Showing 10 of 3920 results
The first observation of top quark production in proton-nucleus collisions is reported using proton-lead data collected by the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC at a nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy of sqrt(s[NN]) = 8.16 TeV. The measurement is performed using events with exactly one isolated electron or muon and at least four jets. The data sample corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 174 inverse nanobarns. The significance of the tt-bar signal against the background-only hypothesis is above five standard deviations. The measured cross section is sigma[tt-bar] = 45 +/- 8 nb, consistent with predictions from perturbative quantum chromodynamics.
Invariant mass distributions of the W candidate, $m_{jj'}$, in the 0 b category after all selections. The error bars indicate the statistical uncertainties.
Invariant mass distributions of the W candidate, $m_{jj'}$, in the 1 b category after all selections. The error bars indicate the statistical uncertainties.
Invariant mass distributions of the W candidate, $m_{jj'}$, in the $\geq$2 b category after all selections. The error bars indicate the statistical uncertainties.
Invariant mass distributions of the $t\to jj^{'}b$ candidates, $m_{top}$, in the 0 b category after all selections. The error bars indicate the statistical uncertainties.
Invariant mass distributions of the $t\to jj^{'}b$ candidates, $m_{top}$, in the 1 b category after all selections. The error bars indicate the statistical uncertainties.
Invariant mass distributions of the $t\to jj^{'}b$ candidates, $m_{top}$, in the $\geq$2 b category after all selections. The error bars indicate the statistical uncertainties.
The measured cross section in the $\mu$+jets, $\rm{e}$+jets and $\ell$+jets channels. The first uncertainty is the statistical, the second is the systematic.
A search for heavy neutral Higgs bosons and $Z^{\prime}$ bosons is performed using a data sample corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ from proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV recorded by the ATLAS detector at the LHC during 2015 and 2016. The heavy resonance is assumed to decay to $\tau^+\tau^-$ with at least one tau lepton decaying to final states with hadrons and a neutrino. The search is performed in the mass range of 0.2-2.25 TeV for Higgs bosons and 0.2-4.0 TeV for $Z^{\prime}$ bosons. The data are in good agreement with the background predicted by the Standard Model. The results are interpreted in benchmark scenarios. In the context of the hMSSM scenario, the data exclude $\tan\beta > 1.0$ for $m_A$ = 0.25 TeV and $\tan\beta > 42$ for $m_A$ = 1.5 TeV at the 95% confidence level. For the Sequential Standard Model, $Z^{\prime}_\mathrm{SSM}$ with $m_{Z^{\prime}} < 2.42$ TeV is excluded at 95% confidence level, while $Z^{\prime}_\mathrm{NU}$ with $m_{Z^{\prime}} < 2.25$ TeV is excluded for the non-universal $G(221)$ model that exhibits enhanced couplings to third-generation fermions.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of the 1l1tau_h channel. Despite listing this as an exclusive final state (as there must be no b-jets), there is no explicit selection on the presence of additional light-flavour jets. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. In the paper, the first bin is cut off at 60 GeV for aesthetics but contains underflows down to 50 GeV as in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 300, 500 and 800 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 10 in the hMSSM scenario are also provided.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of the 1l1tau_h channel. Despite listing this as an exclusive final state (as there must be at least one b-jets), there is no explicit selection on the presence of additional light-flavour jets. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. In the paper, the first bin is cut off at 60 GeV for aesthetics but contains underflows down to 50 GeV as in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 300, 500 and 800 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 10 in the hMSSM scenario are also provided.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of the 2tau_h channel. Despite listing this as an exclusive final state (as there must be no b-jets), there is no explicit selection on the presence of additional light-flavour jets. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 300, 500 and 800 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 10 in the hMSSM scenario are also provided.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of the 2tau_h channel. Despite listing this as an exclusive final state (as there must be at least one b-jets), there is no explicit selection on the presence of additional light-flavour jets. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 300, 500 and 800 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 10 in the hMSSM scenario are also provided.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution for the b-inclusive selection in the 1l1tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. In the paper, the first bin is cut off at 60 GeV for aesthetics but contains underflows down to 50 GeV as in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The prediction for a SSM Zprime with masses of 1500, 2000 and 2500 GeV are also provided.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution for the b-inclusive selection in the 2tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The prediction for a SSM Zprime with masses of 1500, 2000 and 2500 GeV are also provided.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the b-associated Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the boson mass.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the Drell Yan production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the Zprime boson mass.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the boson mass and the relative strength of the b-associated production.
Ratio of the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section times branching fraction for alternate Zprime models with respect to the SSM, both observed and expected are shown.
Acceptance, acceptance times efficiency and b-tag category fraction for a scalar boson produced by gluon-gluon fusion as a function of the scalar boson mass.
Acceptance, acceptance times efficiency and b-tag category fraction for a scalar boson produced by b-associated production as a function of the scalar boson mass.
Acceptance and acceptance times efficiency for a heavy gauge boson produced by Drell Yan as a function of the gauge boson mass.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the gluon-gluon fusion Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the boson mass.
