH results for the FCNC tZu and tZc couplings. For the reference branching ratio, the most stringent limits are used.
Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the FCNC $t\rightarrow Zq$ branching ratios and the effective coupling strengths for different vertices and couplings (top eight rows). For the latter, the energy scale is assumed to be $\Lambda_{NP}$ = 1 TeV. The bottom rows show, for the case of the FCNC $t\rightarrow Zu$ branching ratio, the observed and expected 95% CL limits when only one of the two SRs, either SR1 or SR2, and all CRs are included in the likelihood.
Comparison between data and background prediction before the fit (Pre-Fit) for the mass of the SM top-quark candidate in SR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The four FCNC LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to five times the cross-section corresponding to the most stringent observed branching ratio limits. The first (last) bin in all distributions includes the underflow (overflow). The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).
A search for physics beyond the standard model (SM) in the final state with a hadronically decaying tau lepton and a neutrino is presented. This analysis is based on data recorded by the CMS experiment from proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV at the LHC, corresponding to a total integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{=1}$. The transverse mass spectrum is analyzed for the presence of new physics. No significant deviation from the SM prediction is observed. Limits are set on the production cross section of a W' boson decaying into a tau lepton and a neutrino. Lower limits are set on the mass of the sequential SM-like heavy charged vector boson and the mass of a quantum black hole. Upper limits are placed on the couplings of a new boson to the SM fermions. Constraints are put on a nonuniversal gauge interaction model and an effective field theory model. For the first time, upper limits on the cross section of $t$-channel leptoquark (LQ) exchange are presented. These limits are translated into exclusion limits on the LQ mass and on its coupling in the $t$-channel. The sensitivity of this analysis extends into the parameter space of LQ models that attempt to explain the anomalies observed in B meson decays. The limits presented for the various interpretations are the most stringent to date. Additionally, a model-independent limit is provided.
The transverse mass distribution of $ au$ leptons and missing transverse momentum observed in the Run-2 data (black dots with statistical uncertainty) as well as the expectation from SM processes (stacked histograms). Different signal hypotheses normalized to 10 fb$^{-1}$ are illustrated as dashed lines for exemplary SSM W$\prime$ boson, QBH and EFT signal hypotheses. The ratios of the background-subtracted data yields to the expected background yields are presented in the lower panel. The combined statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background are represented by the grey shaded band in the ratio panel.
Bayesian upper exclusion limits at 95% CL on the product of the cross section and branching fraction of a W$\prime$ boson decaying to a $\tau$ lepton and a neutrino in the SSM model. For this model, W$\prime$ boson masses of up to 4.8 TeV can be excluded. The limit is given by the intersection of the observed (solid) limit and the theoretical cross section (blue dotted curve). The 68 and 95% quantiles of the limits are represented by the green and yellow bands, respectively. The $\sigma \mathcal{B}$ for an SSM W' boson, along with its associated uncertainty, calculated at NNLO precision in QCD is shown.
Bayesian 95% CL model-independent upper limit on the product of signal cross sections and branching fraction for the $\tau+\nu$ decay for a back-to-back $\tau$ lepton plus $p_{T}^{miss}$ topology. To calculate this limit, all events for signal, background, and data are summed starting from a minimum $m_{T}$ threshold and then divided by the total number of events. No assumption on signal shape is included in this limit. The expected (dashed line) and observed (solid line) limits are shown as well as the 68% and 95% CL uncertainty bands (green and yellow, respectively).
This paper presents a search for dark matter, $\chi$, using events with a single top quark and an energetic $W$ boson. The analysis is based on proton-proton collision data collected with the ATLAS experiment at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV during LHC Run 2 (2015-2018), corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. The search considers final states with zero or one charged lepton (electron or muon), at least one $b$-jet and large missing transverse momentum. In addition, a result from a previous search considering two-charged-lepton final states is included in the interpretation of the results. The data are found to be in good agreement with the Standard Model predictions and the results are interpreted in terms of 95% confidence-level exclusion limits in the context of a class of dark matter models involving an extended two-Higgs-doublet sector together with a pseudoscalar mediator particle. The search is particularly sensitive to on-shell production of the charged Higgs boson state, $H^{\pm}$, arising from the two-Higgs-doublet mixing, and its semi-invisible decays via the mediator particle, $a$: $H^{\pm} \rightarrow W^\pm a (\rightarrow \chi\chi)$. Signal models with $H^{\pm}$ masses up to 1.5 TeV and $a$ masses up to 350 GeV are excluded assuming a tan$\beta$ value of 1. For masses of $a$ of 150 (250) GeV, tan$\beta$ values up to 2 are excluded for $H^{\pm}$ masses between 200 (400) GeV and 1.5 TeV. Signals with tan$\beta$ values between 20 and 30 are excluded for $H^{\pm}$ masses between 500 and 800 GeV.
<b>- - - - - - - - Overview of HEPData Record - - - - - - - -</b> <br><br> <b>Exclusion contours:</b> <ul> <li><a href="?table=highst_mamh_obs">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=highst_mamh_exp">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=highst_mhtb_lowma_obs">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=highst_mhtb_lowma_exp">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=highst_mhtb_highma_obs">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=highst_mhtb_highma_exp">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=lowst_mamh_obs">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=lowst_mamh_exp">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=lowst_mhtb_lowma_obs">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=lowst_mhtb_lowma_exp">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=lowst_mhtb_highma_obs">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=lowst_mhtb_highma_exp">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_highst_mamh_obs">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_highst_mamh_exp">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_highst_mhtb_lowma_obs">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_highst_mhtb_lowma_exp">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_highst_mhtb_highma_obs">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_highst_mhtb_highma_exp">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_lowst_mamh_obs">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_lowst_mamh_exp">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_lowst_mhtb_lowma_obs">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_lowst_mhtb_lowma_exp">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_lowst_mhtb_highma_obs">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_lowst_mhtb_highma_exp">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_highst_mamh_obs">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_highst_mamh_exp">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_highst_mhtb_lowma_obs">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_highst_mhtb_lowma_exp">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_highst_mhtb_highma_obs">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_highst_mhtb_highma_exp">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_lowst_mamh_obs">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_lowst_mamh_exp">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_lowst_mhtb_lowma_obs">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_lowst_mhtb_lowma_exp">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_lowst_mhtb_highma_exp">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=2L_highst_mamh_obs">2L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=2L_highst_mamh_exp">2L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=2L_highst_mhtb_lowma_obs">2L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=2L_highst_mhtb_lowma_exp">2L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=2L_highst_mhtb_highma_obs">2L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=2L_highst_mhtb_highma_exp">2L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=2L_lowst_mamh_exp">2L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=2L_lowst_mhtb_lowma_exp">2L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=2L_lowst_mhtb_highma_exp">2L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=highst_dmtt_mamh_obs">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=highst_dmtt_mamh_exp">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=highst_dmtt_mhtb_lowma_obs">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=highst_dmtt_mhtb_lowma_exp">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=highst_dmtt_mhtb_highma_obs">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=highst_dmtt_mhtb_highma_exp">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=lowst_dmtt_mamh_obs">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=lowst_dmtt_mamh_exp">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=lowst_dmtt_mhtb_lowma_obs">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=lowst_dmtt_mhtb_lowma_exp">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=lowst_dmtt_mhtb_highma_obs">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=lowst_dmtt_mhtb_highma_exp">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_highst_dmtt_mamh_obs">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_highst_dmtt_mamh_exp">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_highst_dmtt_mhtb_lowma_obs">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_highst_dmtt_mhtb_lowma_exp">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_highst_dmtt_mhtb_highma_obs">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_highst_dmtt_mhtb_highma_exp">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_lowst_dmtt_mamh_obs">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_lowst_dmtt_mamh_exp">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_lowst_dmtt_mhtb_lowma_obs">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_lowst_dmtt_mhtb_lowma_exp">