Version 3
Search for resonant pair production of Higgs bosons in the $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$ final state using $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

The ATLAS collaboration Aad, Georges ; Abbott, Braden Keim ; Abbott, Dale ; et al.
Phys.Rev.D 105 (2022) 092002, 2022.
Inspire Record 2032611 DOI 10.17182/hepdata.111124

A search for resonant Higgs boson pair production in the $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$ final state is presented. The analysis uses 126-139 fb$^{-1}$ of $pp$ collision data at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV collected with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider. The analysis is divided into two channels, targeting Higgs boson decays which are reconstructed as pairs of small-radius jets or as individual large-radius jets. Spin-0 and spin-2 benchmark signal models are considered, both of which correspond to resonant $HH$ production via gluon$-$gluon fusion. The data are consistent with Standard Model predictions. Upper limits are set on the production cross-section times branching ratio to Higgs boson pairs of a new resonance in the mass range from 251 GeV to 5 TeV.

20 data tables

Cumulative acceptance times efficiency as a function of resonance mass for each event selection step in the resolved channel for the spin-0 signal models. The local maximum at 251 GeV is a consequence of the near-threshold kinematics.

Cumulative acceptance times efficiency as a function of resonance mass for each event selection step in the resolved channel for the spin-2 signal models. The local maximum at 251 GeV is a consequence of the near-threshold kinematics.

Corrected $m(HH)$ distribution in the resolved $4b$ validation region (dots), compared with the reweighted distribution in $2b$ validation region (teal histogram). The error bars on the $4b$ points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The final bin includes overflow. The background uncertainty (gray band) is computed by adding all individual components in quadrature. The bottom panel shows the difference between the $4b$ and reweighted $2b$ distributions, relative to the $2b$ distribution.

More…

Combination of inclusive top-quark pair production cross-section measurements using ATLAS and CMS data at $\sqrt{s}= 7$ and 8 TeV

The ATLAS & CMS collaborations Aad, G. ; Abbott, B. ; Abbott, D.C. ; et al.
JHEP 07 (2023) 213, 2023.
Inspire Record 2088291 DOI 10.17182/hepdata.110250

A combination of measurements of the inclusive top-quark pair production cross-section performed by ATLAS and CMS in proton-proton collisions at centre-of-mass energies of 7 and 8 TeV at the LHC is presented. The cross-sections are obtained using top-quark pair decays with an opposite-charge electron-muon pair in the final state and with data corresponding to an integrated luminosity of about 5 fb$^{-1}$ at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV and about 20 fb$^{-1}$ at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV for each experiment. The combined cross-sections are determined to be $178.5 \pm 4.7$ pb at $\sqrt{s}=7$ TeV and $243.3^{+6.0}_{-5.9}$ pb at $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV with a correlation of 0.41, using a reference top-quark mass value of 172.5 GeV. The ratio of the combined cross-sections is determined to be $R_{8/7}= 1.363\pm 0.032$. The combined measured cross-sections and their ratio agree well with theory calculations using several parton distribution function (PDF) sets. The values of the top-quark pole mass (with the strong coupling fixed at 0.118) and the strong coupling (with the top-quark pole mass fixed at 172.5 GeV) are extracted from the combined results by fitting a next-to-next-to-leading-order plus next-to-next-to-leading-log QCD prediction to the measurements. Using a version of the NNPDF3.1 PDF set containing no top-quark measurements, the results obtained are $m_t^\text{pole} = 173.4^{+1.8}_{-2.0}$ GeV and $\alpha_\text{s}(m_Z)= 0.1170^{+ 0.0021}_{-0.0018}$.

2 data tables

Full covariance matrix including all systematic uncertainties expressed as nuisance parameters. With the exception of the cross section parameters, all parameters were normalised to 1 before the fit. Therefore, the diagonal elements represent the constraint in quadrature.

Full covariance matrix including all systematic uncertainties expressed as nuisance parameters. With the exception of the cross section parameters, all parameters were normalised to 1 before the fit. Therefore, the diagonal elements represent the constraint in quadrature.


Search for high-mass $W\gamma$ and $Z\gamma$ resonances using hadronic W/Z boson decays from 139 fb$^{-1}$ of $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

The ATLAS collaboration Aad, Georges ; Abbott, Braden Keim ; Abbott, Dale ; et al.
JHEP 07 (2023) 125, 2023.
Inspire Record 2653725 DOI 10.17182/hepdata.136027

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.

24 data tables

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.

More…

Search for flavor-changing neutral-current couplings between the top quark and the $Z$ boson with LHC Run 2 proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector

The ATLAS collaboration Aad, G. ; Abbott, B. ; Abbott, D.C. ; et al.
Phys.Rev.D 108 (2023) 032019, 2023.
Inspire Record 2627201 DOI 10.17182/hepdata.145074

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.

18 data tables

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.).