A search for heavy resonances decaying into a Higgs boson ($H$) and a new particle ($X$) is reported, utilizing 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collision data at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV collected during 2015 and 2016 with the ATLAS detector at the CERN Large Hadron Collider. The particle $X$ is assumed to decay to a pair of light quarks, and the fully hadronic final state $XH \rightarrow q\bar q'b\bar b$ is analysed. The search considers the regime of high $XH$ resonance masses, where the $X$ and $H$ bosons are both highly Lorentz-boosted and are each reconstructed using a single jet with large radius parameter. A two-dimensional phase space of $XH$ mass versus $X$ mass is scanned for evidence of a signal, over a range of $XH$ resonance mass values between 1 TeV and 4 TeV, and for $X$ particles with masses from 50 GeV to 1000 GeV. All search results are consistent with the expectations for the background due to Standard Model processes, and 95% CL upper limits are set, as a function of $XH$ and $X$ masses, on the production cross-section of the $XH\rightarrow q\bar q'b\bar b$ resonance.
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
mass distribution
We present a measurement of azimuthal correlations between inclusive J/$\psi$ and charged hadrons in p-Pb collisions recorded with the ALICE detector at the CERN LHC. The J/$\psi$ are reconstructed at forward (p-going, 2.03 $<$ y $<$ 3.53) and backward (Pb-going, $-$4.46 $<$ y $<$ $-$2.96) rapidity via their $\mu^+\mu^-$ decay channel, while the charged hadrons are reconstructed at mid-rapidity ($|\eta|$ $<$ 1.8). The correlations are expressed in terms of associated charged-hadron yields per J/$\psi$ trigger. A rapidity gap of at least 1.5 units is required between the trigger J/$\psi$ and the associated charged hadrons. Possible correlations due to collective effects are assessed by subtracting the associated per-trigger yields in the low-multiplicity collisions from those in the high-multiplicity collisions. After the subtraction, we observe a strong indication of remaining symmetric structures at $\Delta\varphi$ $\approx$ 0 and $\Delta\varphi$ $\approx$ $\pi$, similar to those previously found in two-particle correlations at middle and forward rapidity. The corresponding second-order Fourier coefficient ($v_2$) in the transverse momentum interval between 3 and 6 GeV/$c$ is found to be positive with a significance of about 5$\sigma$. The obtained results are similar to the J/$\psi$ $v_2$ coefficients measured in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV, suggesting a common mechanism at the origin of the J/$\psi$ $v_2$.
$v_2^{J/\psi}${2,sub} in bins of $p_T^{J/\psi}$ for p-Pb collisions in proton-going direction at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV. The quoted global systematic uncertainties correspond to the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties of the measured $v_2^{tracklet}$ coefficient. The results are obtained by subtracting associated per-trigger yields in low-multiplicity (40-100% V0M) collisions from the yields in high-multiplicity (0-20% V0M) collisions.
$v_2^{J/\psi}${2,sub} in bins of $p_T^{J/\psi}$ for p-Pb collisions in Pb-going direction at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV. The quoted global systematic uncertainties correspond to the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties of the measured $v_2^{tracklet}$ coefficient. The results are obtained by subtracting associated per-trigger yields in low-multiplicity (40-100% V0M) collisions from the yields in high-multiplicity (0-20% V0M) collisions.
$v_2^{J/\psi}${2,sub} in bins of $p_T^{J/\psi}$ for p-Pb collisions in proton-going direction at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 8.16 TeV. The quoted global systematic uncertainties correspond to the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties of the measured $v_2^{tracklet}$ coefficient. The results are obtained by subtracting associated per-trigger yields in low-multiplicity (40-100% V0M) collisions from the yields in high-multiplicity (0-20% V0M) collisions.
$v_2^{J/\psi}${2,sub} in bins of $p_T^{J/\psi}$ for p-Pb collisions in Pb-going direction at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 8.16 TeV. The quoted global systematic uncertainties correspond to the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties of the measured $v_2^{tracklet}$ coefficient. The results are obtained by subtracting associated per-trigger yields in low-multiplicity (40-100% V0M) collisions from the yields in high-multiplicity (0-20% V0M) collisions.
The first observation of electroweak production of same-sign W boson pairs in proton-proton collisions is reported. The data sample corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$ collected at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV with the CMS detector at the LHC. Events are selected by requiring exactly two leptons (electrons or muons) of the same charge, moderate missing transverse momentum, and two jets with a large rapidity separation and a large dijet mass. The observed significance of the signal is 5.5 standard deviations, where a significance of 5.7 standard deviations is expected based on the standard model. The ratio of measured event yields to that expected from the standard model at leading-order is 0.90 $\pm$ 0.22. A cross section measurement in a fiducial region is reported. Bounds are given on the structure of quartic vector boson interactions in the framework of dimension-eight effective field theory operators and on the production of doubly charged Higgs bosons.
The measured W+W+ EWK fiducual cross section.
Data and estimated signal and background yields after the selection in the two dimensional dijet-dilepton mass distributions. This is used for the standard model measurements.
Data and estimated signal and background yields after the selection in the one dimensional dilepton mass distribution. This is used for the evaluation of the anomalous coupling limits.
Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma_{\mathrm{VBF}}(H^{\pm\pm}) \times \mathrm{{\it B}}(H^{\pm\pm} \to W^{\pm}W^{\pm})$, as a function of doubly charged Higgs boson mass.
Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $s_H$ in the Georgi--Machacek model as a function of doubly charged Higgs boson mass.
Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the coefficients for higher-order (dimension-eight) operators in the effective field theory Lagrangian.
Main systematic uncertainties in the analysis.
Signal efficiency from the generator level fiducial definition to the reconstruction level selection for the dilepton mass variable.