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_lowst_dmtt_mhtb_highma_obs">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_lowst_dmtt_mhtb_highma_exp">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_highst_dmtt_mamh_obs">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_highst_dmtt_mamh_exp">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_highst_dmtt_mhtb_lowma_obs">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_highst_dmtt_mhtb_lowma_exp">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_highst_dmtt_mhtb_highma_obs">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_highst_dmtt_mhtb_highma_exp">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_lowst_dmtt_mamh_obs">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_lowst_dmtt_mamh_exp">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_lowst_dmtt_mhtb_lowma_obs">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_lowst_dmtt_mhtb_lowma_exp">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_lowst_dmtt_mhtb_highma_obs">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_lowst_dmtt_mhtb_highma_exp">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=2L_highst_dmtt_mamh_obs">2L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=2L_highst_dmtt_mamh_exp">2L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=2L_highst_dmtt_mhtb_lowma_obs">2L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=2L_highst_dmtt_mhtb_lowma_exp">2L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=2L_highst_dmtt_mhtb_highma_obs">2L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=2L_highst_dmtt_mhtb_highma_exp">2L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=2L_lowst_dmtt_mamh_exp">2L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=2L_lowst_dmtt_mhtb_lowma_obs">2L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=2L_lowst_dmtt_mhtb_lowma_exp">2L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=2L_lowst_dmtt_mhtb_highma_obs">2L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=2L_lowst_dmtt_mhtb_highma_exp">2L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> </ul> <b>Upper limits:</b> <ul> <li><a href="?table=mamH_xSecUpperLimit_Comb_st0p7">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.7) cross-sections from combined (0L+1L+2L) fit in the $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtblow_xSecUpperLimit_Comb_st0p7">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.7) cross-sections from combined (0L+1L+2L) fit in the low $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtbhigh_xSecUpperLimit_Comb_st0p7">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.7) cross-sections from combined (0L+1L+2L) fit in the high $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mamH_xSecUpperLimit_Comb_st0p7_DMtt">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM + tt+DM(sin$\theta$ = 0.7) cross-sections from combined (0L+1L+2L) fit in the $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtblow_xSecUpperLimit_Comb_st0p7_DMtt">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM +tt+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.7) cross-sections from combined (0L+1L+2L) fit in the low $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtbhigh_xSecUpperLimit_Comb_st0p7_DMtt">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM + tt+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.7) cross-sections from combined (0L+1L+2L) fit in the high $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mamH_xSecUpperLimit_Comb_st0p35">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.35) cross-sections from combined (0L+1L+2L) fit in the $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtblow_xSecUpperLimit_Comb_st0p35">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.35) cross-sections from combined (0L+1L+2L) fit in the low $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtbhigh_xSecUpperLimit_Comb_st0p35">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.35) cross-sections from combined (0L+1L+2L) fit in the high $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mamH_xSecUpperLimit_Comb_st0p35_DMtt">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM + tt+DM(sin$\theta$ = 0.35) cross-sections from combined (0L+1L+2L) fit in the $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtblow_xSecUpperLimit_Comb_st0p35_DMtt">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM +tt+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.35) cross-sections from combined (0L+1L+2L) fit in the low $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtbhigh_xSecUpperLimit_Comb_st0p35_DMtt">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM + tt+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.35) cross-sections from combined (0L+1L+2L) fit in the high $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mamH_xSecUpperLimit_0L_st0p7">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.7) cross-sections from 0L individual fit in the $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtblow_xSecUpperLimit_0L_st0p7">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.7) cross-sections from 0L individual fit in the low $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtbhigh_xSecUpperLimit_0L_st0p7">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.7) cross-sections from 0L individual fit in the high $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mamH_xSecUpperLimit_0L_st0p7_DMtt">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM + tt+DM(sin$\theta$ = 0.7) cross-sections from 0L individual fit in the $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtblow_xSecUpperLimit_0L_st0p7_DMtt">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM +tt+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.7) cross-sections from 0L individual fit in the low $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtbhigh_xSecUpperLimit_0L_st0p7_DMtt">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM + tt+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.7) cross-sections from 0L individual fit in the high $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mamH_xSecUpperLimit_0L_st0p35">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.35) cross-sections from 0L individual fit in the $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtblow_xSecUpperLimit_0L_st0p35">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.35) cross-sections from 0L individual fit in the low $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtbhigh_xSecUpperLimit_0L_st0p35">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.35) cross-sections from 0L individual fit in the high $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mamH_xSecUpperLimit_0L_st0p35_DMtt">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM + tt+DM(sin$\theta$ = 0.35) cross-sections from 0L individual fit in the $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtblow_xSecUpperLimit_0L_st0p35_DMtt">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM +tt+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.35) cross-sections from 0L individual fit in the low $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtbhigh_xSecUpperLimit_0L_st0p35_DMtt">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM + tt+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.35) cross-sections from 0L individual fit in the high $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mamH_xSecUpperLimit_1L_st0p7">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.7) cross-sections from 1L individual fit in the $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtblow_xSecUpperLimit_1L_st0p7">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.7) cross-sections from 1L individual fit in the low $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtbhigh_xSecUpperLimit_1L_st0p7">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.7) cross-sections from 1L individual fit in the high $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mamH_xSecUpperLimit_1L_st0p7_DMtt">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM + tt+DM(sin$\theta$ = 0.7) cross-sections from 1L individual fit in the $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtblow_xSecUpperLimit_1L_st0p7_DMtt">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM +tt+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.7) cross-sections from 1L individual fit in the low $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtbhigh_xSecUpperLimit_1L_st0p7_DMtt">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM + tt+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.7) cross-sections from 1L individual fit in the high $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mamH_xSecUpperLimit_1L_st0p35">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.35) cross-sections from 1L individual fit in the $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtblow_xSecUpperLimit_1L_st0p35">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.35) cross-sections from 1L individual fit in the low $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtbhigh_xSecUpperLimit_1L_st0p35">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.35) cross-sections from 1L individual fit in the high $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mamH_xSecUpperLimit_1L_st0p35_DMtt">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM + tt+DM(sin$\theta$ = 0.35) cross-sections from 1L individual fit in the $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtblow_xSecUpperLimit_1L_st0p35_DMtt">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM +tt+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.35) cross-sections from 1L individual fit in the low $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtbhigh_xSecUpperLimit_1L_st0p35_DMtt">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM + tt+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.35) cross-sections from 1L individual fit in the high $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> </ul> <b>Kinematic distributions:</b> <ul> <li><a href="?table=SR0L_mwtagged">0L region m(b1,W-tagged)</a> <li><a href="?table=SR0L_mtbmet">0L region m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{b,E_{\mathrm{T}^{\mathrm{miss}}}}}</a> <li><a href="?table=SR0L_nwtagged">0L region N_{\mathrm{W-tagged}}</a> <li><a href="?table=SR1L_Had_mbj">1L hadronic top $m_{\mathrm{b1},\mathrm{\cancel{b1}}}$</a> <li><a href="?table=SR1L_Lep_mbj">1L leptonic top $m_{\mathrm{b1},\mathrm{\cancel{b1}}}$</a> <li><a href="?table=SR1L_Lep_nwtaggged">1L leptonic top region N_{\mathrm{W-tagged}}</a> </ul> <b>Cut flows:</b> <ul> <li><a href="?table=cutflow_SR0L">Cutflow of 4 signal points in the 0L regions.</a> <li><a href="?table=cutflow_SR1L_Had">Cutflow of 4 signal points in the 1L hadronic top regions.</a> <li><a href="?table=cutflow_SR1L_Lep">Cutflow of 4 signal points in the 1L leptonic top region.