More…

Version 3
Search for charginos and neutralinos in final states with two boosted hadronically decaying bosons and missing transverse momentum in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector

The ATLAS collaboration Aad, Georges ; Abbott, Braden Keim ; Abbott, Dale ; et al.
Phys.Rev.D 104 (2021) 112010, 2021.
Inspire Record 1906174 DOI 10.17182/hepdata.104458

A search for charginos and neutralinos at the Large Hadron Collider is reported using fully hadronic final states and missing transverse momentum. Pair-produced charginos or neutralinos are explored, each decaying into a high-$p_{\text{T}}$ Standard Model weak boson. Fully-hadronic final states are studied to exploit the advantage of the large branching ratio, and the efficient background rejection by identifying the high-$p_{\text{T}}$ bosons using large-radius jets and jet substructure information. An integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collision data collected by the ATLAS detector at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV is used. No significant excess is found beyond the Standard Model expectation. The 95% confidence level exclusion limits are set on wino or higgsino production with varying assumptions in the decay branching ratios and the type of the lightest supersymmetric particle. A wino (higgsino) mass up to 1060 (900) GeV is excluded when the lightest SUSY particle mass is below 400 (240) GeV and the mass splitting is larger than 400 (450) GeV. The sensitivity to high-mass wino and higgsino is significantly extended compared with the previous LHC searches using the other final states.

