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.
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=2&table=Resultsforchargeasymmetryinclusive">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=2&table=Resultsforchargeasymmetryvsmtt">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=2&table=Resultsforchargeasymmetryvspttt">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=2&table=Resultsforchargeasymmetryvsbetatt">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=2&table=Resultsforleptonicchargeasymmetryinclusive">$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=2&table=Resultsforchargeasymmetryvsllmll">$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=2&table=Resultsforchargeasymmetryvsllptll">$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=2&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=2&table=BoundsonWilsoncoefficientschargeasymmetryinclusive">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=2&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=2&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=2&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsbetattbin0">$\beta_{z,t\bar{t}} \in[0,0.3]$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=2&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsbetattbin1">$\beta_{z,t\bar{t}} \in[0.3,0.6]$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=2&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsbetattbin2">$\beta_{z,t\bar{t}} \in[0.6,0.8]$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=2&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=2&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsmttbin0">$m_{t\bar{t}}$ < $500$GeV</a> <li><a href="132116?version=2&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsmttbin1">$m_{t\bar{t}} \in [500,750]$GeV</a> <li><a href="132116?version=2&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsmttbin2">$m_{t\bar{t}} \in [750,1000]$GeV</a> <li><a href="132116?version=2&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsmttbin3">$m_{t\bar{t}} \in [1000,1500]$GeV</a> <li><a href="132116?version=2&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=2&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsptttbin0">$p_{T,t\bar{t}} \in [0,30]$GeV</a> <li><a href="132116?version=2&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsptttbin1">$p_{T,t\bar{t}} \in[30,120]$GeV</a> <li><a href="132116?version=2&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsptttbin2">$p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ > $120$GeV</a> </ul> Inclusive leptonic:<a href="132116?version=2&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=2&tableNPrankingchargeasymmetry=vsllbetallbin0">$\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}} \in [0,0.3]$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=2&tableNPrankingchargeasymmetry=vsllbetallbin1">$\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}} \in [0.3,0.6]$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=2&tableNPrankingchargeasymmetry=vsllbetallbin2">$\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}} \in [0.6,0.8]$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=2&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=2&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsllmllbin0">$m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ < $200$GeV</a> <li><a href="132116?version=2&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsllmllbin1">$m_{\ell\bar{\ell}} \in [200,300]$GeV</a> <li><a href="132116?version=2&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsllmllbin2">$m_{\ell\bar{\ell}} \in [300,400]$Ge$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=2&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsllmllbin3">$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=2&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsllptllbin0">$p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}\in [0,20]$GeV</a> <li><a href="132116?version=2&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsllptllbin1">$p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}\in[20,70]$GeV</a> <li><a href="132116?version=2&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsllptllbin2">$p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ > $70$GeV</a> </ul> <b>NP correlations:</b> <ul> <li><a href="132116?version=2&table=NPcorrelationschargeasymmetryinclusive">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=2&table=NPcorrelationschargeasymmetryvsmtt">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=2&table=NPcorrelationschargeasymmetryvspttt">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=2&table=NPcorrelationschargeasymmetryvsbetatt">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=2&table=NPcorrelationsleptonicchargeasymmetryinclusive">$A_c^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=2&table=NPcorrelationschargeasymmetryvsllmll">$A_c^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=2&table=NPcorrelationschargeasymmetryvsllptll">$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=2&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=2&table=Covariancematrixchargeasymmetryvsmtt">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=2&table=Covariancematrixchargeasymmetryvspttt">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=2&table=Covariancematrixchargeasymmetryvsbetatt">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=2&table=Covariancematrixleptonicchargeasymmetryvsllmll">$A_c^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=2&table=Covariancematrixleptonicchargeasymmetryvsllptll">$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=2&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 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.