</a> </ul> <b>Acceptance and efficiencies:</b> <ul> <li> <b>highst_grid1_0L:</b> <a href="?table=highst_grid1_Acc_0L">Acceptance table of the 0L SRs in the $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.7, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and tan$\beta$ = 1.</a> <a href="?table=highst_grid1_Eff_0L">Efficiency table of the 0L SRs in the $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.7, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and tan$\beta$ = 1.</a> <li> <b>highst_grid2_0L:</b> <a href="?table=highst_grid2_Acc_0L">Acceptance table of the 0L SRs in the $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.7, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and $m_a$ = 150 GeV.</a> <a href="?table=highst_grid2_Eff_0L">Efficiency table of the 0L SRs in the $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.7, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and $m_a$ = 150 GeV.</a> <li> <b>highst_grid3_0L:</b> <a href="?table=highst_grid3_Acc_0L">Acceptance table of the 0L SRs in the $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.7, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and $m_a$ = 250 GeV.</a> <a href="?table=highst_grid3_Eff_0L">Efficiency table of the 0L SRs in the $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.7, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and $m_a$ = 250 GeV.</a> <li> <b>highst_grid1_1L:</b> <a href="?table=highst_grid1_Acc_1L">Acceptance table of the 1L SRs in the $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.7, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and tan$\beta$ = 1.</a> <a href="?table=highst_grid1_Eff_1L">Efficiency table of the 1L SRs in the $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.7, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and tan$\beta$ = 1.</a> <li> <b>highst_grid2_1L:</b> <a href="?table=highst_grid2_Acc_1L">Acceptance table of the 1L SRs in the $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.7, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and $m_a$ = 150 GeV.</a> <a href="?table=highst_grid2_Eff_1L">Efficiency table of the 1L SRs in the $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.7, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and $m_a$ = 150 GeV.</a> <li> <b>highst_grid3_1L:</b> <a href="?table=highst_grid3_Acc_1L">Acceptance table of the 1L SRs in the $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.7, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and $m_a$ = 250 GeV.</a> <a href="?table=highst_grid3_Eff_1L">Efficiency table of the 1L SRs in the $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.7, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and $m_a$ = 250 GeV.</a> <li> <b>lowst_grid1_0L:</b> <a href="?table=lowst_grid1_Acc_0L">Acceptance table of the 0L SRs in the $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.35, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and tan$\beta$ = 1.</a> <a href="?table=lowst_grid1_Eff_0L">Efficiency table of the 0L SRs in the $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.35, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and tan$\beta$ = 1.</a> <li> <b>lowst_grid2_0L:</b> <a href="?table=lowst_grid2_Acc_0L">Acceptance table of the 0L SRs in the $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.35, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and $m_a$ = 150 GeV.</a> <a href="?table=lowst_grid2_Eff_0L">Efficiency table of the 0L SRs in the $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.35, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and $m_a$ = 150 GeV.</a> <li> <b>lowst_grid3_0L:</b> <a href="?table=lowst_grid3_Acc_0L">Acceptance table of the 0L SRs in the $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.35, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and $m_a$ = 250 GeV.</a> <a href="?table=lowst_grid3_Eff_0L">Efficiency table of the 0L SRs in the $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.35, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and $m_a$ = 250 GeV.</a> <li> <b>lowst_grid1_1L:</b> <a href="?table=lowst_grid1_Acc_1L">Acceptance table of the 1L SRs in the $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.35, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and tan$\beta$ = 1.</a> <a href="?table=lowst_grid1_Eff_1L">Efficiency table of the 1L SRs in the $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.35, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and tan$\beta$ = 1.</a> <li> <b>lowst_grid2_1L:</b> <a href="?table=lowst_grid2_Acc_1L">Acceptance table of the 1L SRs in the $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.35, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and $m_a$ = 150 GeV.</a> <a href="?table=lowst_grid2_Eff_1L">Efficiency table of the 1L SRs in the $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.35, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and $m_a$ = 150 GeV.</a> <li> <b>lowst_grid3_1L:</b> <a href="?table=lowst_grid3_Acc_1L">Acceptance table of the 1L SRs in the $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.35, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and $m_a$ = 250 GeV.</a> <a href="?table=lowst_grid3_Eff_1L">Efficiency table of the 1L SRs in the $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.35, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and $m_a$ = 250 GeV.</a> </ul> <b>Truth Code snippets</b> are available under "Resources" (purple button on the left)
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.
A search for pair production of doubly charged Higgs bosons ($H^{\pm \pm}$), each decaying into a pair of prompt, isolated, highly energetic leptons with the same electric charge, is presented. The search uses a proton-proton collision data sample at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$ recorded by the ATLAS detector during Run 2 of the Large Hadron Collider. This analysis focuses on same-charge leptonic decays, $H^{\pm \pm} \rightarrow \ell^{\pm} \ell^{\prime \pm}$ where $\ell, \ell^\prime=e, \mu, \tau$, in two-, three-, and four-lepton channels, but only considers final states which include electrons or muons. No evidence of a signal is observed. Corresponding limits on the production cross-section and consequently a lower limit on $m(H^{\pm \pm})$ are derived at 95% confidence level. Assuming that the branching ratios to each of the possible leptonic final states are equal, $\mathcal{B}(H^{\pm \pm} \rightarrow e^\pm e^\pm) = \mathcal{B}(H^{\pm \pm} \rightarrow e^\pm \mu^\pm) = \mathcal{B}(H^{\pm \pm} \rightarrow \mu^\pm \mu^\pm) = \mathcal{B}(H^{\pm \pm} \rightarrow e^\pm \tau^\pm) = \mathcal{B}(H^{\pm \pm} \rightarrow \mu^\pm \tau^\pm) = \mathcal{B}(H^{\pm \pm} \rightarrow \tau^\pm \tau^\pm) = 1/6$, the observed lower limit on the mass of a doubly charged Higgs boson is 1080 GeV within the left-right symmetric type-II seesaw model, which is an improvement over previous limits. Additionally, a lower limit of $m(H^{\pm \pm})$ = 900 GeV is obtained in the context of the Zee-Babu neutrino mass model.
LO, NLO cross-sections and K-factors for the pair-production of doubly charged Higgs bosons in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV. The K-factors (K=$\sigma_{NLO}/\sigma_{LO}$) are identical for $H^{\pm\pm}_L$, $H^{\pm\pm}_R$, and $k^{\pm\pm}$. The values are calculated using the NNPDF3.1NLO and NNPDF2.3LO PDF sets.
Observed (solid line) and expected (dashed line) 95% CL upper limits on the $H^{\pm\pm}$ pair production cross-section as a function of $m(H^{\pm\pm})$ resulting from the combination of all analysis channels, assuming $\sum_{\ell \ell^\prime} \mathcal{B}(H^{\pm\pm} \rightarrow \ell^{\pm} \ell^{\prime \pm})=100%$, where $\ell, \ell^\prime = e, \mu, \tau$.
Distribution of $m(e^{\pm},e^{\pm})_{\mathrm{lead}}$ in the electron-electron signal region after the background-only fit.
Several extensions of the Standard Model predict the production of dark matter particles at the LHC. A search for dark matter particles produced in association with a dark Higgs boson decaying into $W^{+}W^{-}$ in the $\ell^\pm\nu q \bar q'$ final states with $\ell=e,\mu$ is presented. This analysis uses 139 fb$^{-1}$ of $pp$ collisions recorded by the ATLAS detector at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. The $W^\pm \to q\bar q'$ decays are reconstructed from pairs of calorimeter-measured jets or from track-assisted reclustered jets, a technique aimed at resolving the dense topology from a pair of boosted quarks using jets in the calorimeter and tracking information. The observed data are found to agree with Standard Model predictions. Scenarios with dark Higgs boson masses ranging between 140 and 390 GeV are excluded.
Probability of finding at least one TAR jet, where the p<sub>T</sub>-leading TAR jet passes the m<sub>Wcand</sub> and D<sub>2</sub><sup>β=1</sup> requirements, as a function of m<sub>s</sub>. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m<sub>Z'</sub>=500 GeV, with the preselections applied.
Probability of finding at least one TAR jet, where the p<sub>T</sub>-leading TAR jet passes the m<sub>Wcand</sub> and D<sub>2</sub><sup>β=1</sup> requirements, as a function of m<sub>s</sub>. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m<sub>Z'</sub>=1000 GeV, with the preselections applied.
Probability of finding at least one TAR jet, where the p<sub>T</sub>-leading TAR jet passes the m<sub>Wcand</sub> and D<sub>2</sub><sup>β=1</sup> requirements, as a function of m<sub>s</sub>. The probability is determined in a sample of signal events with m<sub>Z'</sub>=1700 GeV, with the preselections applied.
This paper presents a statistical combination of searches targeting final states with two top quarks and invisible particles, characterised by the presence of zero, one or two leptons, at least one jet originating from a $b$-quark and missing transverse momentum. The analyses are searches for phenomena beyond the Standard Model consistent with the direct production of dark matter in $pp$ collisions at the LHC, using 139 fb$^{-\text{1}}$ of data collected with the ATLAS detector at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. The results are interpreted in terms of simplified dark matter models with a spin-0 scalar or pseudoscalar mediator particle. In addition, the results are interpreted in terms of upper limits on the Higgs boson invisible branching ratio, where the Higgs boson is produced according to the Standard Model in association with a pair of top quarks. For scalar (pseudoscalar) dark matter models, with all couplings set to unity, the statistical combination extends the mass range excluded by the best of the individual channels by 50 (25) GeV, excluding mediator masses up to 370 GeV. In addition, the statistical combination improves the expected coupling exclusion reach by 14% (24%), assuming a scalar (pseudoscalar) mediator mass of 10 GeV. An upper limit on the Higgs boson invisible branching ratio of 0.38 (0.30$^{+\text{0.13}}_{-\text{0.09}}$) is observed (expected) at 95% confidence level.