145 data tables

- - - - - - - - Overview of HEPData Record - - - - - - - - <br/><br/> <b>Cutflow:</b> <a href="104458?version=3&table=Cut flows for the representative signals">table</a><br/><br/> <b>Boson tagging:</b> <ul> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=%24W%2FZ%5Crightarrow%20qq%24%20tagging%20efficiency">$W/Z\rightarrow qq$ tagging efficiency</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=%24W%2FZ%5Crightarrow%20qq%24%20tagging%20rejection">$W/Z\rightarrow qq$ tagging rejection</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=%24Z%2Fh%20%5Crightarrow%20bb%24%20tagging%20efficiency">$Z/h\rightarrow bb$ tagging efficiency</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=%24Z%2Fh%20%5Crightarrow%20bb%24%20tagging%20rejection">$Z/h\rightarrow bb$ tagging rejection</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=%24W%5Crightarrow%20qq%24%20tagging%20efficiency%20(vs%20official%20WP)">$W\rightarrow qq$ tagging efficiency (vs official WP)</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=%24W%5Crightarrow%20qq%24%20tagging%20rejection%20(vs%20official%20WP)">$W\rightarrow qq$ tagging rejection (vs official WP)</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=%24Z%5Crightarrow%20qq%24%20tagging%20efficiency%20(vs%20official%20WP)">$Z\rightarrow qq$ tagging efficiency (vs official WP)</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=%24Z%5Crightarrow%20qq%24%20tagging%20rejection%20(vs%20official%20WP)">$Z\rightarrow qq$ tagging rejection (vs official WP)</a> </ul> <b>Systematic uncertainty:</b> <a href="104458?version=3&table=Total%20systematic%20uncertainties">table</a><br/><br/> <b>Summary of SR yields:</b> <a href="104458?version=3&table=Data%20yields%20and%20background%20expectation%20in%20the%20SRs">table</a><br/><br/> <b>Expected background yields and the breakdown:</b> <ul> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Data%20yields%20and%20background%20breakdown%20in%20SR">CR0L / SR</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Data%20yields%20and%20background%20breakdown%20in%20CR%2FVR%201L(1Y)">CR1L / VR1L /CR1Y / VR1Y</a> </ul> <b>SR distributions:</b> <ul> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Effective mass distribution in SR-4Q-VV">SR-4Q-VV: Effective mass</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Leading large-$R$ jet mass distribution in SR-4Q-VV">SR-4Q-VV: Leading jet mass</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Leading large-$R$ jet $D_{2}$ distribution in SR-4Q-VV">SR-4Q-VV: Leading jet $D_{2}$</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Sub-leading large-$R$ jet mass distribution in SR-4Q-VV">SR-4Q-VV: Sub-leading jet mass</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Sub-leading large-$R$ jet $D_{2}$ distribution in SR-4Q-VV">SR-4Q-VV: Sub-leading jet $D_{2}$</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=$m_{T2}$ distribution in SR-2B2Q-VZ">SR-2B2Q-VZ: $m_{\textrm{T2}}$</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=bb-tagged jet mass distribution in SR-2B2Q-VZ">SR-2B2Q-VZ: bb-tagged jet mass</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Effective mass distribution in SR-2B2Q-VZ">SR-2B2Q-VZ: Effective mass</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=$m_{T2}$ distribution in SR-2B2Q-Vh">SR-2B2Q-Vh: $m_{\textrm{T2}}$</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=bb-tagged jet mass distribution in SR-2B2Q-Vh">SR-2B2Q-Vh: bb-tagged jet mass</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Effective mass distribution in SR-2B2Q-Vh">SR-2B2Q-Vh: Effective mass</a> </ul> <b>Exclusion limit:</b> <ul> <li>$(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1C1-WW): <ul> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Exp limit on (W~, B~) simplified model (C1C1-WW)">Expected limit</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Exp%20limit%20(%2B1sig)%20on%20(W~, B~) simplified model (C1C1-WW)">Expected limit ($+1\sigma_{\textrm{exp}}$)</a> <li>Expected limit ($-1\sigma_{\textrm{exp}}$): (No mass point could be excluded) <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Obs limit on (W~, B~) simplified model (C1C1-WW)">Observed limit</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Obs%20limit%20(%2B1sig)%20on%20(W~, B~) simplified model (C1C1-WW)">Observed limit ($+1\sigma_{\textrm{theory}}^{\textrm{SUSY}}$)</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Obs%20limit%20(-1sig)%20on%20(W~, B~) simplified model (C1C1-WW)">Observed limit ($-1\sigma_{\textrm{theory}}^{\textrm{SUSY}}$)</a> </ul> <li>$(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1N2-WZ): <ul> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Exp limit on (W~, B~) simplified model (C1N2-WZ)">Expected limit</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Exp%20limit%20(%2B1sig)%20on%20(W~, B~) simplified model (C1N2-WZ)">Expected limit ($+1\sigma_{\textrm{exp}}$)</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Exp%20limit%20(-1sig)%20on%20(W~, B~) simplified model (C1N2-WZ)">Expected limit ($-1\sigma_{\textrm{exp}}$)</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Obs limit on (W~, B~) simplified model (C1N2-WZ)">Observed limit</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Obs%20limit%20(%2B1sig)%20on%20(W~, B~) simplified model (C1N2-WZ)">Observed limit ($+1\sigma_{\textrm{theory}}^{\textrm{SUSY}}$)</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Obs%20limit%20(-1sig)%20on%20(W~, B~) simplified model (C1N2-WZ)">Observed limit ($-1\sigma_{\textrm{theory}}^{\textrm{SUSY}}$)</a> </ul> <li>$(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1N2-Wh): <ul> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Exp limit on (W~, B~) simplified model (C1N2-Wh)">Expected limit</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Exp%20limit%20(%2B1sig)%20on%20(W~, B~) simplified model (C1N2-Wh)">Expected limit ($+1\sigma_{\textrm{exp}}$)</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Exp%20limit%20(-1sig)%20on%20(W~, B~) simplified model (C1N2-Wh)">Expected limit ($-1\sigma_{\textrm{exp}}$)</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Obs limit on (W~, B~) simplified model (C1N2-Wh)">Observed limit</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Obs%20limit%20(%2B1sig)%20on%20(W~, B~) simplified model (C1N2-Wh)">Observed limit ($+1\sigma_{\textrm{theory}}^{\textrm{SUSY}}$)</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Obs%20limit%20(-1sig)%20on%20(W~, B~) simplified model (C1N2-Wh)">Observed limit ($-1\sigma_{\textrm{theory}}^{\textrm{SUSY}}$)</a> </ul> <li>$(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$ model ($\textrm{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=0\%$): <ul> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Exp limit on (W~, B~) B(N2->ZN1) = 0%">Expected limit</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Obs limit on (W~, B~) B(N2->ZN1) = 0%">Observed limit</a> </ul> <li>$(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$ model ($\textrm{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=25\%$): <ul> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Exp limit on (W~, B~) B(N2->ZN1) = 25%">Expected limit</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Obs limit on (W~, B~) B(N2->ZN1) = 25%">Observed limit</a> </ul> <li>$(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$ model ($\textrm{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50\%$): <ul> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Exp limit on (W~, B~) B(N2->ZN1) = 50%">Expected limit</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Exp%20limit%20(%2B1sig)%20on%20(W~%2C%20B~)%20B(N2-%3EZN1)%20%3D%2050%25">Expected limit ($+1\sigma_{\textrm{exp}}$)</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Exp%20limit%20(-1sig)%20on%20(W~%2C%20B~)%20B(N2-%3EZN1)%20%3D%2050%25">Expected limit ($-1\sigma_{\textrm{exp}}$)</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Obs limit on (W~, B~) B(N2->ZN1) = 50%">Observed limit</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Obs%20limit%20(%2B1sig)%20on%20(W~%2C%20B~)%20B(N2-%3EZN1)%20%3D%2050%">Observed limit ($+1\sigma_{\textrm{theory}}^{\textrm{SUSY}}$)</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Obs%20limit%20(-1sig)%20on%20(W~%2C%20B~)%20B(N2-%3EZN1)%20%3D%2050%25">Observed limit ($-1\sigma_{\textrm{theory}}^{\textrm{SUSY}}$)</a> </ul> <li>$(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$ model ($\textrm{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=75\%$): <ul> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Exp limit on (W~, B~) B(N2->ZN1) = 75%">Expected limit</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Obs limit on (W~, B~) B(N2->ZN1) = 75%">Observed limit</a> </ul> <li>$(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$ model ($\textrm{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=100\%$): <ul> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Exp limit on (W~, B~) B(N2->ZN1) = 100%">Expected limit</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Obs limit on (W~, B~) B(N2->ZN1) = 100%">Observed limit</a> </ul> <li>$(\tilde{H},~\tilde{B})$ model ($\textrm{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50\%$): <ul> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Exp limit on (H~, B~) B(N2->ZN1) = 50%">Expected limit</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Exp%20limit%20(%2B1sig)%20on%20(H~%2C%20B~)%20B(N2-%3EZN1)%20%3D%2050%25">Expected limit ($+1\sigma_{\textrm{exp}}$)</a> <li>Expected limit ($-1\sigma_{\textrm{exp}}$): (No mass point could be excluded) <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Obs limit on (H~, B~) B(N2->ZN1) = 50%">Observed limit</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Obs%20limit%20(%2B1sig)%20on%20(H~%2C%20B~)%20B(N2-%3EZN1)%20%3D%2050%">Observed limit ($+1\sigma_{\textrm{theory}}^{\textrm{SUSY}}$)</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Obs%20limit%20(-1sig)%20on%20(H~%2C%20B~)%20B(N2-%3EZN1)%20%3D%2050%25">Observed limit ($-1\sigma_{\textrm{theory}}^{\textrm{SUSY}}$)</a> </ul> <li>$(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model ($\textrm{tan}\beta=10,~\mu>0$): <ul> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Exp limit on (W~, H~), tanb = 10, mu>0">Expected limit</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Exp%20limit%20(%2B1sig)%20on%20(W~%2C%20H~)%2C%20tanb%20%3D%2010%2C%20mu%3E0">Expected limit ($+1\sigma_{\textrm{exp}}$)</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Exp%20limit%20(-1sig)%20on%20(W~%2C%20H~)%2C%20tanb%20%3D%2010%2C%20mu%3E0">Expected limit ($-1\sigma_{\textrm{exp}}$)</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Obs limit on (W~, H~), tanb = 10, mu>0">Observed limit</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Obs%20limit%20(%2B1sig)%20on%20(W~%2C%20H~)%2C%20tanb%20%3D%2010%2C%20mu%3E0">Observed limit ($+1\sigma_{\textrm{theory}}^{\textrm{SUSY}}$)</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Obs%20limit%20(-1sig)%20on%20(W~%2C%20H~)%2C%20tanb%20%3D%2010%2C%20mu%3E0">Observed limit ($-1\sigma_{\textrm{theory}}^{\textrm{SUSY}}$)</a> </ul> <li>$(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model ($\textrm{tan}\beta=10,~\mu>0$): <ul> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Exp limit on (H~, W~), tanb = 10, mu>0">Expected limit</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Exp%20limit%20(%2B1sig)%20on%20(H~%2C%20W~)%2C%20tanb%20%3D%2010%2C%20mu%3E0">Expected limit ($+1\sigma_{\textrm{exp}}$)</a> <li>Expected limit ($-1\sigma_{\textrm{exp}}$): (No mass point could be excluded) <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Obs limit on (H~, W~), tanb = 10, mu>0">Observed limit</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Obs%20limit%20(%2B1sig)%20on%20(H~%2C%20W~)%2C%20tanb%20%3D%2010%2C%20mu%3E0">Observed limit ($+1\sigma_{\textrm{theory}}^{\textrm{SUSY}}$)</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Obs%20limit%20(-1sig)%20on%20(H~%2C%20W~)%2C%20tanb%20%3D%2010%2C%20mu%3E0">Observed limit ($-1\sigma_{\textrm{theory}}^{\textrm{SUSY}}$)</a> </ul> <li>$(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model ($\textrm{tan}\beta=10$) on ($\mu$,$M_{2}$) plane: <ul> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Exp limit on (W~, H~), tanb = 10, M2 vs mu">Expected limit</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Exp%20limit%20(%2B1sig)%20on%20(W~%2C%20H~)%2C%20tanb%20%3D%2010%2C%20M2%20vs%20mu">Expected limit ($+1\sigma_{\textrm{exp}}$)</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Exp%20limit%20(-1sig)%20on%20(W~%2C%20H~)%2C%20tanb%20%3D%2010%2C%20M2%20vs%20mu">Expected limit ($-1\sigma_{\textrm{exp}}$)</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Obs