A search is reported for heavy resonances and quantum black holes decaying into e$\mu$, e$\tau$, and $\mu\tau$ final states in proton-proton collision data recorded by the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC during 2016-2018 at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$. The e$\mu$, e$\tau$, and $\mu\tau$ invariant mass spectra are reconstructed, and no evidence is found for physics beyond the standard model. Upper limits are set at 95% confidence level on the product of the cross section and branching fraction for lepton flavor violating signals. Three benchmark signals are studied: resonant $\tau$ sneutrino production in $R$ parity violating supersymmetric models, heavy Z' gauge bosons with lepton flavor violating decays, and nonresonant quantum black hole production in models with extra spatial dimensions. Resonant $\tau$ sneutrinos are excluded for masses up to 4.2 TeV in the e$\mu$ channel, 3.7 TeV in the e$\tau$ channel, and 3.6 TeV in the $\mu\tau$ channel. A Z' boson with lepton flavor violating couplings is excluded up to a mass of 5.0 TeV in the e$\mu$ channel, up to 4.3 TeV in the e$\tau$ channel, and up to 4.1 TeV in the $\mu\tau$ channel. Quantum black holes in the benchmark model are excluded up to the threshold mass of 5.6 TeV in the e$\mu$ channel, 5.2 TeV in the e$\tau$ channel, and 5.0 TeV in the $\mu\tau$ channel. In addition, model-independent limits are extracted to allow comparisons with other models for the same final states and similar event selection requirements. The results of these searches provide the most stringent limits available from collider experiments for heavy particles that undergo lepton flavor violating decays.
Mass distributions for the e$\mu$ channel. In addition to the observed data (black points) and SM prediction (filled histograms), expected signal distributions for three models are shown: the RPV SUSY model with $\lambda = \lambda' = 0.01$ and $\tau$ sneutrino mass of 1.6 TeV, a Z′ boson ($\mathcal{B}=0.1$) with a mass of 1.6 TeV , and the QBH signal expectation for $n=4$ and a threshold mass of 1.6 TeV. The bin width gradually increases with mass.
Mass distributions for the e$\tau$ channel. In addition to the observed data (black points) and SM prediction (filled histograms), expected signal distributions for three models are shown: the RPV SUSY model with $\lambda = \lambda' = 0.01$ and $\tau$ sneutrino mass of 1.6 TeV, a Z′ boson ($\mathcal{B}=0.1$) with a mass of 1.6 TeV , and the QBH signal expectation for $n=4$ and a threshold mass of 1.6 TeV. The bin width gradually increases with mass.
Mass distributions for the $\mu\tau$ channel. In addition to the observed data (black points) and SM prediction (filled histograms), expected signal distributions for three models are shown: the RPV SUSY model with $\lambda = \lambda' = 0.01$ and $\tau$ sneutrino mass of 1.6 TeV, a Z′ boson ($\mathcal{B}=0.1$) with a mass of 1.6 TeV , and the QBH signal expectation for $n=4$ and a threshold mass of 1.6 TeV. The bin width gradually increases with mass.
Proton-proton interactions resulting in final states with two photons are studied in a search for the signature of flavor-changing neutral current interactions of top quarks (t) and Higgs bosons (H). The analysis is based on data collected at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV with the CMS detector at the LHC, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 137 fb$^{-1}$. No significant excess above the background prediction is observed. Upper limits on the branching fractions ($\mathcal{B}$) of the top quark decaying to a Higgs boson and an up (u) or charm quark (c) are derived through a binned fit to the diphoton invariant mass spectrum. The observed (expected) 95% confidence level upper limits are found to be 0.019 (0.031)% for $\mathcal B$(t $\to$ Hu) and 0.073 (0.051)% for $\mathcal{B}$(t $\to$ Hc). These are the strictest upper limits yet determined.
Expected and observed 95\% CL upper limits on the branching fraction of the top quark decaying to the Higgs boson and a light-flavor quark (either an up or a charm quark)
A search for new top quark interactions is performed within the framework of an effective field theory using the associated production of either one or two top quarks with a Z boson in multilepton final states. The data sample corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV collected by the CMS experiment at the LHC. Five dimension-six operators modifying the electroweak interactions of the top quark are considered. Novel machine-learning techniques are used to enhance the sensitivity to effects arising from these operators. Distributions used for the signal extraction are parameterized in terms of Wilson coefficients describing the interaction strengths of the operators. All five Wilson coefficients are simultaneously fit to data and 95% confidence level intervals are computed. All results are consistent with the SM expectations.