We present a detailed measurement of charged two-pion correlation functions in 0%-30% centrality $\sqrt{s_{_{NN}}}=200$ GeV Au$+$Au collisions by the PHENIX experiment at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider. The data are well described by Bose-Einstein correlation functions stemming from L\'evy-stable source distributions. Using a fine transverse momentum binning, we extract the correlation strength parameter $\lambda$, the L\'evy index of stability $\alpha$ and the L\'evy length scale parameter $R$ as a function of average transverse mass of the pair $m_T$. We find that the positively and the negatively charged pion pairs yield consistent results, and their correlation functions are represented, within uncertainties, by the same L\'evy-stable source functions. The $\lambda(m_T)$ measurements indicate a decrease of the strength of the correlations at low $m_T$. The L\'evy length scale parameter $R(m_T)$ decreases with increasing $m_T$, following a hydrodynamically predicted type of scaling behavior. The values of the L\'evy index of stability $\alpha$ are found to be significantly lower than the Gaussian case of $\alpha=2$, but also significantly larger than the conjectured value that may characterize the critical point of a second-order quark-hadron phase transition.
Example fits of Bose-Einstein correlation functions of (a) $\pi^{-}\pi^{-}$ pair with $m_{T}$ between 0.331 and 0.349 GeV/$c^2$ and of (b) $\pi^{+}\pi^{+}$ pair with $m_T$ between 0.655 and 0.675 GeV/$c^2$, as a function $Q$ ≡ |$q_{LCMS}$|, defined in Eq. (26). Both fits show the measured correlation function and the complete fit function (described in VI A), while a Bose-Einstein fit function $C^{(0)}_{2} (Q)$ is also shown, with the Coulomb-corrected data, i.e. the raw data multiplied by $C^{(0)}_{2} (Q)/C_{2}(Q)$. In this analysis we measured 62 such correlation functions (for ++ and -- pairs, in 31 $m_T$ bins), and fitted all of them with the method described in VIA. The first visible point on both panels corresponds to $Q$ values below the accessible range (based on an evaluation of the two-track cuts), these were not taken into account in the fitting.
Example fits of Bose-Einstein correlation functions of (a) $\pi^{-}\pi^{-}$ pair with $m_{T}$ between 0.331 and 0.349 GeV/$c^2$ and of (b) $\pi^{+}\pi^{+}$ pair with $m_T$ between 0.655 and 0.675 GeV/$c^2$, as a function $Q$ ≡ |$q_{LCMS}$|, defined in Eq. (26). Both fits show the measured correlation function and the complete fit function (described in VI A), while a Bose-Einstein fit function $C^{(0)}_{2} (Q)$ is also shown, with the Coulomb-corrected data, i.e. the raw data multiplied by $C^{(0)}_{2} (Q)/C_{2}(Q)$. In this analysis we measured 62 such correlation functions (for ++ and -- pairs, in 31 $m_T$ bins), and fitted all of them with the method described in VIA. The first visible point on both panels corresponds to $Q$ values below the accessible range (based on an evaluation of the two-track cuts), these were not taken into account in the fitting.
Correlation strength parameter $\lambda$ versus average $m_T$ of the pair, for 0%-30% centrality collisions. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are shown as bars and boxes.
Lévy scale parameter $R$ versus average $m_T$ of the pair. The graphical representation of statistical and systematic uncertainties is the same as in Fig. 4.
Lévy index parameter $\alpha$ versus average $m_T$ of the pair. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are indicated similarly to Fig. 4. The horizontal line, %\aplha$ = 1.207, represents the 0%-30% centrality average value of %\aplha$.
Inverse square of the Lévy scale parameter 1/$R^2$ versus average $m_T$ of the pair. Statistical and systematic uncertainties shown as bars and boxes, respectively.
New scale parameter $\hat{R}$ versus average $m_T$ of the pair, with a linear fit. Statistical and systematic uncertainties shown as bars and boxes, respectively.
Normalized correlation strength parameter $\lambda/\lambda_{max}$ versus average $m_T$ of the pair. The data are compared with parameter scans from Refs. [58, 59] using different values of in-medium $\eta^{\prime}$ mass $m^{*}_{\eta^{\prime}}$ and slope parameter $B^{-1}_{\eta^{\prime}}$ . A best fit with Eq. (63) and the resulting $H$ and $\sigma$ parameters are also shown.
Normalized correlation strength parameter $\lambda/\lambda_{max}$ versus average $m_T$ of the pair. The data are compared with parameter scans from Refs. [58, 59] using different values of in-medium $\eta^{\prime}$ mass $m^{*}_{\eta^{\prime}}$ and slope parameter $B^{-1}_{\eta^{\prime}}$ . A best fit with Eq. (63) and the resulting $H$ and $\sigma$ parameters are also shown.
Normalized correlation strength parameter $\lambda/\lambda_{max}$ versus average $m_T$ of the pair. The data are compared with parameter scans from Refs. [58, 59] using different values of in-medium $\eta^{\prime}$ mass $m^{*}_{\eta^{\prime}}$ and slope parameter $B^{-1}_{\eta^{\prime}}$ . A best fit with Eq. (63) and the resulting $H$ and $\sigma$ parameters are also shown.
Normalized correlation strength parameter $\lambda/\lambda_{max}$ versus average $m_T$ of the pair. The data are compared with parameter scans from Refs. [58, 59] using different values of in-medium $\eta^{\prime}$ mass $m^{*}_{\eta^{\prime}}$ and slope parameter $B^{-1}_{\eta^{\prime}}$ . A best fit with Eq. (63) and the resulting $H$ and $\sigma$ parameters are also shown.