limit on (W~, H~), tanb = 10, M2 vs mu">Observed limit</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Obs%20limit%20(%2B1sig)%20on%20(W~%2C%20H~)%2C%20tanb%20%3D%2010%2C%20M2%20vs%20mu">Observed limit ($+1\sigma_{\textrm{theory}}^{\textrm{SUSY}}$)</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Obs%20limit%20(-1sig)%20on%20(W~%2C%20H~)%2C%20tanb%20%3D%2010%2C%20M2%20vs%20mu">Observed limit ($-1\sigma_{\textrm{theory}}^{\textrm{SUSY}}$)</a> </ul> <li>$(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model ($\textrm{tan}\beta=10$) on ($\mu$,$M_{2}$) plane: <ul> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Exp limit on (H~, W~), tanb = 10, M2 vs mu">Expected limit</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Exp%20limit%20(%2B1sig)%20on%20(H~%2C%20W~)%2C%20tanb%20%3D%2010%2C%20M2%20vs%20mu">Expected limit ($+1\sigma_{\textrm{exp}}$)</a> <li>Expected limit ($-1\sigma_{\textrm{exp}}$): (No mass point could be excluded) <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Obs limit on (H~, W~), tanb = 10, M2 vs mu">Observed limit</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Obs%20limit%20(%2B1sig)%20on%20(H~%2C%20W~)%2C%20tanb%20%3D%2010%2C%20M2%20vs%20mu">Observed limit ($+1\sigma_{\textrm{theory}}^{\textrm{SUSY}}$)</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Obs%20limit%20(-1sig)%20on%20(H~%2C%20W~)%2C%20tanb%20%3D%2010%2C%20M2%20vs%20mu">Observed limit ($-1\sigma_{\textrm{theory}}^{\textrm{SUSY}}$)</a> </ul> <li>$(\tilde{H},~\tilde{G})$ model: <ul> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Exp limit on (H~, G~)">Expected limit</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Exp%20limit%20(%2B1sig)%20on%20(H~%2C%20G~)">Expected limit ($+1\sigma_{\textrm{exp}}$)</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Exp%20limit%20(-1sig)%20on%20(H~%2C%20G~)">Expected limit ($-1\sigma_{\textrm{exp}}$)</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Obs limit on (H~, G~)">Observed limit</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Obs%20limit%20(%2B1sig)%20on%20(H~%2C%20G~)">Observed limit ($+1\sigma_{\textrm{theory}}^{\textrm{SUSY}}$)</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Obs%20limit%20(-1sig)%20on%20(H~%2C%20G~)">Observed limit ($-1\sigma_{\textrm{theory}}^{\textrm{SUSY}}$)</a> </ul> <li>$(\tilde{H},~\tilde{a})$ model ($\textrm{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\rightarrow Z\tilde{a})=100\%$): <ul> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Exp limit on (H~, a~) B(N1->Za~) = 100%">Expected limit</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Exp%20limit%20(%2B1sig)%20on%20(H~%2C%20a~)%20B(N1-%3EZa~)%20%3D%20100%25">Expected limit ($+1\sigma_{\textrm{exp}}$)</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Exp%20limit%20(-1sig)%20on%20(H~%2C%20a~)%20B(N1-%3EZa~)%20%3D%20100%25">Expected limit ($-1\sigma_{\textrm{exp}}$)</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Obs limit on (H~, a~) B(N1->Za~) = 100%">Observed limit</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Obs%20limit%20(%2B1sig)%20on%20(H~%2C%20a~)%20B(N1-%3EZa~)%20%3D%20100%25">Observed limit ($+1\sigma_{\textrm{theory}}^{\textrm{SUSY}}$)</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Obs%20limit%20(-1sig)%20on%20(H~%2C%20a~)%20B(N1-%3EZa~)%20%3D%20100%">Observed limit ($-1\sigma_{\textrm{theory}}^{\textrm{SUSY}}$)</a> </ul> <li>$(\tilde{H},~\tilde{a})$ model ($\textrm{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\rightarrow Z\tilde{a})=75\%$): <ul> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Exp limit on (H~, a~) B(N1->Za~) = 75%">Expected limit</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Obs limit on (H~, a~) B(N1->Za~) = 75%">Observed limit</a> </ul> <li>$(\tilde{H},~\tilde{a})$ model ($\textrm{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\rightarrow Z\tilde{a})=50\%$): <ul> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Exp limit on (H~, a~) B(N1->Za~) = 50%">Expected limit</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Obs limit on (H~, a~) B(N1->Za~) = 50%">Observed limit</a> </ul> <li>$(\tilde{H},~\tilde{a})$ model ($\textrm{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\rightarrow Z\tilde{a})=25\%$): <ul> <li>Expected limit : (No mass point could be excluded) <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Obs limit on (H~, a~) B(N1->Za~) = 25%">Observed limit</a> </ul> </ul> <b>EWKino branching ratios:</b> <ul> <li>$(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model: <ul> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=B(C2-%3EW%2BN1%2CN2)%20in%20(W~%2C%20H~)%2C%20tanb%3D10%2C%20mu%3E0">$\textrm{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}\rightarrow W\tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0})$</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=B(C2-%3EZ%2BC1)%20in%20(W~%2C%20H~)%2C%20tanb=10%2C%20mu%3E0">$\textrm{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}\rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=B(C2-%3Eh%2BC1)%20in%20(W~%2C%20H~)%2C%20tanb=10%2C%20mu%3E0">$\textrm{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}\rightarrow h\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=B(N3-%3EW%2BC1)%20in%20(W~%2C%20H~)%2C%20tanb=10%2C%20mu%3E0">$\textrm{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}\rightarrow W\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=B(N3-%3EZ%2BN1%2CN2)%20in%20(W~%2C%20H~)%2C%20tanb%3D10%2C%20mu%3E0">$\textrm{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}\rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0})$</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=B(N3-%3Eh%2BN1%2CN2)%20in%20(W~%2C%20H~)%2C%20tanb%3D10%2C%20mu%3E0">$\textrm{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}\rightarrow h\tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0})$</a> </ul> <li>$(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model: <ul> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=B(C2-%3EW%2BN1)%20in%20(H~%2C%20W~)%2C%20tanb%3D10%2C%20mu%3E0">$\textrm{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}\rightarrow W\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=B(C2-%3EZ%2BC1)%20in%20(H~%2C%20W~)%2C%20tanb%3D10%2C%20mu%3E0">$\textrm{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}\rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=B(C2-%3Eh%2BC1)%20in%20(H~%2C%20W~)%2C%20tanb%3D10%2C%20mu%3E0">$\textrm{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}\rightarrow