Post-fit signal region yields for the tt0L-high and the tt0L-low analyses. The bottom panel shows the statistical significance of the difference between the SM prediction and the observed data in each region. '$t\bar{t}$ (other)' represents $t\bar{t}$ events without extra jets or events with extra light-flavour jets. 'Other' includes contributions from $t\bar{t}W$, $tZ$ and $tWZ$ processes. The total uncertainty in the SM expectation is represented with hatched bands and the expected distributions for selected signal models are shown as dashed lines.
Representative fit distribution in the signal region for the tt1L analysis: each bin of such distribution corresponds to a single SR included in the fit. 'Other' includes contributions from $t\bar{t}W$, $tZ$, $tWZ$ and $t\bar{t}$ (semileptonic) processes. The total uncertainty in the SM expectation is represented with hatched bands and the expected distributions for selected signal models are shown as dashed lines.
Representative fit distribution in the same flavour leptons signal region for the tt2L analysis: each bin of such distribution, starting from the red arrow, corresponds to a single SR included in the fit. 'FNP' includes the contribution from fake/non-prompt lepton background arising from jets (mainly $\pi/K$, heavy-flavour hadron decays and photon conversion) misidentified as leptons, estimated in a purely data-driven way. 'Other' includes contributions from $t\bar{t}W$, $tZ$ and $tWZ$ processes. The total uncertainty in the SM expectation is represented with hatched bands and the expected distributions for selected signal models are shown as dashed lines.
A search for diphoton resonances in the mass range between 10 and 70 GeV with the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is presented. The analysis is based on $pp$ collision data corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$ at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV recorded from 2015 to 2018. Previous searches for diphoton resonances at the LHC have explored masses down to 65 GeV, finding no evidence of new particles. This search exploits the particular kinematics of events with pairs of closely spaced photons reconstructed in the detector, allowing examination of invariant masses down to 10 GeV. The presented strategy covers a region previously unexplored at hadron colliders because of the experimental challenges of recording low-energy photons and estimating the backgrounds. No significant excess is observed and the reported limits provide the strongest bound on promptly decaying axion-like particles coupling to gluons and photons for masses between 10 and 70 GeV.
The expected and observed upper limits at 95\% CL on the fiducial cross-section times branching ratio to two photons of a narrow-width ($\Gamma_{X}$ = 4 MeV) scalar resonance as a function of its mass $m_{X}$.
Diphoton invariant mass in the signal region using a 0.1 GeV binning.
Parametrization of the $C_{X}$ factor, defined as the ratio between the number of reconstructed signal events passing the analysis cuts and the number of signal events at the particle level generated within the fiducial volume, as function of $m_{X}$ obtained from the narrow width simulated signal samples produced in gluon fusion.
A search for a new heavy scalar or pseudo-scalar Higgs boson ($H/A$) produced in association with a pair of top quarks, with the Higgs boson decaying into a pair of top quarks ($H/A\rightarrow t\bar{t}$) is reported. The search targets a final state with exactly two leptons with same-sign electric charges or at least three leptons. The analysed dataset corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collisions collected at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC. Two multivariate classifiers are used to separate the signal from the background. No significant excess of events over the Standard Model expectation is observed. The results are interpreted in the context of a type-II two-Higgs-doublet model. The observed (expected) upper limits at 95% confidence level on the $t\bar{t}H/A$ production cross-section times the branching ratio of $H/A\rightarrow t\bar{t}$ range between 14 (10) fb and 6 (5) fb for a heavy Higgs boson with mass between 400 GeV and 1000 GeV, respectively. Assuming that only one particle, either the scalar $H$ or the pseudo-scalar $A$, contributes to the $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ final state, values of $\tan\beta$ below 1.2 or 0.5 are excluded for a mass of 400 GeV or 1000 GeV, respectively. These exclusion ranges increase to $\tan\beta$ below 1.6 or 0.6 when both particles are considered.
Pre-fit comparison between data and background in the baseline SR for two of the variables used as input for the SM BDT: the sum of the leading four jets b-tagging scores.
Pre-fit comparison between data and background in the baseline SR for two of the variables used as input for the SM BDT: the number of jets.
Pre-fit comparison between data and background in the baseline SR for two of the variables used as input for the BSM pBDT: SM BDT.
A search for pair-produced scalar and vector leptoquarks decaying into quarks and leptons of different generations is presented. It uses the full LHC Run 2 (2015-2018) data set of 139 fb$^{-1}$ collected with the ATLAS detector in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV. Scalar leptoquarks with charge -(1/3)e as well as scalar and vector leptoquarks with charge +(2/3)e are considered. All possible decays of the pair-produced leptoquarks into quarks of the third generation (t, b) and charged or neutral leptons of the first or second generation ($e, \mu, \nu$) with exactly one electron or muon in the final state are investigated. No significant deviations from the Standard Model expectation are observed. Upper limits on the production cross-section are provided for eight models as a function of the leptoquark mass and the branching ratio of the leptoquark into the charged or neutral lepton. In addition, lower limits on the leptoquark masses are derived for all models across a range of branching ratios. Two of these models have the goal of providing an explanation for the recent B-anomalies. In both models, a vector leptoquark decays into charged and neutral leptons of the second generation with a similar branching fraction. Lower limits of 1980 GeV and 1710 GeV are set on the leptoquark mass for these two models.
- - - - - - - - Overview of HEPData Record - - - - - - - - <br/><br/> <b>95% CL limits on the production cross-section for:</b> <ul> <li><a href="135703?version=1&table=%24LQ_u%20%5Crightarrow%20t%5Cnu%2Fb%5Cmu%24%20observed%20limits">scalar up-type LQs decaying into a top quark and a neutrino or a bottom quark and a muon (observed)</a> <li><a href="135703?version=1&table=%24LQ_u%20%5Crightarrow%20t%5Cnu%2Fb%5Cmu%24%20expected%20limits">scalar up-type LQs decaying into a top quark and a neutrino or a bottom quark and a muon (expected)</a> <li><a href="135703?version=1&table=%24LQ_u%20%5Crightarrow%20t%5Cnu%2Fbe%24%20observed%20limits">scalar up-type LQs decaying into a top quark and a neutrino or a bottom quark and an electron (observed)</a> <li><a href="135703?version=1&table=%24LQ_u%20%5Crightarrow%20t%5Cnu%2Fbe%24%20expected%20limits">scalar up-type LQs decaying into a top quark and a neutrino or a bottom quark and an electron (expected)</a> <li><a href="135703?version=1&table=%24LQ_d%20%5Crightarrow%20t%5Cmu%2Fb%5Cnu%24%20observed%20limits">scalar down-type LQs decaying into a bottom quark and a neutrino or a top quark and a muon (observed)</a> <li><a href="135703?version=1&table=%24LQ_d%20%5Crightarrow%20t%5Cmu%2Fb%5Cnu%24%20expected%20limits">scalar down-type LQs decaying into a bottom quark and a neutrino or a top quark and a muon (expected)</a> <li><a href="135703?version=1&table=%24LQ_d%20%5Crightarrow%20te%2Fb%5Cnu%24%20observed%20limits">scalar down-type LQs decaying into a bottom quark and a neutrino or a top quark and an electron (observed)</a> <li><a href="135703?version=1&table=%24LQ_d%20%5Crightarrow%20te%2Fb%5Cnu%24%20expected%20limits">scalar down-type LQs decaying into a bottom quark and a neutrino or a top quark and an electron (expected)</a> <li><a href="135703?version=1&table=%24vLQ_%7BYM%7D%20%5Crightarrow%20t%5Cnu%2Fb%5Cmu%24%20observed%20limits">vector up-type LQs in the Yang-Mills coupling scenario decaying into a top quark and a neutrino or a bottom quark and a muon (observed)</a> <li><a href="135703?version=1&table=%24vLQ_%7BYM%7D%20%5Crightarrow%20t%5Cnu%2Fb%5Cmu%24%20expected%20limits">vector up-type LQs in the Yang-Mills coupling scenario decaying into a top quark and a neutrino or a bottom quark and a muon (expected)</a> <li><a href="135703?version=1&table=%24vLQ_%7BYM%7D%20%5Crightarrow%20t%5Cnu%2Fbe%24%20observed%20limits">vector up-type LQs in the Yang-Mills coupling scenario decaying into a top quark and a neutrino or a bottom quark and an electron (observed)</a> <li><a href="135703?version=1&table=%24vLQ_%7BYM%7D%20%5Crightarrow%20t%5Cnu%2Fbe%24%20expected%20limits">vector up-type LQs in the Yang-Mills coupling scenario decaying into a top quark and a neutrino or a bottom quark and an electron (expected)</a> <li><a href="135703?version=1&table=%24vLQ_%7Bmin%7D%20%5Crightarrow%20t%5Cnu%2Fb%5Cmu%24%20observed%20limits">vector up-type LQs in the minimal coupling scenario decaying into a top quark and a neutrino or a bottom quark and a muon (observed)</a> <li><a href="135703?version=1&table=%24vLQ_%7Bmin%7D%20%5Crightarrow%20t%5Cnu%2Fb%5Cmu%24%20expected%20limits">vector up-type LQs in the minimal coupling scenario decaying into a top quark and a neutrino or a bottom quark and a muon (expected)</a> <li><a href="135703?version=1&table=%24vLQ_%7Bmin%7D%20%5Crightarrow%20t%5Cnu%2Fbe%24%20observed%20limits">vector up-type LQs in the minimal coupling scenario decaying into a top quark and a neutrino or a bottom quark and an electron (observed)</a> <li><a href="135703?version=1&table=%24vLQ_%7Bmin%7D%20%5Crightarrow%20t%5Cnu%2Fbe%24%20expected%20limits">vector up-type LQs in the minimal coupling scenario decaying into a top quark and a neutrino or a bottom quark and an electron (expected)</a> </ul> <b>Product of signal acceptance and efficiency in the training region for:</b> <ul> <li><a href="135703?version=1&table=%24LQ_u%20%5Crightarrow%20t%5Cnu%2Fb%5Cmu%24%20Acceptance%20times%20Efficiency">scalar up-type LQs decaying into top quarks and neutrinos or bottom quarks and muons</a> <li><a href="135703?version=1&table=%24LQ_u%20%5Crightarrow%20t%5Cnu%2Fbe%24%20Acceptance%20times%20Efficiency">scalar up-type LQs decaying into top quarks and neutrinos or bottom quarks and electrons</a> <li><a href="135703?version=1&table=%24LQ_d%20%5Crightarrow%20t%5Cmu%2Fb%5Cnu%24%20Acceptance%20times%20Efficiency">scalar down-type LQs decaying into bottom quarks and neutrinos or top quarks and muons</a> <li><a href="135703?version=1&table=%24LQ_d%20%5Crightarrow%20te%2Fb%5Cnu%24%20Acceptance%20times%20Efficiency">scalar down-type LQs decaying into bottom quarks and neutrinos or top quarks and electrons</a> <li><a href="135703?version=1&table=%24vLQ_%7BYM%7D%20%5Crightarrow%20t%5Cnu%2Fb%5Cmu%24%20Acceptance%20times%20Efficiency">vector up-type LQs in the Yang-Mills coupling scenario decaying into top quarks and neutrinos or bottom quarks and muons</a> <li><a href="135703?version=1&table=%24vLQ_%7BYM%7D%20%5Crightarrow%20t%5Cnu%2Fbe%24%20Acceptance%20times%20Efficiency">vector up-type LQs in the Yang-Mills coupling scenario decaying into top quarks and neutrinos or bottom quarks and electrons</a> <li><a href="135703?version=1&table=%24vLQ_%7Bmin%7D%20%5Crightarrow%20t%5Cnu%2Fb%5Cmu%24%20Acceptance%20times%20Efficiency">vector up-type LQs in the minimal coupling scenario decaying into top quarks and neutrinos or bottom quarks and muons</a> <li><a href="135703?version=1&table=%24vLQ_%7Bmin%7D%20%5Crightarrow%20t%5Cnu%2Fbe%24%20Acceptance%20times%20Efficiency">vector up-type LQs in the minimal coupling scenario decaying into top quarks and neutrinos or bottom quarks and electrons</a> </ul> <b>Cut-flow for:</b> <ul> <li><a href="135703?version=1&table=Scalar%20LQs%20cut-flow">scalar LQs</a> <li><a href="135703?version=1&table=Vector%20LQs%20cut-flow">vector LQs</a> </ul>