Normalized correlation strength parameter $\lambda/\lambda_{max}$ versus average $m_T$ of the pair. The data are compared with parameter scans from Refs. [58, 59] using different values of in-medium $\eta^{\prime}$ mass $m^{*}_{\eta^{\prime}}$ and slope parameter $B^{-1}_{\eta^{\prime}}$ . A best fit with Eq. (63) and the resulting $H$ and $\sigma$ parameters are also shown.
An inclusive search for the standard model Higgs boson ($\mathrm{H}$) produced with large transverse momentum ($p_\mathrm{T}$) and decaying to a bottom quark-antiquark pair ($\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}$) is performed using a data set of pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV collected with the CMS experiment at the LHC. The data sample corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 35.9 fb$^{-1}$. A highly Lorentz-boosted Higgs boson decaying to $\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}$ is reconstructed as a single, large radius jet and is identified using jet substructure and dedicated $\mathrm{b}$ tagging techniques. The method is validated with $\mathrm{Z}\to\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}$ decays. The $\mathrm{Z}\to\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}$ process is observed for the first time in the single-jet topology with a local significance of 5.1 standard deviations (5.8 expected). For a Higgs boson mass of 125 GeV, an excess of events above the expected background is observed (expected) with a local significance of 1.5 (0.7) standard deviations. The measured cross section times branching fraction for production via gluon fusion of $\mathrm{H} \rightarrow \mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}$ with $p_\mathrm{T} > $450 GeV and in the pseudorapidity range $-$2.5 $< \eta <$ 2.5 is 74 $\pm$ 48 (stat) $_{-10}^{+17}$ (syst) fb, which is consistent within uncertainties with the standard model prediction.
Fitted signal strength, expected and observed significance of the Higgs and Z boson signal. The 95% confidence level upper limit (UL) on the Higgs boson signal strength is also listed.
The $m_{SD}$ distributions in data for the failing (left) and passing (right) regions and combined $p_{T}$ categories. The QCD multijet background in the passing region is predicted using the failing region and the pass-fail ratio $R_{p/f}$. The features at 166 and 180 GeV in the $m_{SD}$ distribution are due to the kinematic selection on $\rho$, which affects each $p_{T}$ category differently. In the bottom panel, the ratio of the data to its statistical uncertainty, after subtracting the nonresonant backgrounds, is shown.
The $m_{SD}$ distributions in data for the failing (left) and passing (right) regions and combined $p_{T}$ categories. The QCD multijet background in the passing region is predicted using the failing region and the pass-fail ratio $R_{p/f}$. The features at 166 and 180 GeV in the $m_{SD}$ distribution are due to the kinematic selection on $\rho$, which affects each $p_{T}$ category differently. In the bottom panel, the ratio of the data to its statistical uncertainty, after subtracting the nonresonant backgrounds, is shown.
Profile likelihood test statistic $-2\Delta log L$ scan in data as a function of the Higgs and Z bosons signal strengths $(\mu_{H}, \mu_{Z})$.
68% CL contour as a function of the Higgs and Z bosons signal strengths $(\mu_{H}, \mu_{Z})$.
95\% CL contour as a function of the Higgs and Z bosons signal strengths $(\mu_{H}, \mu_{Z})$.
We report a precise measurement of the J/$\psi$ elliptic flow in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV with the ALICE detector at the LHC. The J/$\psi$ mesons are reconstructed at mid-rapidity ($|y| < 0.9$) in the dielectron decay channel and at forward rapidity ($2.5<y<4.0$) in the dimuon channel, both down to zero transverse momentum. At forward rapidity, the elliptic flow $v_2$ of the J/$\psi$ is studied as a function of transverse momentum and centrality. A positive $v_2$ is observed in the transverse momentum range $2 < p_{\rm T} < 8$ GeV/$c$ in the three centrality classes studied and confirms with higher statistics our earlier results at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV in semi-central collisions. At mid-rapidity, the J/$\psi$ $v_2$ is investigated as a function of transverse momentum in semi-central collisions and found to be in agreement with the measurements at forward rapidity. These results are compared to transport model calculations. The comparison supports the idea that at low $p_{\rm T}$ the elliptic flow of the J/$\psi$ originates from the thermalization of charm quarks in the deconfined medium, but suggests that additional mechanisms might be missing in the models.
Transverse momentum dependence of inclusive J/$\psi$ $v_2$ at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=5.02$ TeV for the 20-40% centrality class (forward rapidity). The first uncertainty (stat) is statistical, the second (sys,uncorrel) is the uncorrelated systematic, while the third one (sys,correl) is a $p_{\rm T}$-correlated systematic uncertainty.
Transverse momentum dependence of inclusive J/$\psi$ $v_2$ at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=5.02$ TeV for the 20-40% centrality class (mid-rapidity). The first uncertainty (stat) is statistical, the second (sys,uncorrel) is the uncorrelated systematic, while the third one (sys,correl) is a $p_{\rm T}$-correlated systematic uncertainty.
Transverse momentum dependence of inclusive J/$\psi$ $v_2$ at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=5.02$ TeV for the 5-20% centrality class (forward rapidity). The first uncertainty (stat) is statistical, the second (sys,uncorrel) is the uncorrelated systematic, while the third one (sys,correl) is a $p_{\rm T}$-correlated systematic uncertainty.
Transverse momentum dependence of inclusive J/$\psi$ $v_2$ at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=5.02$ TeV for the 40-60% centrality class (forward rapidity). The first uncertainty (stat) is statistical, the second (sys,uncorrel) is the uncorrelated systematic, while the third one (sys,correl) is a $p_{\rm T}$-correlated systematic uncertainty.