h\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=B(N2-%3EW%2BC1)%20in%20(H~%2C%20W~)%2C%20tanb%3D10%2C%20mu%3E0">$\textrm{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\rightarrow W\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=B(N2-%3EZ%2BN1)%20in%20(H~%2C%20W~)%2C%20tanb%3D10%2C%20mu%3E0">$\textrm{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=B(N2-%3Eh%2BN1)%20in%20(H~%2C%20W~)%2C%20tanb%3D10%2C%20mu%3E0">$\textrm{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0}\rightarrow h\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=B(N3-%3EW%2BC1)%20in%20(H~%2C%20W~)%2C%20tanb%3D10%2C%20mu%3E0">$\textrm{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}\rightarrow W\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=B(N3-%3EZ%2BN1)%20in%20(H~%2C%20W~)%2C%20tanb%3D10%2C%20mu%3E0">$\textrm{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}\rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=B(N3-%3Eh%2BN1)%20in%20(H~%2C%20W~)%2C%20tanb%3D10%2C%20mu%3E0">$\textrm{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}\rightarrow h\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$</a> </ul> </ul> <b>Cross-section upper limit:</b> <ul> <li>Expected: <ul> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Expected cross-section upper limit on C1C1-WW">$(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1C1-WW)</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Expected cross-section upper limit on C1N2-WZ">$(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1N2-WZ)</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Expected cross-section upper limit on C1N2-Wh">$(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1N2-Wh)</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Expected cross-section upper limit on (H~, G~)">$(\tilde{H},~\tilde{G})$ model</a> </ul> <li>Observed: <ul> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Observed cross-section upper limit on C1C1-WW">$(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1C1-WW)</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Observed cross-section upper limit on C1N2-WZ">$(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1N2-WZ)</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Observed cross-section upper limit on C1N2-Wh">$(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1N2-Wh)</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Observed cross-section upper limit on (H~, G~)">$(\tilde{H},~\tilde{G})$ model</a> </ul> </ul> <b>Acceptance:</b> <ul> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Acceptance of C1C1-WW signals by SR-4Q-VV">$(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1C1-WW) in SR-4Q-VV</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Acceptance of C1N2-WZ signals by SR-4Q-VV">$(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1N2-WZ) in SR-4Q-VV</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Acceptance of C1N2-WZ signals by SR-2B2Q-VZ">$(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1N2-WZ) in SR-2B2Q-VZ</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Acceptance of C1N2-Wh signals by SR-2B2Q-Vh">$(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1N2-WZ) in SR-2B2Q-Vh</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Acceptance of N2N3-ZZ signals by SR-4Q-VV">$(\tilde{H},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (N2N3-ZZ) in SR-4Q-VV</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Acceptance of N2N3-ZZ signals by SR-2B2Q-VZ">$(\tilde{H},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (N2N3-ZZ) in SR-2B2Q-VZ</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Acceptance of N2N3-Zh signals by SR-2B2Q-Vh">$(\tilde{H},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (N2N3-Zh) in SR-2B2Q-Vh</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Acceptance of N2N3-hh signals by SR-2B2Q-Vh">$(\tilde{H},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (N2N3-hh) in SR-2B2Q-Vh</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Acceptance of (H~, G~) signals by SR-4Q-VV">$(\tilde{H},~\tilde{G})$ model in SR-4Q-VV</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Acceptance of (H~, G~) signals by SR-2B2Q-VZ">$(\tilde{H},~\tilde{G})$ model in SR-2B2Q-VZ</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Acceptance of (H~, G~) signals by SR-2B2Q-Vh">$(\tilde{H},~\tilde{G})$ model in SR-2B2Q-Vh</a> </ul> <b>Efficiency:</b> <ul> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Efficiency of C1C1-WW signals by SR-4Q-VV">$(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1C1-WW) in SR-4Q-VV</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Efficiency of C1N2-WZ signals by SR-4Q-VV">$(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1N2-WZ) in SR-4Q-VV</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Efficiency of C1N2-WZ signals by SR-2B2Q-VZ">$(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1N2-WZ) in SR-2B2Q-VZ</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Efficiency of C1N2-Wh signals by SR-2B2Q-Vh">$(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1N2-Wh) in SR-2B2Q-Vh</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Efficiency of N2N3-ZZ signals by SR-4Q-VV">$(\tilde{H},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (N2N3-ZZ) in SR-4Q-VV</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Efficiency of N2N3-ZZ signals by SR-2B2Q-VZ">$(\tilde{H},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (N2N3-ZZ) in SR-2B2Q-VZ</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Efficiency of N2N3-Zh signals by SR-2B2Q-Vh">$(\tilde{H},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (N2N3-Zh) in SR-2B2Q-Vh</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Efficiency of N2N3-hh signals by SR-2B2Q-Vh">$(\tilde{H},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (N2N3-hh) in SR-2B2Q-Vh</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Efficiency of (H~, G~) signals by SR-4Q-VV">$(\tilde{H},~\tilde{G})$ model in SR-4Q-VV</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Efficiency of (H~, G~) signals by SR-2B2Q-VZ">$(\tilde{H},~\tilde{G})$ model in SR-2B2Q-VZ</a> <li><a href="104458?version=3&table=Efficiency of (H~, G~) signals by SR-2B2Q-Vh">$(\tilde{H},~\tilde{G})$ model in SR-2B2Q-Vh</a> </ul>