Observed 95% CL limits on the production cross-section for scalar up-type LQs decaying into a top quark and a neutrino or a bottom quark and a muon.
Expected 95% CL limits on the production cross-section for scalar up-type LQs decaying into a top quark and a neutrino or a bottom quark and a muon.
A search for the electroweak production of pairs of charged sleptons or charginos decaying into two-lepton final states with missing transverse momentum is presented. Two simplified models of $R$-parity-conserving supersymmetry are considered: direct pair-production of sleptons ($\tilde{\ell}\tilde{\ell}$), with each decaying into a charged lepton and a $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ neutralino, and direct pair-production of the lightest charginos $(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^\mp)$, with each decaying into a $W$-boson and a $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_1^0$) is assumed to be the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP). The analyses target the experimentally challenging mass regions where $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm)-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ are close to the $W$-boson mass (`moderately compressed' regions). The search uses 139 fb$^{-1}$ of $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV proton-proton collisions recorded by the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider. No significant excesses over the expected background are observed. Exclusion limits on the simplified models under study are reported in the ($\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0$) and ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0$) mass planes at 95% confidence level (CL). Sleptons with masses up to 150 GeV are excluded at 95% CL for the case of a mass-splitting between sleptons and the LSP of 50 GeV. Chargino masses up to 140 GeV are excluded at 95% CL for the case of a mass-splitting between the chargino and the LSP down to about 100 GeV.
<b>- - - - - - - - Overview of HEPData Record - - - - - - - -</b> <b>Title: </b><em>Search for direct pair production of sleptons and charginos decaying to two leptons and neutralinos with mass splittings near the $W$ boson mass in $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV $pp$ collisions with the ATLAS detector</em> <b>Paper website:</b> <a href="https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PAPERS/SUSY-2019-02/">SUSY-2019-02</a> <b>Exclusion contours</b> <ul><li><b>Sleptons:</b> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_nominal>Combined Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_up>Combined Observed Up</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_down>Combined Observed Down</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_nominal>Combined Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_up>Combined Expected Up</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_down>Combined Expected Down</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_nominal_dM>Combined Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_up_dM>Combined Observed Up $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_down_dM>Combined Observed Down $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_nominal_dM>Combined Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_up_dM>Combined Expected Up $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_down_dM>Combined Expected Down $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_ee_obs_nominal>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_ee_exp_nominal>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_eLeL_obs_nominal>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L}$ Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_eLeL_exp_nominal>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L}$ Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_eReR_obs_nominal>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{R}$ Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_eReR_exp_nominal>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{R}$ Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_ee_obs_nominal_dM>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_ee_exp_nominal_dM>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_eLeL_obs_nominal_dM>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L}$ Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_eLeL_exp_nominal_dM>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L}$ Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_eReR_obs_nominal_dM>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{R}$ Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_eReR_exp_nominal_dM>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{R}$ Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_mm_obs_nominal>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_mm_exp_nominal>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_mLmL_obs_nominal>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L}$ Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_mLmL_exp_nominal>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L}$ Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_mRmR_obs_nominal>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{R}$ Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_mRmR_exp_nominal>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{R}$ Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_mm_obs_nominal_dM>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_mm_exp_nominal_dM>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_mLmL_obs_nominal_dM>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L}$ Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_mLmL_exp_nominal_dM>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L}$ Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_mRmR_obs_nominal_dM>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{R}$ Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_mRmR_exp_nominal_dM>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{R}$ Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_nominal_SR0j>Combined Observed Nominal SR-0j</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_nominal_SR0j>Combined Expected Nominal SR-0j</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_nominal_SR1j>Combined Observed Nominal SR-1j</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_nominal_SR1j>Combined Expected Nominal SR-1j</a> <li><b>Charginos:</b> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_obs_nominal>Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_obs_up>Observed Up</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_obs_down>Observed Down</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_exp_nominal>Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_exp_nominal>Expected Up</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_exp_nominal>Expected Down</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_obs_nominal_dM>Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_obs_up_dM>Observed Up $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_obs_down_dM>Observed Down $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_exp_nominal_dM>Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_exp_nominal_dM>Expected Up $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_exp_nominal_dM>Expected Down $(\Delta m)$</a> </ul> <b>Upper Limits</b> <ul><li><b>Sleptons:</b> <a href=?table=UL_slep>ULs</a> <li><b>Charginos:</b> <a href=?table=UL_c1c1>ULs</a> </ul> <b>Pull Plots</b> <ul><li><b>Sleptons:</b> <a href=?table=pullplot_slep>SRs summary plot</a> <li><b>Charginos:</b> <a href=?table=pullplot_c1c1>SRs summary plot</a> </ul> <b>Cutflows</b> <ul><li><b>Sleptons:</b> <a href=?table=Cutflow_slep_SR0j>Towards SR-0J</a> <a href=?table=Cutflow_slep_SR1j>Towards SR-1J</a> <li><b>Charginos:</b> <a href=?table=Cutflow_SRs>Towards SRs</a> </ul> <b>Acceptance and Efficiencies</b> <ul><li><b>Sleptons:</b> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_100_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_100_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_110_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_110_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_120_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_120_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_130_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_130_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_100_105>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_100_105>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_105_110>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_105_110>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_110_115>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_110_115>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_115_120>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_115_120>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_120_125>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,125)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_125_130>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[125,130)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_130_140>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_130_140>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_140_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_140_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_100_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_100_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_110_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_110_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_120_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_120_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_130_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_130_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_100_105>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_100_105>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_105_110>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_105_110>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_110_115>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_110_115>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_115_120>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_115_120>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_120_125>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,125)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_125_130>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[125,130)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_130_140>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_130_140>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_140_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_140_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <li><b>Charginos:</b> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_81_1_SF_77_1>SR$^{\text{-DF BDT-signal}\in(0.81,1]}_{\text{-SF BDT-signal}\in(0.77,1]}$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_81_1_SF_77_1>SR$^{\text{-DF BDT-signal}\in(0.81,1]}_{\text{-SF