In ultrarelativistic heavy-ion collisions, the event-by-event variation of the elliptic flow $v_2$ reflects fluctuations in the shape of the initial state of the system. This allows to select events with the same centrality but different initial geometry. This selection technique, Event Shape Engineering, has been used in the analysis of charge-dependent two- and three-particle correlations in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{_{\rm NN}}} =2.76$ TeV. The two-particle correlator $\langle \cos(\varphi_\alpha - \varphi_\beta) \rangle$, calculated for different combinations of charges $\alpha$ and $\beta$, is almost independent of $v_2$ (for a given centrality), while the three-particle correlator $\langle \cos(\varphi_\alpha + \varphi_\beta - 2\Psi_2) \rangle$ scales almost linearly both with the event $v_2$ and charged-particle pseudorapidity density. The charge dependence of the three-particle correlator is often interpreted as evidence for the Chiral Magnetic Effect (CME), a parity violating effect of the strong interaction. However, its measured dependence on $v_2$ points to a large non-CME contribution to the correlator. Comparing the results with Monte Carlo calculations including a magnetic field due to the spectators, the upper limit of the CME signal contribution to the three-particle correlator in the 10-50% centrality interval is found to be 26-33% at 95% confidence level.
$v_2\{EP\}$ with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of centrality for unbiased events in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$v_2\{EP\}$ with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of centrality for shape selected events (0-10% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$v_2\{EP\}$ with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of centrality for shape selected events (10-20% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$v_2\{EP\}$ with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of centrality for shape selected events (20-30% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$v_2\{EP\}$ with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of centrality for shape selected events (30-40% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$v_2\{EP\}$ with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of centrality for shape selected events (40-50% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$v_2\{EP\}$ with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of centrality for shape selected events (50-60% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$v_2\{EP\}$ with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of centrality for shape selected events (60-70% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$v_2\{EP\}$ with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of centrality for shape selected events (70-80% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$v_2\{EP\}$ with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of centrality for shape selected events (80-90% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$v_2\{EP\}$ with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of centrality for shape selected events (90-100% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} + \varphi_{\beta} - 2\Psi_{2}) \rangle$ (opposite charge pairs) with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of centrality for unbiased events in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} + \varphi_{\beta} - 2\Psi_{2}) \rangle$ (opposite charge pairs) with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of centrality for shape selected events (0-10% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} + \varphi_{\beta} - 2\Psi_{2}) \rangle$ (opposite charge pairs) with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of centrality for shape selected events (10-20% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} + \varphi_{\beta} - 2\Psi_{2}) \rangle$ (opposite charge pairs) with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of centrality for shape selected events (20-30% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} + \varphi_{\beta} - 2\Psi_{2}) \rangle$ (opposite charge pairs) with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of centrality for shape selected events (30-40% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} + \varphi_{\beta} - 2\Psi_{2}) \rangle$ (opposite charge pairs) with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of centrality for shape selected events (40-50% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} + \varphi_{\beta} - 2\Psi_{2}) \rangle$ (opposite charge pairs) with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of centrality for shape selected events (50-60% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} + \varphi_{\beta} - 2\Psi_{2}) \rangle$ (opposite charge pairs) with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of centrality for shape selected events (60-70% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} + \varphi_{\beta} - 2\Psi_{2}) \rangle$ (opposite charge pairs) with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of centrality for shape selected events (70-80% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} + \varphi_{\beta} - 2\Psi_{2}) \rangle$ (opposite charge pairs) with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of centrality for shape selected events (80-90% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} + \varphi_{\beta} - 2\Psi_{2}) \rangle$ (opposite charge pairs) with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of centrality for shape selected events (90-100% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} + \varphi_{\beta} - 2\Psi_{2}) \rangle$ (same charge pairs) with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of centrality for unbiased events in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} + \varphi_{\beta} - 2\Psi_{2}) \rangle$ (same charge pairs) with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of centrality for shape selected events (0-10% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} + \varphi_{\beta} - 2\Psi_{2}) \rangle$ (same charge pairs) with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of centrality for shape selected events (10-20% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} + \varphi_{\beta} - 2\Psi_{2}) \rangle$ (same charge pairs) with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of centrality for shape selected events (20-30% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} + \varphi_{\beta} - 2\Psi_{2}) \rangle$ (same charge pairs) with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of centrality for shape selected events (30-40% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} + \varphi_{\beta} - 2\Psi_{2}) \rangle$ (same charge pairs) with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of centrality for shape selected events (40-50% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} + \varphi_{\beta} - 2\Psi_{2}) \rangle$ (same charge pairs) with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of centrality for shape selected events (50-60% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} + \varphi_{\beta} - 2\Psi_{2}) \rangle$ (same charge pairs) with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of centrality for shape selected events (60-70% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} + \varphi_{\beta} - 2\Psi_{2}) \rangle$ (same charge pairs) with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of centrality for shape selected events (70-80% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} + \varphi_{\beta} - 2\Psi_{2}) \rangle$ (same charge pairs) with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of centrality for shape selected events (80-90% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} + \varphi_{\beta} - 2\Psi_{2}) \rangle$ (same charge pairs) with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of