Expected and observed 95% CL confidence intervals for all Wilson coefficients. The intervals are obtained by scanning over a single Wilson coefficient, while fixing the other Wilson coefficients to their SM values of zero.
Expected and observed 95% CL confidence intervals for all Wilson coefficients. The intervals for all five Wilson coefficients are obtained from a single fit, in which all Wilson coefficients are treated as free parameters.
Covariance between the Wilson coefficients (in units of TeV$^{-4}$), after the 5D fit to data.
A search is presented for new particles produced at the LHC in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV, using events with energetic jets and large missing transverse momentum. The analysis is based on a data sample corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 101 fb$^{-1}$, collected in 2017-2018 with the CMS detector. Machine learning techniques are used to define separate categories for events with narrow jets from initial-state radiation and events with large-radius jets consistent with a hadronic decay of a W or Z boson. A statistical combination is made with an earlier search based on a data sample of 36 fb$^{-1}$, collected in 2016. No significant excess of events is observed with respect to the standard model background expectation determined from control samples in data. The results are interpreted in terms of limits on the branching fraction of an invisible decay of the Higgs boson, as well as constraints on simplified models of dark matter, on first-generation scalar leptoquarks decaying to quarks and neutrinos, and on models with large extra dimensions. Several of the new limits, specifically for spin-1 dark matter mediators, pseudoscalar mediators, colored mediators, and leptoquarks, are the most restrictive to date.
Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.
Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.
Differential signal yields for various signal hypotheses.
A search for long-lived particles (LLPs) produced in decays of standard model (SM) Higgs bosons is presented. The data sample consists of 137 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV, recorded at the LHC in 2016-2018. A novel technique is employed to reconstruct decays of LLPs in the endcap muon detectors. The search is sensitive to a broad range of LLP decay modes and to masses as low as a few GeV. No excess of events above the SM background is observed. The most stringent limits to date on the branching fraction of the Higgs boson to LLPs subsequently decaying to quarks and $\tau^+\tau^-$ are found for proper decay lengths greater than 6, 20, and 40 m, for LLP masses of 7, 15, and 40 GeV, respectively.
The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 7 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow d\bar{d}$ decay mode.
The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 15 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow d\bar{d}$ decay mode.
The 95% CL observed and expected limits on the branching fraction B(H $\rightarrow$ SS) for 40 GeV mass and $ S \rightarrow d\bar{d}$ decay mode.
The production cross section of a top quark pair in association with a photon is measured in proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. The data set, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 137 fb$^{-1}$, was recorded by the CMS experiment during the 2016-2018 data taking of the LHC. The measurements are performed in a fiducial volume defined at the particle level. Events with an isolated, highly energetic lepton, at least three jets from the hadronization of quarks, among which at least one is b tagged, and one isolated photon are selected. The inclusive fiducial $\mathrm{t\overline{t}}\gamma$ cross section, for a photon with transverse momentum greater than 20 GeV and pseudorapidity $\lvert \eta\rvert$$\lt$ 1.4442, is measured to be 798 $\pm$ 7 (stat) $\pm$ 48 (syst) fb, in good agreement with the prediction from the standard model at next-to-leading order in quantum chromodynamics. The differential cross sections are also measured as a function of several kinematic observables and interpreted in the framework of the standard model effective field theory (EFT), leading to the most stringent direct limits to date on anomalous electromagnetic dipole moment interactions of the top quark and the photon.
Distribution of $p_{T}(\gamma)$ in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$ signal region.
Distribution of $m_{T}(W)$ in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$ signal region.
Distribution of $M_{3}$ in the $N_{jet}\geq 3$ signal region.
Forum