BDT-signal}\in(0.77,1]}$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_81_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_81_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_82_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_82_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_83_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_83_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_84_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.84,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_84_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.84,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_85_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_85_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_81_8125>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,8125]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_81_8125>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,8125]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_8125_815>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8125,815]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_8125_815>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8125,815]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_815_8175>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.815,8175]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_815_8175>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.815,8175]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_8175_82>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8175,82]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_8175_82>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8175,82]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_82_8225>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,8225]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_82_8225>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,8225]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_8225_825>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8225,825]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_8225_825>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8225,825]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_825_8275>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.825,8275]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_825_8275>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.825,8275]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_8275_83>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8275,83]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_8275_83>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8275,83]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_83_8325>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,8325]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_83_8325>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,8325]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_8325_835>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8325,835]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_8325_835>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8325,835]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_835_8375>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.835,8375]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_835_8375>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.835,8375]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_8375_84>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8375,84]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_8375_84>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8375,84]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_84_845>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,845]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_84_845>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,845]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_845_85>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.845,85]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_845_85>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.845,85]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_85_86>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,86]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_85_86>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,86]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_86_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.86,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_86_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.86,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_77_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_77_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_78_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_78_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_79_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_79_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_80_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_80_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_77_775>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,0.775]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_77_775>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,0.775]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_775_78>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.775,0.78]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_775_78>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.775,0.78]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_78_785>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,0.785]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_78_785>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,0.785]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_785_79>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.785,0.79]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_785_79>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.785,0.79]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_79_795>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,0.795]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_79_795>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,0.795]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_795_80>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.795,0.80]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_795_80>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.795,0.80]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_80_81>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,0.81]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_80_81>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,0.81]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_81_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_81_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ Efficiency</a></ul> <b>Truth Code snippets</b>, <b>SLHA</b> and <b>machine learning</b> files are available under "Resources" (purple button on the left)
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
A search for Higgs boson pair production in events with two $b$-jets and two $\tau$-leptons is presented, using a proton-proton collision dataset with an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$ collected at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV by the ATLAS experiment at the LHC. Higgs boson pairs produced non-resonantly or in the decay of a narrow scalar resonance in the mass range from 251 to 1600 GeV are targeted. Events in which at least one $\tau$-lepton decays hadronically are considered, and multivariate discriminants are used to reject the backgrounds. No significant excess of events above the expected background is observed in the non-resonant search. The largest excess in the resonant search is observed at a resonance mass of 1 TeV, with a local (global) significance of $3.1\sigma$ ($2.0\sigma$). Observed (expected) 95% confidence-level upper limits are set on the non-resonant Higgs boson pair-production cross-section at 4.7 (3.9) times the Standard Model prediction, assuming Standard Model kinematics, and on the resonant Higgs boson pair-production cross-section at between 21 and 900 fb (12 and 840 fb), depending on the mass of the narrow scalar resonance.
Breakdown of the relative contributions to the uncertainty in the extracted signal cross-sections, as determined in the likelihood fit (described in Section 8) to data. These are obtained by fixing the relevant nuisance parameters in the likelihood fit, and subtracting the obtained uncertainty on the fitted signal cross-sections in quadrature from the total uncertainty, and then dividing the result by the total uncertainty. The sum in quadrature of the individual components differs from the total uncertainty due to correlations between uncertainties in the different groups.
Post-fit expected number of signal and background events and observed number of data events in the last two bins of the non-resonant BDT score distribution of the SM signal after applying the selection criteria and requiring exactly 2 b-tagged jets and assuming a background-only hypothesis
Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the cross-section of non-resonant HH production according to SM-like kinematics, and on the cross-section of non-resonant HH production divided by the SM prediction. The 1 sigma and 2 sigma variations around the expected limit are also shown.
A measurement of the top-quark mass ($m_t$) in the $t\bar{t}\rightarrow~\textrm{lepton}+\textrm{jets}$ channel is presented, with an experimental technique which exploits semileptonic decays of $b$-hadrons produced in the top-quark decay chain. The distribution of the invariant mass $m_{\ell\mu}$ of the lepton, $\ell$ (with $\ell=e,\mu$), from the $W$-boson decay and the muon, $\mu$, originating from the $b$-hadron decay is reconstructed, and a binned-template profile likelihood fit is performed to extract $m_t$. The measurement is based on data corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ of $\sqrt{s} = 13~\textrm{TeV}$$pp$ collisions provided by the Large Hadron Collider and recorded by the ATLAS detector. The measured value of the top-quark mass is $m_{t} = 174.41\pm0.39~(\textrm{stat.})\pm0.66~(\textrm{syst.})\pm0.25~(\textrm{recoil})~\textrm{GeV}$, where the third uncertainty arises from changing the PYTHIA8 parton shower gluon-recoil scheme, used in top-quark decays, to a recently developed setup.
Top mass measurement result.
List of all the individual sources of systematic uncertainty considered in the analysis. The individual sources, each corresponding to an independent nuisance parameter in the fit, are grouped into categories, as indicated in the first column. The second column shows the impact of each of the individual sources on the measurement, obtained as the shift on the top mass induced by a positive shift of the each of the nuisance parameters by its post-fit uncertainty. Sources for which no impact is indicated are neglected in the fit procedure as their impact on the total prediction is negligible in any of the bins. The last column shows the statistical uncertainty in each of the reported numbers as estimated with the bootstrap method.
Ranking, from top to bottom, of the main systematic uncertainties (excluding recoil) showing the pulls and the impact of the systematic uncertainties on the top mass, from the combined opposite sign (OS) and same sign (SS) binned-template profile likelihood fit to data. The OS or SS refers to the charge signs of the primary lepton and the soft muon. The gamma parameters are NPs used to describe the effect of the limited statistics of the sample.
Inclusive and differential measurements of the top-antitop ($t\bar{t}$) charge asymmetry $A_\text{C}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the leptonic asymmetry $A_\text{C}^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ are presented in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV recorded by the ATLAS experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider. The measurement uses the complete Run 2 dataset, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, combines data in the single-lepton and dilepton channels, and employs reconstruction techniques adapted to both the resolved and boosted topologies. A Bayesian unfolding procedure is performed to correct for detector resolution and acceptance effects. The combined inclusive $t\bar{t}$ charge asymmetry is measured to be $A_\text{C}^{t\bar{t}} = 0.0068 \pm 0.0015$, which differs from zero by 4.7 standard deviations. Differential measurements are performed as a function of the invariant mass, transverse momentum and longitudinal boost of the $t\bar{t}$ system. Both the inclusive and differential measurements are found to be compatible with the Standard Model predictions, at next-to-next-to-leading order in quantum chromodynamics perturbation theory with next-to-leading-order electroweak corrections. The measurements are interpreted in the framework of the Standard Model effective field theory, placing competitive bounds on several Wilson coefficients.