Cut flows of some representative signals up to SR-4Q-VV, SR-2B2Q-VZ, and SR-2B2Q-Vh. One signal point from the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1C1-WW, C1N2-WZ, and C1N2-Wh) and $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{G})$ is chosen. The "preliminary event reduction" is a technical selection applied for reducing the sample size, which is fully efficient after the $n_{\textrm{Large}-R~\textrm{jets}}\geq 2$ selection.

The boson-tagging efficiency for jets arising from $W/Z$ bosons decaying into $q\bar{q}$ (signal jets) are shown. The signal jet efficiency of $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging is evaluated using a sample of pre-selected large-$R$ jets ($p_{\textrm{T}}>200~\textrm{GeV}, |\eta|<2.0, m_{J} > 40~\textrm{GeV}$) in the simulated $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model signal events with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}},~\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}) \ge 400~\textrm{GeV}$. The jets are matched with generator-level $W/Z$-bosons by $\Delta R<1.0$ which decay into $q\bar{q}$. The efficiency correction factors are applied on the signal efficiency rejection for the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. The systematic uncertainty is represented by the hashed bands.

More…

Search for dark matter produced in association with a dark Higgs boson decaying into $W^{+}W^{-}$ in the one-lepton final state at $\sqrt{s}$=13 TeV using 139 fb$^{-1}$ of $pp$ collisions recorded with the ATLAS detector

The ATLAS collaboration Aad, G. ; Abbott, B. ; Abbott, D.C. ; et al.
JHEP 07 (2023) 116, 2023.
Inspire Record 2181868 DOI 10.17182/hepdata.132484

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.

25 data tables

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>&beta;=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>&beta;=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>&beta;=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.

More…

Evidence for the Higgs boson decay to a $Z$ boson and a photon at the LHC

The ATLAS & CMS collaborations Aad, Georges ; Abbott, Braden Keim ; Abeling, Kira ; et al.
Phys.Rev.Lett. 132 (2024) 021803, 2024.
Inspire Record 2666787 DOI 10.17182/hepdata.142406

The first evidence for the Higgs boson decay to a $Z$ boson and a photon is presented, with a statistical significance of 3.4 standard deviations. The result is derived from a combined analysis of the searches performed by the ATLAS and CMS Collaborations with proton-proton collision data sets collected at the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) from 2015 to 2018. These correspond to integrated luminosities of around 140 fb$^{-1}$ for each experiment, at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. The measured signal yield is $2.2\pm0.7$ times the Standard Model prediction, and agrees with the theoretical expectation within 1.9 standard deviations.