centrality for shape selected events (90-100% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} - \varphi_{\beta}) \rangle$ (opposite charge pairs) as a function of centrality for unbiased events in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} - \varphi_{\beta}) \rangle$ (opposite charge pairs) as a function of centrality for shape selected events (0-10% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} - \varphi_{\beta}) \rangle$ (opposite charge pairs) as a function of centrality for shape selected events (10-20% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} - \varphi_{\beta}) \rangle$ (opposite charge pairs) as a function of centrality for shape selected events (20-30% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} - \varphi_{\beta}) \rangle$ (opposite charge pairs) as a function of centrality for shape selected events (30-40% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} - \varphi_{\beta}) \rangle$ (opposite charge pairs) as a function of centrality for shape selected events (40-50% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} - \varphi_{\beta}) \rangle$ (opposite charge pairs) as a function of centrality for shape selected events (50-60% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} - \varphi_{\beta}) \rangle$ (opposite charge pairs) as a function of centrality for shape selected events (60-70% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} - \varphi_{\beta}) \rangle$ (opposite charge pairs) as a function of centrality for shape selected events (70-80% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} - \varphi_{\beta}) \rangle$ (opposite charge pairs) as a function of centrality for shape selected events (80-90% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} - \varphi_{\beta}) \rangle$ (opposite charge pairs) as a function of centrality for shape selected events (90-100% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} - \varphi_{\beta}) \rangle$ (same charge pairs) as a function of centrality for unbiased events in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} - \varphi_{\beta}) \rangle$ (same charge pairs) as a function of centrality for shape selected events (0-10% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} - \varphi_{\beta}) \rangle$ (same charge pairs) as a function of centrality for shape selected events (10-20% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} - \varphi_{\beta}) \rangle$ (same charge pairs) as a function of centrality for shape selected events (20-30% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} - \varphi_{\beta}) \rangle$ (same charge pairs) as a function of centrality for shape selected events (30-40% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} - \varphi_{\beta}) \rangle$ (same charge pairs) as a function of centrality for shape selected events (40-50% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} - \varphi_{\beta}) \rangle$ (same charge pairs) as a function of centrality for shape selected events (50-60% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} - \varphi_{\beta}) \rangle$ (same charge pairs) as a function of centrality for shape selected events (60-70% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} - \varphi_{\beta}) \rangle$ (same charge pairs) as a function of centrality for shape selected events (70-80% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} - \varphi_{\beta}) \rangle$ (same charge pairs) as a function of centrality for shape selected events (80-90% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} - \varphi_{\beta}) \rangle$ (same charge pairs) as a function of centrality for shape selected events (90-100% $q_2$) in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} + \varphi_{\beta} - 2\Psi_{2}) \rangle$ (opposite - same) with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of $v_2\{EP\}$ for centrality class 0-5% in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} + \varphi_{\beta} - 2\Psi_{2}) \rangle$ (opposite - same) with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of $v_2\{EP\}$ for centrality class 5-10% in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} + \varphi_{\beta} - 2\Psi_{2}) \rangle$ (opposite - same) with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of $v_2\{EP\}$ for centrality class 10-20% in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} + \varphi_{\beta} - 2\Psi_{2}) \rangle$ (opposite - same) with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of $v_2\{EP\}$ for centrality class 20-30% in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} + \varphi_{\beta} - 2\Psi_{2}) \rangle$ (opposite - same) with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of $v_2\{EP\}$ for centrality class 30-40% in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} + \varphi_{\beta} - 2\Psi_{2}) \rangle$ (opposite - same) with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of $v_2\{EP\}$ for centrality class 40-50% in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} + \varphi_{\beta} - 2\Psi_{2}) \rangle$ (opposite - same) with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of $v_2\{EP\}$ for centrality class 50-60% in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} + \varphi_{\beta} - 2\Psi_{2}) \rangle$ (opposite - same) with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ multiplied by the charged-particle density, $dN/d\eta$, as a function of $v_2\{EP\}$ for centrality class 0-5% in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} + \varphi_{\beta} - 2\Psi_{2}) \rangle$ (opposite - same) with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ multiplied by the charged-particle density, $dN/d\eta$, as a function of $v_2\{EP\}$ for centrality class 5-10% in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} + \varphi_{\beta} - 2\Psi_{2}) \rangle$ (opposite - same) with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ multiplied by the charged-particle density, $dN/d\eta$, as a function of $v_2\{EP\}$ for centrality class 10-20% in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} + \varphi_{\beta} - 2\Psi_{2}) \rangle$ (opposite - same) with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ multiplied by the charged-particle density, $dN/d\eta$, as a function of $v_2\{EP\}$ for centrality class 20-30% in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} + \varphi_{\beta} - 2\Psi_{2}) \rangle$ (opposite - same) with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ multiplied by the charged-particle density, $dN/d\eta$, as a function of $v_2\{EP\}$ for centrality class 30-40% in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} + \varphi_{\beta} - 2\Psi_{2}) \rangle$ (opposite - same) with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ multiplied by the charged-particle density, $dN/d\eta$, as a function of $v_2\{EP\}$ for centrality class 40-50% in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} + \varphi_{\beta} - 2\Psi_{2}) \rangle$ (opposite - same) with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ multiplied by the charged-particle density, $dN/d\eta$, as a function of $v_2\{EP\}$ for centrality class 50-60% in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
$p_1$ parameter from a linear fit to $\langle \cos(\varphi_{\alpha} + \varphi_{\beta} - 2\Psi_{2}) \rangle$ (opposite - same) with $|\Delta\eta| > 2.0$ as a function of centrality in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
CME fraction extracted from the slope parameter of fits to data and MC—Glauber model as a function of centrality in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
CME fraction extracted from the slope parameter of fits to data and MC—KLN CGC model as a function of centrality in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
CME fraction extracted from the slope parameter of fits to data and EKRT model as a function of centrality in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76$ TeV.