- - - - - - - - Overview of HEPData Record - - - - - - - - <br/><br/> <b>Results:</b> <ul> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Resultsforchargeasymmetryinclusive">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Resultsforchargeasymmetryvsmtt">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Resultsforchargeasymmetryvspttt">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Resultsforchargeasymmetryvsbetatt">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Resultsforleptonicchargeasymmetryinclusive">$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Resultsforchargeasymmetryvsllmll">$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Resultsforchargeasymmetryvsllptll">$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Resultsforchargeasymmetryvsllbetall">$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> </ul> <b>Bounds on the Wilson coefficients:</b> <ul> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=BoundsonWilsoncoefficientschargeasymmetryinclusive">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=BoundsonWilsoncoefficientschargeasymmetryvsmtt">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$</a> </ul> <b>Ranking of systematic uncertainties:</b></br> Inclusive:<a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryinclusive">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$</a></br> <b>$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$:</b> <ul> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsbetattbin0">$\beta_{z,t\bar{t}} \in[0,0.3]$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsbetattbin1">$\beta_{z,t\bar{t}} \in[0.3,0.6]$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsbetattbin2">$\beta_{z,t\bar{t}} \in[0.6,0.8]$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsbetattbin3">$\beta_{z,t\bar{t}} \in[0.8,1]$</a> </ul> <b>$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$:</b> <ul> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsmttbin0">$m_{t\bar{t}}$ < $500$GeV</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsmttbin1">$m_{t\bar{t}} \in [500,750]$GeV</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsmttbin2">$m_{t\bar{t}} \in [750,1000]$GeV</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsmttbin3">$m_{t\bar{t}} \in [1000,1500]$GeV</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsmttbin4">$m_{t\bar{t}}$ > $1500$GeV</a> </ul> <b>$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$:</b> <ul> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsptttbin0">$p_{T,t\bar{t}} \in [0,30]$GeV</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsptttbin1">$p_{T,t\bar{t}} \in[30,120]$GeV</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsptttbin2">$p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ > $120$GeV</a> </ul> Inclusive leptonic:<a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingleptonicchargeasymmetryinclusive">$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a></br> <b>$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$</b> <ul> <li><a href="132116?version=1&tableNPrankingchargeasymmetry=vsllbetallbin0">$\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}} \in [0,0.3]$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&tableNPrankingchargeasymmetry=vsllbetallbin1">$\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}} \in [0.3,0.6]$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&tableNPrankingchargeasymmetry=vsllbetallbin2">$\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}} \in [0.6,0.8]$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&tableNPrankingchargeasymmetry=vsllbetallbin3">$\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}} \in [0.8,1]$</a> </ul> <b>$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$</b> <ul> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsllmllbin0">$m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ < $200$GeV</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsllmllbin1">$m_{\ell\bar{\ell}} \in [200,300]$GeV</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsllmllbin2">$m_{\ell\bar{\ell}} \in [300,400]$Ge$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsllmllbin3">$m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ > $400$GeV</a> </ul> <b>$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$</b> <ul> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsllptllbin0">$p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}\in [0,20]$GeV</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsllptllbin1">$p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}\in[20,70]$GeV</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsllptllbin2">$p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ > $70$GeV</a> </ul> <b>NP correlations:</b> <ul> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPcorrelationschargeasymmetryinclusive">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPcorrelationschargeasymmetryvsmtt">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPcorrelationschargeasymmetryvspttt">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPcorrelationschargeasymmetryvsbetatt">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPcorrelationsleptonicchargeasymmetryinclusive">$A_c^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPcorrelationschargeasymmetryvsllmll">$A_c^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPcorrelationschargeasymmetryvsllptll">$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPcorrelationschargeasymmetryvsllbetall">$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> </ul> <b>Covariance matrices:</b> <ul> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Covariancematrixchargeasymmetryvsmtt">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Covariancematrixchargeasymmetryvspttt">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Covariancematrixchargeasymmetryvsbetatt">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Covariancematrixleptonicchargeasymmetryvsllmll">$A_c^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Covariancematrixleptonicchargeasymmetryvsllptll">$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Covariancematrixleptonicchargeasymmetryvsllbetall">$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> </ul>
The unfolded inclusive charge asymmetry. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NNLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed, and the impact of the linear term of the Wilson coefficient on the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ prediction is shown for two different values. The scale uncertainty is obtained by varying renormalisation and factorisation scales independently by a factor of 2 or 0.5 around $\mu_0$ to calculate the maximum and minimum value of the asymmetry, respectively. The nominal value $\mu_0$ is chosen as $H_T/4$. The variations in which one scale is multiplied by 2 while the other scale is divided by 2 are excluded. Finally, the scale and MC integration uncertainties are added in quadrature.
The unfolded differential charge asymmetry as a function of the invariant mass of the top pair system. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NNLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed, and the impact of the linear term of the Wilson coefficient on the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ prediction is shown for two different values. The scale uncertainty is obtained by varying renormalisation and factorisation scales independently by a factor of 2 or 0.5 around $\mu_0$ to calculate the maximum and minimum value of the asymmetry, respectively. The nominal value $\mu_0$ is chosen as $H_T/4$. The variations in which one scale is multiplied by 2 while the other scale is divided by 2 are excluded. Finally, the scale and MC integration uncertainties are added in quadrature.
A search for flavour-changing neutral current (FCNC) $tqH$ interactions involving a top quark, another up-type quark ($q=u$, $c$), and a Standard Model (SM) Higgs boson decaying into a $\tau$-lepton pair ($H\rightarrow \tau^+\tau^-$) is presented. The search is based on a dataset of $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV that corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$ recorded with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider. Two processes are considered: single top quark FCNC production in association with a Higgs boson ($pp\rightarrow tH$), and top quark pair production in which one of the top quarks decays into $Wb$ and the other decays into $qH$ through the FCNC interactions. The search selects events with two hadronically decaying $\tau$-lepton candidates ($\tau_{\text{had}}$) or at least one $\tau_{\text{had}}$ with an additional lepton ($e$, $\mu$), as well as multiple jets. Event kinematics is used to separate signal from the background through a multivariate discriminant. A slight excess of data is observed with a significance of 2.3$\sigma$ above the expected SM background, and 95% CL upper limits on the $t\to qH$ branching ratios are derived. The observed (expected) 95% CL upper limits set on the $t\to cH$ and $t\to uH$ branching ratios are $9.4 \times 10^{-4}$ $(4.8^{+2.2}_{-1.4}\times 10^{-4})$ and $6.9\times 10^{-4}$ $(3.5^{+1.5}_{-1.0}\times 10^{-4})$, respectively. The corresponding combined observed (expected) upper limits on the dimension-6 operator Wilson coefficients in the effective $tqH$ couplings are $C_{c\phi} <1.35$ $(0.97)$ and $C_{u\phi} <1.16$ $(0.82)$.
Leading tau Pt distributions obtained before the fit to data (Pre-Fit) showing the expected background and tuH signals after applying fake factors in the $t_{\ell}\tau_{had}\tau_{had}$ region. Other MC includes single top, V+jets, and other small backgrounds. The tuH signals with nominal branching ratio of 0.1% are scaled using normalization factors of 2 to 50. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the "Total background".
Leading tau Pt distributions obtained before the fit to data (Pre-Fit) showing the expected background and tuH signals after applying fake factors in the $t_{\ell}\tau_{had}$-1j region. Other MC includes single top, V+jets, and other small backgrounds. The tuH signals with nominal branching ratio of 0.1% are scaled using normalization factors of 2 to 50. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the "Total background".
Leading tau Pt distributions obtained before the fit to data (Pre-Fit) showing the expected background and tuH signals after applying fake factors in the $t_{\ell}\tau_{had}$-2j region. Other MC includes single top, V+jets, and other small backgrounds. The tuH signals with nominal branching ratio of 0.1% are scaled using normalization factors of 2 to 50. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are included in the "Total background".
A search for a $WZ$ resonance, in the fully leptonic final state (electrons and muons), is performed using 139 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV by the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider. The results are interpreted in terms of a singly charged Higgs boson of the Georgi$-$Machacek model, produced by $WZ$ fusion, and of a Heavy Vector Triplet, with the resonance produced by $WZ$ fusion or the Drell$-$Yan process. No significant excess over the Standard Model predictions is observed and limits are set on the production cross-section times branching ratio as a function of the resonance mass for these processes.
Comparisons of the data and the expected background distributions of the WZ invariant mass in the Drell-Yan signal region. The background predictions are obtained through a background-only simultaneous fit to the Drell-Yan signal region and the WZ-QCD Drell-Yan and ZZ Drell-Yan control regions. The yields are normalized to the bin width.