1 data table

The negative profile log-likelihood test statistic, where $\Lambda$ represents the likelihood ratio, as a function of the signal strength $\mu$ derived from the ATLAS data, the CMS data, and the combined result.


Version 2
Measurements of the Higgs boson inclusive and differential fiducial cross-sections in the diphoton decay channel with $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector

The ATLAS collaboration Aad, Georges ; Abbott, Braden Keim ; Abbott, Dale ; et al.
JHEP 08 (2022) 027, 2022.
Inspire Record 2023464 DOI 10.17182/hepdata.137886

A measurement of inclusive and differential fiducial cross-sections for the production of the Higgs boson decaying into two photons is performed using $139~\text{fb}^{-1}$ of proton--proton collision data recorded at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV by the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider. The inclusive cross-section times branching ratio, in a fiducial region closely matching the experimental selection, is measured to be $67\pm 6$ fb, which is in agreement with the state-of-the-art Standard Model prediction of $64\pm 4$ fb. Extrapolating this result to the full phase space and correcting for the branching ratio, the total cross-section for Higgs boson production is estimated to be $58\pm 6$ pb. In addition, the cross-sections in four fiducial regions sensitive to various Higgs boson production modes and differential cross-sections as a function of either one or two of several observables are measured. All the measurements are found to be in agreement with the Standard Model predictions. The measured transverse momentum distribution of the Higgs boson is used as an indirect probe of the Yukawa coupling of the Higgs boson to the bottom and charm quarks. In addition, five differential cross-section measurements are used to constrain anomalous Higgs boson couplings to vector bosons in the Standard Model effective field theory framework.

60 data tables

Measured inclusive cross sections in the five fiducial regions. Each systematic uncertainty source is fully uncorrelated with the other sources.

Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of $p_{T}^{\gamma\gamma}$. Each systematic uncertainty source is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.

Measured differential cross section with associated uncertainties as a function of $N_\mathrm{jets}$. Each systematic uncertainty source is fully uncorrelated with the other sources and fully correlated across bins, except for the background modelling systematics for which an uncorrelated treatment across bins is more appropriate.

More…

Search for quantum black hole production in lepton+jet final states using proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

The ATLAS collaboration Aad, Georges ; Abbott, Braden Keim ; Abbott, Dale ; et al.
Phys.Rev.D 109 (2024) 032010, 2024.
Inspire Record 2682338 DOI 10.17182/hepdata.141896

A search for quantum black holes in electron+jet and muon+jet invariant mass spectra is performed with 140 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected by the ATLAS detector in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV at the Large Hadron Collider. The observed invariant mass spectrum of lepton+jet pairs is consistent with Standard Model expectations. Upper limits are set at 95% confidence level on the production cross-sections times branching fractions for quantum black holes decaying into a lepton and a quark in a search region with invariant mass above 2.0 TeV. The resulting quantum black hole lower mass threshold limit is 9.2 TeV in the Arkani-Hamed-Dimopoulos-Dvali model, and 6.8 TeV in the Randall-Sundrum model.

3 data tables

The 95% CL model-independent upper limits on $\sigma \times Br$ for the non-SM signal production with decay into the lepton+jet. The limits take into account statistical and systematic uncertainties. Circles along the solid red line indicate the lower border of the SR (threshold of SR, Th$_\mathrm{SR}$), above which the observed limit is computed. The expected limits are shown by the dashed line. The $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ bands of expected limits are shown in green and yellow, respectively. The limits are obtained with pseudo-experiments.

The combined 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma \times Br$ as a function of threshold mass, $M_\mathrm{th}$, for QBH production with decay into lepton+jet for ADD-model (extra dimensions n = 6). The limits take into account statistical and systematic uncertainties. Circles along the solid red line indicate the mass $M_\mathrm{th}$ of the signal where the observed limit is computed. The expected limits are shown by the dashed line. The $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ bands are shown in green and yellow, respectively. The theoretically predicted $\sigma \times Br$ for the QBH production and decay is shown as the solid blue curve with squares.

The combined 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma \times Br$ as a function of threshold mass, $M_\mathrm{th}$, for QBH production with decay into lepton+jet for RS1-model (extra dimensions n = 1). The limits take into account statistical and systematic uncertainties. Circles along the solid red line indicate the mass $M_\mathrm{th}$ of the signal where the observed limit is computed. The expected limits are shown by the dashed line. The $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ bands are shown in green and yellow, respectively. The theoretically predicted $\sigma \times Br$ for the QBH production and decay is shown as the solid blue curve with squares.


Measurements of the suppression and correlations of dijets in Xe+Xe collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.44 TeV

The ATLAS collaboration Aad, G. ; Abbott, B. ; Abeling, K. ; et al.
Phys.Rev.C 108 (2023) 024906, 2023.
Inspire Record 2630510 DOI 10.17182/hepdata.139684

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.

62 data tables

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.

More…