A search for pair production of a scalar partner of the top quark in events with four or more jets plus missing transverse momentum is presented. An analysis of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ of $\sqrt{s}$=13 TeV proton-proton collisions collected using the ATLAS detector at the LHC yields no significant excess over the expected Standard Model background. To interpret the results a simplified supersymmetric model is used where the top squark is assumed to decay via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ and $\tilde{t}_1\rightarrow b\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \rightarrow b W^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, where $\tilde\chi^0_1$ ($\chi^\pm_1$) denotes the lightest neutralino (chargino). Exclusion limits are placed in terms of the top-squark and neutralino masses. Assuming a branching ratio of 100% to $t \tilde\chi^0_1$, top-squark masses in the range 450-950 GeV are excluded for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ masses below 160 GeV. In the case where $m_{\tilde{t}_1}\sim m_t+m_{\tilde\chi^0_1}$, top-squark masses in the range 235-590 GeV are excluded.
Distribution of $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ for SRA-TT after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ for SRA-TT after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ for SRA-TT after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ for SRA-TT after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ for SRA-TT after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ for SRA-TT after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ for SRA-TT after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T2}^{\chi^2}$ for SRA-T0 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T2}^{\chi^2}$ for SRA-T0 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T2}^{\chi^2}$ for SRA-T0 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T2}^{\chi^2}$ for SRA-T0 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T2}^{\chi^2}$ for SRA-T0 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T2}^{\chi^2}$ for SRA-T0 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T2}^{\chi^2}$ for SRA-T0 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRB-TW after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRB-TW after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRB-TW after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRB-TW after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRB-TW after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRB-TW after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRB-TW after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $R_\text{ISR}$ for SRC1-5 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $R_\text{ISR}$ for SRC1-5 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $R_\text{ISR}$ for SRC1-5 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $R_\text{ISR}$ for SRC1-5 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $R_\text{ISR}$ for SRC1-5 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $R_\text{ISR}$ for SRC1-5 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $R_\text{ISR}$ for SRC1-5 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRD-high after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRD-high after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRD-high after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRD-high after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRD-high after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRD-high after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRD-high after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $H_\text{T}$ for SRE after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $H_\text{T}$ for SRE after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $H_\text{T}$ for SRE after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $H_\text{T}$ for SRE after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $H_\text{T}$ for SRE after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $H_\text{T}$ for SRE after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $H_\text{T}$ for SRE after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Expected (blue solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Expected (blue solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Expected (blue solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Expected (blue solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Expected (blue solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Expected (blue solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Expected (blue solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Observed (red solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Observed (red solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Observed (red solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Observed (red solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Observed (red solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Observed (red solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Observed (red solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Results of the exclusion fits for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ from the combination of SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD and SRE, based on the best expected $CL_s$. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate which of the signal regions gave the best expected $CL_s$ (with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 corresponding to SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low,SR D-high, SRE respectively).
Results of the exclusion fits for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ from the combination of SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD and SRE, based on the best expected $CL_s$. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate which of the signal regions gave the best expected $CL_s$ (with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 corresponding to SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low,SR D-high, SRE respectively).
Results of the exclusion fits for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ from the combination of SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD and SRE, based on the best expected $CL_s$. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate which of the signal regions gave the best expected $CL_s$ (with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 corresponding to SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low,SR D-high, SRE respectively).
Results of the exclusion fits for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ from the combination of SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD and SRE, based on the best expected $CL_s$. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate which of the signal regions gave the best expected $CL_s$ (with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 corresponding to SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low,SR D-high, SRE respectively).
Results of the exclusion fits for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ from the combination of SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD and SRE, based on the best expected $CL_s$. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate which of the signal regions gave the best expected $CL_s$ (with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 corresponding to SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low,SR D-high, SRE respectively).
Results of the exclusion fits for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ from the combination of SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD and SRE, based on the best expected $CL_s$. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate which of the signal regions gave the best expected $CL_s$ (with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 corresponding to SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low,SR D-high, SRE respectively).
Results of the exclusion fits for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ from the combination of SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD and SRE, based on the best expected $CL_s$. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate which of the signal regions gave the best expected $CL_s$ (with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 corresponding to SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low,SR D-high, SRE respectively).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 25%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 25%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 25%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 25%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 25%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 25%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 25%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 50%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 50%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 50%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 50%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 50%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 50%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 50%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0 (top left), 25% (top right), 50% (middle left), 75% middle right) and 100% (bottom). The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0 (top left), 25% (top right), 50% (middle left), 75% middle right) and 100% (bottom). The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0 (top left), 25% (top right), 50% (middle left), 75% middle right) and 100% (bottom). The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0 (top left), 25% (top right), 50% (middle left), 75% middle right) and 100% (bottom). The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0 (top left), 25% (top right), 50% (middle left), 75% middle right) and 100% (bottom). The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0 (top left), 25% (top right), 50% (middle left), 75% middle right) and 100% (bottom). The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0 (top left), 25% (top right), 50% (middle left), 75% middle right) and 100% (bottom). The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for negative values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for negative values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for negative values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for negative values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for negative values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for negative values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for negative values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for positive values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for positive values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for positive values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for positive values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for positive values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for positive values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for positive values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{q3L}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{q3L}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{q3L}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{q3L}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{q3L}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{q3L}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{q3L}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{tR}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{tR}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{tR}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{tR}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{tR}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{tR}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{tR}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with large tan$\beta$ (top left) is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with large tan$\beta$ (top left) is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with large tan$\beta$ (top left) is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with large tan$\beta$ (top left) is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with large tan$\beta$ (top left) is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with large tan$\beta$ (top left) is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with large tan$\beta$ (top left) is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with small tan$\beta$ are shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with small tan$\beta$ are shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with small tan$\beta$ are shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with small tan$\beta$ are shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with small tan$\beta$ are shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with small tan$\beta$ are shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with small tan$\beta$ are shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenario with a mostly right-handed top squark partner is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenario with a mostly right-handed top squark partner is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenario with a mostly right-handed top squark partner is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenario with a mostly right-handed top squark partner is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenario with a mostly right-handed top squark partner is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenario with a mostly right-handed top squark partner is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenario with a mostly right-handed top squark partner is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Acceptance for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Acceptance for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Acceptance for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Acceptance for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Acceptance for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Acceptance for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Acceptance for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Acceptance for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Acceptance for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Acceptance for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Acceptance for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Acceptance for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Acceptance for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Acceptance for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Acceptance for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Acceptance for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Acceptance for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Acceptance for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Acceptance for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Acceptance for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Acceptance for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ grid.
Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ grid.
Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ grid.
Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ grid.
Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ grid.
Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ grid.
Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ grid.
Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft grid.
Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft grid.
Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft grid.
Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft grid.
Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft grid.
Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft grid.
Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft grid.
Cutflow for SRA for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (800,1) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRA for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (800,1) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRA for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (800,1) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRA for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (800,1) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRA for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (800,1) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRA for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (800,1) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRA for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (800,1) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow SRB for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (600,300) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow SRB for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (600,300) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow SRB for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (600,300) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow SRB for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (600,300) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow SRB for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (600,300) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow SRB for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (600,300) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow SRB for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (600,300) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRC1 and SRC2 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (250,77) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRC1 and SRC2 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (250,77) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRC1 and SRC2 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (250,77) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRC1 and SRC2 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (250,77) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRC1 and SRC2 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (250,77) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRC1 and SRC2 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (250,77) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRC1 and SRC2 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (250,77) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRC3, SRC4, and SRC5 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (500,327) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRC3, SRC4, and SRC5 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (500,327) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRC3, SRC4, and SRC5 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (500,327) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRC3, SRC4, and SRC5 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (500,327) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRC3, SRC4, and SRC5 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (500,327) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRC3, SRC4, and SRC5 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (500,327) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRC3, SRC4, and SRC5 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (500,327) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRD-high for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (800,100) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRD-high for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV with $m(\tilde{b}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (750,200) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRD-high for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV with $m(\tilde{b}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (750,200) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRD-high for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV with $m(\tilde{b}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (750,200) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRD-high for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV with $m(\tilde{b}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (800,100) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRD-high for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV with $m(\tilde{b}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (750,200) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRD-high for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV with $m(\tilde{b}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (750,200) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRD-low for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV witht $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (600,200) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRD-low for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV witht $m(\tilde{b}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (400,200) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRD-low for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV witht $m(\tilde{b}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (400,200) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRD-low for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV witht $m(\tilde{b}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (400,200) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRD-low for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV witht $m(\tilde{b}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (600,200) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRD-low for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV witht $m(\tilde{b}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (400,200) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRD-low for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV witht $m(\tilde{b}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (400,200) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRE for a signal model with gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t\tilde{t}_1\to t\tilde\chi^0_1+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1, \tilde\chi^0_1)=5$ GeV with $m(\tilde{g},\tilde{t}_1)=$ (1700,400) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRE for a signal model with gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t\tilde{t}_1\to t\tilde\chi^0_1+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1, \tilde\chi^0_1)=5$ GeV with $m(\tilde{g},\tilde{t}_1)=$ (1700,400) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRE for a signal model with gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t\tilde{t}_1\to t\tilde\chi^0_1+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1, \tilde\chi^0_1)=5$ GeV with $m(\tilde{g},\tilde{t}_1)=$ (1700,400) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRE for a signal model with gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t\tilde{t}_1\to t\tilde\chi^0_1+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1, \tilde\chi^0_1)=5$ GeV with $m(\tilde{g},\tilde{t}_1)=$ (1700,400) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRE for a signal model with gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t\tilde{t}_1\to t\tilde\chi^0_1+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1, \tilde\chi^0_1)=5$ GeV with $m(\tilde{g},\tilde{t}_1)=$ (1700,400) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRE for a signal model with gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t\tilde{t}_1\to t\tilde\chi^0_1+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1, \tilde\chi^0_1)=5$ GeV with $m(\tilde{g},\tilde{t}_1)=$ (1700,400) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRE for a signal model with gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t\tilde{t}_1\to t\tilde\chi^0_1+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1, \tilde\chi^0_1)=5$ GeV with $m(\tilde{g},\tilde{t}_1)=$ (1700,400) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
When you search on a word, e.g. 'collisions', we will automatically search across everything we store about a record. But, sometimes you may wish to be more specific. Here we show you how.
Guidance and examples on the query string syntax can be found in the Elasticsearch documentation.
About HEPData Submitting to HEPData HEPData File Formats HEPData Coordinators HEPData Terms of Use HEPData Cookie Policy
Status
Email
Forum
Twitter
GitHub
Copyright ~1975-Present, HEPData | Powered by Invenio, funded by STFC, hosted and originally developed at CERN, supported and further developed at IPPP Durham.