Comparisons of the data and the expected background distributions of the WZ invariant mass in the Drell-Yan signal region. The background predictions are obtained through a background-only simultaneous fit to the Drell-Yan signal region and the WZ-QCD Drell-Yan and ZZ Drell-Yan control regions. The yields are normalized to the bin width.
Comparisons of the data and the expected background distributions of the WZ invariant mass in the ANN-based VBF signal region. The background predictions are obtained through a background-only simultaneous fit to the VBF signal region and the WZ-QCD and ZZ VBF control regions. The yields are normalized to the bin width
Measurements of Higgs boson production cross-sections are carried out in the diphoton decay channel using 139 fb$^{-1}$ of $pp$ collision data at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV collected by the ATLAS experiment at the LHC. The analysis is based on the definition of 101 distinct signal regions using machine-learning techniques. The inclusive Higgs boson signal strength in the diphoton channel is measured to be $1.04^{+0.10}_{-0.09}$. Cross-sections for gluon-gluon fusion, vector-boson fusion, associated production with a $W$ or $Z$ boson, and top associated production processes are reported. An upper limit of 10 times the Standard Model prediction is set for the associated production process of a Higgs boson with a single top quark, which has a unique sensitivity to the sign of the top quark Yukawa coupling. Higgs boson production is further characterized through measurements of Simplified Template Cross-Sections (STXS). In total, cross-sections of 28 STXS regions are measured. The measured STXS cross-sections are compatible with their Standard Model predictions, with a $p$-value of $93\%$. The measurements are also used to set constraints on Higgs boson coupling strengths, as well as on new interactions beyond the Standard Model in an effective field theory approach. No significant deviations from the Standard Model predictions are observed in these measurements, which provide significant sensitivity improvements compared to the previous ATLAS results.
Cross-sections times H->yy branching ratio for ggF +bbH, VBF, VH, ttH, and tH production, normalized to their SM predictions. The values are obtained from a simultaneous fit to all categories. The theory uncertainties in the predictions include uncertainties due to missing higher-order terms in the perturbative QCD calculations and choices of parton distribution functions and value of alpha_s, as well as the H->yy branching ratio uncertainty.
Correlation matrix for the measurement of production cross-sections of the Higgs boson times the H->yy branching ratio.
Best-fit values and uncertainties for STXS parameters in each of the 28 regions considered, normalized to their SM predictions. The values for the gg->H process also include the contributions from bbH production.
This article presents a search for new resonances decaying into a $Z$ or $W$ boson and a 125 GeV Higgs boson $h$, and it targets the $\nu\bar{\nu}b\bar{b}$, $\ell^+\ell^-b\bar{b}$, or $\ell^{\pm}{\nu}b\bar{b}$ final states, where $\ell=e$ or $\mu$, in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV. The data used correspond to a total integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$ collected by the ATLAS detector during Run 2 of the LHC at CERN. The search is conducted by examining the reconstructed invariant or transverse mass distributions of $Zh$ or $Wh$ candidates for evidence of a localised excess in the mass range from 220 GeV to 5 TeV. No significant excess is observed and 95% confidence-level upper limits between 1.3 pb and 0.3 fb are placed on the production cross section times branching fraction of neutral and charged spin-1 resonances and CP-odd scalar bosons. These limits are converted into constraints on the parameter space of the Heavy Vector Triplet model and the two-Higgs-doublet model.
Acceptance * reconstruction efficiency for the P P --> Zprime --> Zh --> vvbb/cc signals in the 0-lepton channel.
Acceptance * reconstruction efficiency for the P P --> Zprime --> Zh --> vvbb/cc signals in the 0-lepton channel.
Acceptance * reconstruction efficiency for the P P --> Zprime --> Zh --> llbb/cc signals in the 2-lepton channel.
This paper presents a measurement of fiducial and differential cross-sections for $W^{+}W^{-}$ production in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV with the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider using a dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. Events with exactly one electron, one muon and no hadronic jets are studied. The fiducial region in which the measurements are performed is inspired by searches for the electroweak production of supersymmetric charginos decaying to two-lepton final states. The selected events have moderate values of missing transverse momentum and the `stransverse mass' variable $m_{\textrm{T2}}$, which is widely used in searches for supersymmetry at the LHC. The ranges of these variables are chosen so that the acceptance is enhanced for direct $W^{+}W^{-}$ production and suppressed for production via top quarks, which is treated as a background. The fiducial cross-section and particle-level differential cross-sections for six variables are measured and compared with two theoretical SM predictions from perturbative QCD calculations.
Signal region detector-level distribution for the observable $|y_{e\mu}|$.
Signal region detector-level distribution for the observable $|\Delta \phi(e \mu)|$.
Signal region detector-level distribution for the observable $ \cos\theta^{\ast}$.
A search for light long-lived neutral particles with masses in the $O$(MeV-GeV) range is presented. The analysis targets the production of long-lived dark photons in the decay of a Higgs boson produced via gluon-gluon fusion or in association with a $W$ boson. Events that contain displaced collimated Standard Model fermions reconstructed in the calorimeter or muon spectrometer are selected in 139 fb$^{-1}$ of $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV $pp$ collision data collected by the ATLAS detector at the LHC. Background estimates for contributions from Standard Model processes and instrumental effects are extracted from data. The observed event yields are consistent with the expected background. Exclusion limits are reported on the production cross-section times branching fraction as a function of the mean proper decay length $c\tau$ of the dark photon, or as a function of the dark-photon mass and kinetic mixing parameter that quantifies the coupling between the Standard Model and potential hidden (dark) sectors. A Higgs boson branching fraction above 1% is excluded at 95% CL for a Higgs boson decaying into two dark photons for dark-photon mean proper decay lengths between 10 mm and 250 mm and dark photons with masses between 0.4 GeV and 2 GeV.
The reconstruction efficiency for μDPJ objects satisfying the cosmic-ray tagger selection produced in the decay of a γ<sub>d</sub> into a muon pair. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for γ<sub>d</sub> with 0<|η|<1 as a function of the transverse decay length L<sub>xy</sub>.
The reconstruction efficiency for μDPJ objects satisfying the cosmic-ray tagger selection produced in the decay of a γ<sub>d</sub> into a muon pair. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for γ<sub>d</sub> with 0<|η|<1 as a function of the γ<sub>d</sub> transverse momentum in events where the γ<sub>d</sub> L<sub>xy</sub> is below 6 m.
The reconstruction efficiency for caloDPJs produced by the decay of γ<sub>d</sub> into e<sup>+</sup>e<sup>-</sup> or qq̄. The reconstruction efficiency is shown for γ<sub>d</sub> with 0<|η|<1.1 as a function of the transverse decay length L<sub>xy</sub>. The efficiency drop at 2.5 m corresponds to the end of the first layer of the HCAL.
A search for new phenomena has been performed in final states with at least one isolated high-momentum photon, jets and missing transverse momentum in proton--proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV. The data, collected by the ATLAS experiment at the CERN LHC, correspond to an integrated luminosity of 139 $fb^{-1}$. The experimental results are interpreted in a supersymmetric model in which pair-produced gluinos decay into neutralinos, which in turn decay into a gravitino, at least one photon, and jets. No significant deviations from the predictions of the Standard Model are observed. Upper limits are set on the visible cross section due to physics beyond the Standard Model, and lower limits are set on the masses of the gluinos and neutralinos, all at 95% confidence level. Visible cross sections greater than 0.022 fb are excluded and pair-produced gluinos with masses up to 2200 GeV are excluded for most of the NLSP masses investigated.
The observed and expected (post-fit) yields in the control and validation regions. The lower panel shows the difference in standard deviations between the observed and expected yields, considering both the systematic and statistical uncertainties on the background expectation.
Observed (points with error bars) and expected background (solid histograms) distributions for $E_{T}^{miss}$ in the signal region (a) SRL, (b) SRM and (c) SRH after the background-only fit applied to the CRs. The predicted signal distributions for the two models with a gluino mass of 2000 GeV and neutralino mass of 250 GeV (SRL), 1050 GeV (SRM) or 1950 GeV (SRH) are also shown for comparison. The uncertainties in the SM background are only statistical.
Observed (points with error bars) and expected background (solid histograms) distributions for $E_{T}^{miss}$ in the signal region (a) SRL, (b) SRM and (c) SRH after the background-only fit applied to the CRs. The predicted signal distributions for the two models with a gluino mass of 2000 GeV and neutralino mass of 250 GeV (SRL), 1050 GeV (SRM) or 1950 GeV (SRH) are also shown for comparison. The uncertainties in the SM background are only statistical.
Forum